Evolution doesn't explain one thing.

While evolution explains how life evolved as we know it the theory of evolution doesn't explain how or why it happened. This leads me to doubt the theory all in itself. There are probably a lot of holes in the theory to begin with.

Your thoughts?

doesnt the theory of evolution describe natural selection ie survival of the fittest? and adaptation to changing habitats and climates?

wouldnt that fill in the holes? or are you looking for how and why a horses feet evolved into hooves, and why goats have horns?

reply to post by Deseis1204

No. I think evolution says we all started out as single-celled organisms. How did these single-celled organisms get on Earth? Why did they evolve the way they did? Why does natural selection play out the way it does? Does the rules to natural selection change over time?

I don't think evolution answers these questions.

reply to post by Frankidealist35

"...the theory of evolution doesn't explain how or why it happened"

Please be more specific. Are you saying evolution does not explain how life started in the first place - that is not evolutions job to explain, or how and why evolution took place - it does explain this in depth...so basically, what point are you trying to make?

reply to post by WatchNLearn

My point is that evolution doesn't satisfy the requirements to explain how life began, or, how life started. I don't want to create a flamewar here, but, I believe that evolution was started, because they wanted to do away with religion. I don't think evolution successfully does that, because, it doesn't explain enough. It doesn't say how life started. It doesn't say how each single-cell life form evolved into all of these different species. It doesn't talk about how a meteor could have brought humans on to Earth and how there were dinasaurs before there were humans.

The theory of evolution doesn't allow the idea that life exists on other planets. It just goes on the guiding principle that life only exists on Earth.

Look at this link for example, www.sciencedaily.com... it talks about how life could have come from somewhere else... this is kind of my point.

Evolution doesn't explain everything.

Evolution applies to life adapting and surviving. Evolution doesn't exist if life isn't around to do any surviving. The origin of life is shrouded in mystery, but there are some ideas. Evolution doesn't need to be one of them, simply because it can't be. Squirrels hoard nuts in anticipation of the coming winter. Those acorn stores do not bring about the winter. Does that make sense? The start up of life is something we don't understand yet, but someday we probably will. It is a physical phenomenon of some sort, like winter, but we now understand why winter happens. Creatures have to adapt to the seasonal cycles if they are to survive, and evolution gets entwined with that process. Winter came about regardless of the squirrels (that physical phenomenon), and a result is that creatures must do something to survive it (evolution). Evolution followed the beginning of life. It didn’t trigger it.

reply to post by Siblin

Can't people just accept the fact that there are higher powers/aliens in the Universe and they could have created life on Earth?

Maybe a god started life up. I have no problem with anyone thinking that.

It doesn't have anything to do with evolution though.

We have physical evidence that life was once far simpler than it is today. Evolution explains how life got to where it is now, and how life continues to try to adapt to all the things that the world chucks at us.

Again, it doesn't deal with how life here in the first place. It just explains how life managed to survive all this time, in all its forms.

Evolution theory doesn't seek to explain creation, it explains the small, gradual divergence and undirected modification of species. I think you could loosely view it as a brachiating tree, in which the species toward the top of the "tree" have common ancestors, but they have diverged to the point where the "branches" can no longer interbreed, due to their genetic divergence.

I think some fall into an error in thinking that it all happened in the past, and is over. Evolution occurrs to this day, and continues very gradually, as it always has -- our human time on this planet is a blink in the larger timescale. The continuation is evidenced to our observation by smaller, short-lived creatures: For example, areas that are sprayed for mosquitos; the spray is usually effective to a point, but frequently some mosquitos survive. Those that survive the chemicals are somewhat naturally-selected as immune to the spray, and thus the reason that the chemical formulas of mosquito treatment has to be changed frequently for it to continue to be effective.

Another example off the top of my head is that antibiotics that once worked against bacterial infections in human systems -- many of them no longer work, as the bacteria has shifted to a type that is immune, and thus different antibiotics have to be developed.

In my opinion, evolution theory doesn't address nor does it care about religion. It explains the mechanisms whereby life evolved, diversified and become more complex. I don't believe that ANY part of the theory attempts to rule out life on any other planet or planetary body. It addresses how life diversified on Earth, and doesn't preclude it happening in a similar manner of with similar mechanisms elsewhere. It is never addressed, because we, as humans, lack the ability to study other planetary systems to that degree. Scientists can study and form evidence as to the atmosphere (or lack of it) of other planets with spectrometry of which this information is an analysis of light spectra from the planetary body.

Hope this helps flesh out some of your questions.

