Are there any other "agnostic" types here who look at evolution as an extremely dubious theory?

just a vanity

[big black dog]

Look, I apologize, this is a self serving vanity post. I want this to be short -- I am not driven by any religious viewpoint. Yes, I was raised that way and can still point out the arguments they make.

I don't want to do that right now. I want to hear from people who discount evolution from a strictly non-dogmatic point of view.

[corkoman]

I want to hear from people who discount evolution from a strictly non-dogmatic point of view.

How do you discount a theory other than with data and alternative hypotheses?

[Misterioso]

In other words, a scientific point of view. Haven't you read enough of that to settle your mind?

[OldGuard1]

The problem isn’t that we’re not providing data and alternative hypotheses; the problem is that the scientific community has become an atheists club and has been shutting out any data that might suggest the existance of God from the peer-review process.

[nerdwithamachinegun]

Yep.

It’s a theory, not fact.

Creation vs. Evolution (to me) boils down to this: I can’t figure it out in 10 seconds or less so I don’t particularly care.
Whatever is true (unknowable IMO) won’t get me paid more, make me happier or sadder, make my Wife love me more or less or make an ounce of difference in any quantifiable way.

For the skimmers and other comprehension challenged I repeat: I don’t particularly care. Don’t try to convince me either way.

[hunter112]

I'm atheist, and I don't have any problem with evolution. Those who call it "Darwinism" like to freeze it in the mid-19th Century, and discount the idea that scientists the world over have modified Charles Darwin's findings. They want to saddle Charles Darwin with their own notions of "what was said long ago must never change" that they apply to their own old books.

Charles Darwin would have been happy for the scientists that went after him to find the exceptions and further explainations that his book did not forsee.

[GovernmentShrinker]

You need to define “evolution” here. Are you talking about the claim that absolutely nothing but spontaneous evolution accounts for the existence of the various life forms on earth? If so, sure, I discount that claim without subscribing to any religious dogma.

Put simply, the second law of thermodynamics is demonstrably false as a universal law asserted to have applied through all time and space. If it had always been in effect everywhere, there would be nothing but entropy. Evolutionary theory all falls under the second law of thermodynamics, but alas, requires a starting point which falsifies the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, evolution as an all-encompassing theory to explain life on earth is hopelessly flawed.

[Greysard]

I feel no need to judge evolution right now. Evolution, if true, was working for millions of years, but we look for its signs only in last 200 years. I’d give the scientists another 100,000 years to experimentally prove or disprove evolution. For the moment I personally have other issues to worry about.

[Soliton]

The argument is settled the Earth revolves around the Sun and Evolution is a fact:

“Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16136131

[pieceofthepuzzle]

From my perspective whether or not evolution is a valid theory has no impact on my belief in God. If one were to be emotionally detached, Vulcan-like, it makes much more logical sense to believe that there is a reason for our being than to believe that existence of any kind has no origin or meaning. That said, evolution seems like a pretty cool way for God to engineer things so that life can adapt; again, from my perspective.

In a more specific answer to your question, albeit in a very indirect way, consider the dichotomy between good and evil, selfish and unselfish, charitable and uncharitable, etc. These opposing characteristics have existed in humanity for as long as we can tell from recorded history. Which is the more adaptive/beneficial trait? Why hasn't that trait selectively eradicated the converse trait? Life is complicated and from where I sit beyond any simple theories.

[Soliton]

Put simply, the second law of thermodynamics is demonstrably false as a universal law asserted to have applied through all time and space. If it had always been in effect everywhere, there would be nothing but entropy. Evolutionary theory all falls under the second law of thermodynamics, but alas, requires a starting point which falsifies the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, evolution as an all-encompassing theory to explain life on earth is hopelessly flawed. There is nothing in the actual second law that prohibits evolution. That is simply a claim of creationists. Things go from simple to complex all of the time locally in time and space. Build a car and you would violate the creationist second law. Hurricanes violate their second law. Waves on the ocean violate their second law. The second law of thermodynamics of physics isn't violated by any of these.

