Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Debunking evolution

In a number of threads I've been involved with, the validity of the theory of evolution has been questioned extensively. Some people have claimed that it can't work and there is no evidence to support it. Now, it's my understanding that scientific hypotheses and theories (for ease of typing and reading, I will refer to both under the heading of theory) aren't proved, but disproved. In other words, if evidence is found that disproves a theory, it is dropped or modified according to the new evidence.

My intention with this thread is to look at the evidence which would be able to disprove the theory of evolution. For example, the confirmed existence of a modern mammal among dinosaur fossils. Or an organism with DNA that does not match any other organism or, indeed, something other than DNA.

It has also been claimed that the discovery of a living dinosaur would debunk evolution. I'm not sure why this is thought to be so, because there are organisms that have remained essentially unchanged for millions of years. Consider the humble Lamprey; originated prior to dinosaurs and has remained essentially unchanged since. Rather than disproving evolution, this, in my opinion, goes to confirming it. If an organism is well adapted for its environment and that environment remains reasonably constant over time, the theory would predict little change in it.

Anyway, I'd be interested to see other's opinion and other evidence that, if it was found, would disprove evolution.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Sharon · F

Or an organism with DNA that does not match any other organism or, indeed, something other than DNA.

Why would that disprove evolution? Surely it would just suggest two (or more) instances of abiogenesis, each evolving independently.

Bushranger · 70-79, M

@Sharon Good point, unless it was the only example of its kind (and I'm not using the YEC definition here). Lets say that a group of animals with no known evolutionary history and no link to any other species, genera, family etc. Wouldn't that go some way to disproving evolution?

The lack of evolutionary history here is the crucial point.

Bushranger · 70-79, M

@Sharon I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Sharon · F

@Bushranger If it were something really simple, I would suspect another instance of abiogenesis. Examples of higher life forms with no evolutionary history could just be the result of another process - even creation. As far as I am aware, no such examples (at any level) have been found. My current thinking is that abiogenesis is so highly improbably that it has only occurred once and all life we know today evolved from it.

Bushranger · 70-79, M

@Sharon That's my thinking as well. So an organism that appears ex nihilo would go a long way to disprove evolution. It is a totally hypothetical concept because, as you say, no organism has been found that fits this description.

But that's the intent of this thread, to look at the hypothetical debunking of evolution. Such a thing can only be hypothetical.

Sharon · F

@Bushranger

So an organism that appears ex nihilo would go a long way to disprove evolution.

I disagree. A complex organism would suggest an alternative process, possibly running parallel to evolution, not necessarily replacing it. I would agree it could raise questions regarding the Theory of Evolution but that's all.

It would be interesting to find life on other planets and compare it with life here. Would it be fundamentally the same?

Bushranger · 70-79, M

@Sharon That would show that life on other planets arose independently of life on earth.

I agree with what you are saying, and know that the hypothetical organism I'm proposing has an almost zero probability of being found. The only way that it could come into existence would be by a creation event.

This raises the question of why disparate genera, that were supposedly created, have genetic similarities. The similarities are even more evident between species.

I think my hypothetical organism would need to be the norm, ie, no genetic similarities between genera, in order to debunk evolution.

But hey, part of this thread is about having some fun while looking at the topic. Nothing like letting your imagination out for a run every now and then.

Sharon · F

@Bushranger If we find life on other planets apparently related to that here on Earth, it could be evidence of panspermia. Alternatively, it could call apparent relationships between all life on Earth into question.

It's possible, of course, that life on Earth was created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster - after all, nobody has been able to prove that it wasn't. ;) Perhaps, on another planet, life different from that on Earth was created by The Flying Linguine Monster. :)

My point, however, is that finding some specimen completely unrelated to all other life here does not disprove evolution. There is plenty of evidence showing how all life currently known is related and has evolved. Your new, hypothetical, specimen would just be evidence of another instance of abiogenesis, perhaps evolving along its own line.

Bushranger · 70-79, M

@Sharon The potential for so many creations based on pasta varieties is mund blowing.

How about if my hypothetical organsim showed no evidence of evolution? If all fossil evidence showed no variation at all and the organism was found in a wide variety of environments, then ex nihilio creation would be the most logical explanation.

This is what I have always objected to with YEC. If something was created, why would it be related to other species and why would it change over time.