Cheers

edit to add: For what it's worth, myself I see no conflict between religious dogma and evolution theory. To me they are both different languages and approaches to describe Terran phenomena. My own view is that God- the all-that-is created life, and this is the mechanism in which it progresses and diversifies. I stress that that is MY opinion and not that of Darwin's. Evolution theory is a science and is measurable. Religion is faith-based, and primarily rooted in historical documents. Completely compatible.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by argentus]

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Of course the theory of evolution doesn't explain everything and you were looking in the wrong place for the answers to the questions you should've asked earlier, of which the questions were asked later, for example: how did life start and why? How do single-cell life forms know how to form different species and why? We may understand the processes for how life forms but the big question is why did life form.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Well, I've got news for you, the snake won.

Well perhaps take a few billion different environments that had the potential for life (but none of them do yet). Say in just one of those environments, a set of random parameters all seem to mesh and start the first seeds of life. It was random, that single environment out of billions.

Now fast forward until that life has grown intelligent. A lifeform asks "How did we get started?", well the only reason they are asking that is because they evolved to that point and happened to be the one successful happen stance.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by Siblin

 

Can't people just accept the fact that there are higher powers/aliens in the Universe and they could have created life on Earth?

You're simply replacing God with another alternative that cannot be empirically verified. Argentus explained things sufficiently enough. Evolution is a dish recipe; it doesn't pretend to explain where the ingredients came from and leaves it to other special theories. I think that the problem lies in terms being misdefined.

The intervention of a hypothetical super-advanced cosmic civilization is not impossible, but you would have to have comparable mental capacity to understand how "they" did it and why. I believe that there was a such intervention, but you need to start with the Nature and non-religious approach, otherwise you get nowhere.

Evolution doesn't have to claim how life began, that's a different branch of science called Abiogenises. Darwinian Evolution doesn't need to tie back to the origin of life. Darwinian Evolution explains natural selection and diversity of life through reproduction with variation and environmental attrition.

To quote myself from another thread:

With regard to saying the problem with evolution is that it doesn't explain the origin of life is akin to saying that Pythagoras theorem isn't a valid theory because all it does is explain how to calculate the length of a hypotenuse of a right angled triangle, it doesn't explain the aerodynamics of fluids.

You would never say that, because Pythagoras doesn't have to explain fluid dynamics, by the same token evolution doesn't have to explain the origin of life. Like I said above, thats Abiogenises.

REPLY TO PLUCKYNOONEZ (as reply function isn't working)


The correct answer is, of course, that the rooster came first.

evolutionary disgrace?





[edit on 26-9-2008 by argentus]

Originally posted by Frankidealist35

Can't people just accept the fact that there are higher powers/aliens in the Universe and they could have created life on Earth?

What does this have to do with evolution?

Evolution certainly could be the method used by some greater being, so what?

In your OP you state that your problem with evolution was with the fact that it cannot tell you "how and why" evolution created life.

Why dont you provide us with a "Why" a higher power or alien did it? One that is more than your own personal opinion?

And, why dont you also show us "how" this divine power or alien did it? In such a way that it can be verified, because that is the scientific standard.

The fact of the matter is, you cant. So what is your whole point? You are criticizing one theory for not having information the other theory cannot provide either. You are doing this to make it seem as if there is logic supporting your position. So, if there is, please do outline it. Posts that just rehash the whole creationism vs evolution debate that add nothing at all to the argument, in my opinion, do not even merit this forum.

If aliens created life on Earth, then who created the aliens? They're a form of life too. Maybe God (or a supreme being/beings) created life. It sorta makes sense. It would explain why nature is so unified.... why everything seems to make sense without actually being intelligent. I mean, how could everything just form so perfectly on its own with no help? But unfortunately... there's no way to confirm the existence of a god, so it remains up to belief or disbelief. Belief in God (or a god or gods) is in no way a replacement for science though! (though some people on this planet may fool themselves and others into thinking such a thing.)

Originally posted by zsrgt
Evolution doesn't have to claim how life began, that's a different branch of science called Abiogenises.

I was waiting for someone to bring Abiogenesis up. The theory blows my mind, it offers such a scientificly believable scenario for the development of life on the planet. I honestly reckon learning this was a life changing moment for me.

This video explains abiogenesis simply. If you want to FForward past the opinion straight to the substance go to 2:40



[edit on 27-9-2008 by Man_Versus_AntiMan]

i was thinking about survival of the fittest and evolution the other day and it got me thinking

theoretically its the strongest and best adapted things that continue on, but...

what about trees?

for example a whole forest full of trees and a HUGE storm comes through knocking over the "weaker" trees whom roots were not as firmly planted and whatnot, but these trees in falling send their seeds all over. reproducing even though they were not the best suited for survival.

wouldnt this put a hole in the entire idea? any thoughts?

reply to post by Frankidealist35


In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"- This is incorrect.

Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.

Facts are the world's data.
Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.

Facts don't go away whilst rival theories are debated to explain them.

Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.

The reasons why we say that Evolution is a fact is the same as why we say that gravity is a fact. We can observe it and verify it.