[ETL]

You need to define “evolution” here. Are you talking about the claim that absolutely nothing but spontaneous evolution accounts for the existence of the various life forms on earth? If so, sure, I discount that claim without subscribing to any religious dogma.

Here's an idea you might be interested in. I certainly find it interesting...

"If, as claimed by standard Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, mutations always occur randomly in relation to the direction of evolutionary change, then the same rate of mutation would be expected to be observed in both sets of cells. However, Cairns discovered that after a prolonged period of starvation, mutations that allowed the E. coli to utilise lactose increased in frequency. It appeared that the presence of lactose specifically enhanced mutations that allowed the cells to eat the lactose. The E. coli cell appeared to be able to *direct* its own mutations."[*emphasis* added]
http://www.geneticengineering.org/evolution/ogryzko.html

Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life
by Johnjoe McFadden

Reviews

Amazon.co.uk Review:
Quantum Evolution tackles the hairiest heresy of evolutionary biology, the one most likely to get scientists figuratively burned at the stake: the notion that any force more selective than blind chance could drive mutation. Such "directed evolution" smacks too much of a retreat into creationism for most science-minded readers to be comfortable with, but there's no prior reason to reject the idea. Molecular biologist Johnjoe McFadden risks the Inquisition by suggesting just such a possibility in Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life. Directed at a general but somewhat sophisticated readership, it covers the basics of both standard evolutionary theory and quantum-level physics, then synthesizes them in an interesting theory of made-to-order mutation that explains enough to warrant attention and is, importantly, testable.

McFadden's writing is clear and sharp, and shows a high regard for the reader's intelligence and patience for complex ideas. This is no airplane book--except for those already well-versed in the latest in both evolutionary theory and subatomic physics. The rewards of reading are great, and the author bows just enough to established theory that he might meet the fate of his intellectual predecessors. The ideas underlying Quantum Evolution may be right or wrong, but they challenge received wisdom without plunging into dogmatism--and that's good science. --Rob Lightner

Synopsis:
How did life start? How did something capable of replicating itself emerge from the primordial soup? How did it defy the odds? And how did it carry on seeking out the very mutations that enable survival? Living organisms are controlled by a single molecule - DNA. Yet the study of physics tells us that the behaviour of single molecules is also controlled by the laws of quantum mechanics. The implications of this for biology have not been fully thought through. Until now. In this debut, Johnjoe McFadden puts forward a theory of quantum evolution. He shows how living organisms have the ability to will themselves into action. Indeed, such an ability may be life's most fundamental attribute. This has radical implications. Evolution may not be random at all, as recent evolutionary theories have taught: rather, cells may, in certain circumstances, be able to choose to mutate particular genes that provide an advantage in the environment in which the cell finds itself.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006551289/quantumevolution/202-6775530-9928622

"The form and dynamics of every living organism on this planet is controlled by a single molecule of DNA. Recent experiments suggest that size alone is not a bar to quantum behaviour. A group based in Vienna have recently fired fullerene molecules through the double slit experiment and demonstrated that these particles have no problem in sailing through both slits simultaneously. And fullerene is big - 60 carbon atoms in a cage-like structure, the famous 'buckyball' molecule - with a diameter similar to that of the DNA double helix. If fullerene can enter the quantum multiverse then the microscopic constituents of our own cells, including DNA, are in there as well." --Johnjoe McFadden
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/Biography.htm

Some excerpts from Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life...

Quantum Evolution
The New Science of Life

Chapter 1 – What is Life?
Chapter 2 – The limits of Life
Chapter 3 – Life’s biggest action
Chapter 4 – How did we get here?
Chapter 5 – Life’s actions
Chapter 6 – What makes bodies move?
Chapter 7 – What is quantum mechanics?
Chapter 8 – Measurement and reality
Chapter 9 – What does it all mean?
Chapter 10 – The beginning
Chapter 11 – The quantum cell
Chapter 12 – Quantum evolution
Chapter 13 – Mind and matter

[VOA]

I want to hear from people who discount evolution from a strictly
non-dogmatic point of view.

In honesty, I am like the chicken in the middle of the road...
battered by traffic from both directions
(materialist/evolutionist VERSUS creationist/ID).

Some days I consider the total materialistic approach that is
really what evolution is. Life started by a random co-mingling of
the right molecules in some pool of water at the right temp.
And proceeded via a nearly timeless chain of random chances.

Other days, I look at electron-microscopic images of certain
biological structures and say "Just the product of random chance...
and I'm going to hit the jackpot with one throw of the dice in Vegas!".

I suspect that this sort of struggle goes on in the mind of
millions of my fellow beings.

[corkoman]

the problem is that the scientific community has become an atheists club and has been shutting out any data that might suggest the existance of God from the peer-review process.

Who said there was a problem?

[bert]

Oh ye of little non faith.....

It is ok to be uncertain and to not know. Insisting on iron clad absolute certainty is a mind killer.

Approach the problem, the academic science, from the scientific method. Become a scientist.

Find a small slice of bioscience to study. Say wild flowers or birds or butterflys. Make yourself a semi expert on some small slice. Go into the field as often as possible and observe your area. Take notes on your observations then read a little on exactly what you saw. If possible, get a buddy to go with you.

Once you begin to really see what's out there as opposed to reading what others tell you or hide from you or just plain lie about there may come revelation born of your own eyes and mind and study. You will see for your self the individual differences that produce species and genera and families.

A Peterson guide, some binoculars or a magnifying glass and a good hard bound notebook are very cheap. A frequent stroll in the outdoors be it a city park or some wilder area is great recreation and best of all, it is cheap.

See my profile for some of my studies. It's easy to be an expert, just find something you like and apply your mind and talent. You have a lifetime so there is no need to hurry.

[Coyoteman]

The problem isn’t that we’re not providing data and alternative hypotheses;...

But you're not. You are espousing a religious belief without scientific evidence.

...the problem is that the scientific community has become an atheists club and has been shutting out any data that might suggest the existance of God from the peer-review process.

Do you have evidence to support your claims? The problem we generally see with creationists is that they make all sorts of claims, which they want scientists to take seriously, but they are unable to support those claims with any scientific evidence.

To date, they have presented no scientific evidence documenting the supernatural. Why should this lack of evidence be treated as evidence? Why should your unsupported claims be accorded any weight in peer-review?

[GovernmentShrinker]

Start with nothing. Really NOTHING. No time, no space, no energy, no matter, and no order. You have complete entropy. Either the law has exceptions — BIG exceptions — or there would still be no time, no space, no energy, no matter, and no order. The sort of local negative entropy changes you’re talking about require that there be order somewhere else that can move toward disorder, so that the net change is always in the direction of more entropy. In the beginning, there was no order, so the only possible change had to be in the direction of LESS entropy.

[Not just another dumb blonde]

Why should I believe this world is 50 million years old? All it is is an educated guess, and a weak one at that. I’m supposed to take seriously a scientist’s GUESS at how old the world is? Where’s YOUR scientific proof? This argument between science and creation theory works both ways.

[Coyoteman]

Why should I believe this world is 50 million years old? All it is is an educated guess, and a weak one at that. I’m supposed to take seriously a scientist’s GUESS at how old the world is? Where’s YOUR scientific proof? This argument between science and creation theory works both ways.

No, sorry. That is not the case.

There is scientific evidence for an old earth; there is no scientific evidence for a young earth.

This is not a case of both arguments being equal; science has multiple lines of confirming evidence. The young earth argument has only a minority interpretation of scripture, and scripture was shown to be horribly wrong concerning the idea of a global flood ca. 4350 years ago.

To overturn the prevailing evidence of science you will have to study multiple fields, and come up with evidence contradicting that obtained by tens of thousands of scientists. So far your colleagues have failed to even dent the mountains of evidence.

By the way, in science the term "theory" does not mean guess. That is the way non-scientists use the term, but they are completely wrong in applying that usage to science.

[dr_lew]

Do you discount the history of life on earth as it is taught? That is, do you discount the succession of the dominant flora and fauna in the great ages of earth history?