How can i refute evolution?

Question

how can i refute evolution i need help please

Answer 1

I'm with Ya Pal. I am tryin to refute the liberal lie that

2 + 2 = 4. I mean how stupib is them Liberals that they thank wwe kain't tell no difference from real math.

I am usin that scighence used by our president for Life, Adi Amin Dada Bush, Ya know that Nuke-U-Lar Phisicals.

We true believers all no that Evil Lushion is wrong, we jest havin a hard time proven it so...good luck to Ya, I be pullin fur Ya.

Now! Maybe you can hep me wif this here 2 + 2 thingy supposedin ta be 4 and all like that.

We know back when tha bible was writ that the knowledge was a gonna be our down-fall and god done went n told them garden squatters ta stay away from the only apple tree in Mesopotamia, but noooooo they couldnt do that 1 simple thang. They had ta eat apples, I tell Ya...some people!

Answer 2

It's easy, just the other day I showed how gravity is a lie: snow is in the sky but it didn't reach the ground (at least frozen).

Answer 3

Read the Counter Creationists Handbook and then despair or come to your senses and leave this to the "experts".

Also you better tell us why you want to?

Is it a hypothetical for a class assignment or debate?

You could point out that evolution as a theory is open to criticism on some minor points?

Answer 4

First of all, don't get caught up in the 'it's only a theory' argument, that will go down in flames because what constitutes a theory in science is completely different from the common, colloquial sense of the word theory.

Your best bet is to find and study the secular contrarians (there aren't many but they do exist).

The fundamentalist yahoos who are promoting 'intelligent design' use circular logic in their rather pathetic defenses of their artificially constructed dogma, and that will get you absolutely slaughtered in a serious debate.

Answer 5

If I could refute it I would have been a millionaire.

Answer 6

By being a liar and cheater!

You can not refute the truth!

Answer 7

Remember that the word "theory" doesn't mean " I think this is how it works, but it's just an idea."

A theory is the result of much observation and testing over and over again. A theory is not a measure of an idea's validity. Mathematics is a "just" a theory.

Evolution is factual and the picture it paints becomes clearer as new evidence is found and new techniques are developed.

Good luck!

Answer 8

Details....

Answer 9

You really can't without twisting logic or "inventing" science, and why would you want to, anyway?

Answer 10

Here's the problem, you would sooner support an pre-formed ideal than look at the empirical data and make an informed decision.

Answer 11

You need to take pieces of what evolutionists believe are "evidence", and prove how they are in fact not pieces of evidence.  Stay away from religion when doing so.  The point is to show how evolution is NOT accurate, not how religion is accurate.

Answer 12

Casinova,

There are plenty of facts out there that disprove evolution, they can be found on creationist websites and creationist books all over the place. All of them are false-- but by all means, look them up, believe they are true, and say that you have disproved evolution, and you can join the ranks of all your creationist friends. The AIG website would be a good place to find some misinformation that disproves evolution:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Answer 13

You cannot, it is a scientific fact backed up with more than a hundred years of research.  Don't be fooled by the terminology of 'Theory' it does not mean that scientists are not sure.  Theory refers to a system of facts and laws that explain an entire natural phenomenon.  It's also The Theory of Gravity.  Science is equally sure of the existence of gravity and evolution.

Answer 14

Let me see.  What you are really asking is, "how can I contradict years of research from some of the most intelligent men and women in the planet who have dedicated their lives to science by getting a few tips from people who have enough free time to visit Yahoo answers in the period of 6 or so days?"

Answer 15

I know this is not the answer you are looking to get, but there are no good arguments that can refute evolution.  

It is close to 150 years since Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", and during that entire time it has been tested by naturalists, biologist, geologists, paleontologists, physicists, etc. and not only have they been unable to falsify natural selection (which was Darwin's great insight), but their research has lead to the strengthening of evolution to the point that it is one of the main underpinnings of science.

Here is a look at the evidence:

There is a great deal of evidence for pathogens evolving resistance under selective pressure of antibiotics--the so-called superbugs.

Also a lot of evidence that insects have evolved resistance to pesticides such as DDT.

Peppered moths are a great example of natural selection as well as how science works. The original research was widely excepted, but other evolutionary scientists found problems with the way that research was done. The research was redone, addressing the problems in methods, and reconfirmed the conclusions. (see first two links below).

Additional evidence for evolution can be found in looking at populations that are in the process of speciation. Since evolution does not proceed quickly enough to show that entire process in a human lifetime or even in several human lifetimes, you have to look at several examples:

1. Ligers and tigons: these are offspring of lions and tigers. Ligers are offspring of lionesses and male tigers, tigons the offspring of tigresses and male lions. Lions are known to have overlapped in range with tigers in the near past--the last 10,000 years or so (see third link below). Even now there are reports of rare crosses in the wild but normally crosses are in captivity and often by means of artificial insemination (the 3rd-5th links below). Only the female crosses are fertile.

2. Mules: Offspring of horses and asses (donkeys) are mules, well know for being sterile.

3. Herring Gulls: In England, The Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull coexist but do not interbreed--the sign of different species. However, if one follows the Herring Gull populations westward, around the Arctic Circle, one finds that the populations change in appearance, becoming more like Lesser Black-backed Gulls. By the time you reach England again, there are two species, even though up to that point, each population of gull can and does interbreed with it's neighbors. There are other examples, such as the salamander Ensatina in the US pacific coast (see the 6th and 7th links below).

Another major source of evidence is of course the fossil record. There are so many examples, that it is hard to single out just a few examples, but I'll try.

1. The evolution of life before 600 million years ago: It is well known that there was an (apparently ) enormous and sudden flowering of life in the Cambrian period, with little or no evidence of life in earlier rock. This for years has been used by creationists to attack evolution, but a great deal of research has been done in the last fifty years, and there is a good record now of life on earth going back to about 3.6 billion years ago. An excellent book on this topic is Andrew H. Knoll's "Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Evolution on Earth" (see the 8th link below).

2. Evolution of Tetrapods and Cetaceans: A great deal of research, spanning paleontology, molecular genetics, ontology and other fields in Biology has been done on the evolution of land vertebrates (tetrapods), and a clear picture has emerged.

This has included many testable predictions (one of the elements of science--theories [that is, well-tested explanations] will generate testable hypotheses), such as predicting that one should find fossils of vertebrates in the process of adapting to life on land in rocks around 375 million years old-- a prediction that did happen.

No more interesting than the process by which vertebrates evolved to live on land, is the process by which the cetaceans evolved to live a fully aquatic life. Again, research in the last thirty years has clairified how this happened.

A good account for both of these is Carl Zimmer's "At the Water's Edge : Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea" (see the 9th link below).

3. Human Evolution: This is of course the elephant in the corner. If evolution did not imply that humans evolved, the would be no fight at all. Without going into a HUGE amount of detail, I'll note that two of the most famous paleoanthropological finds were made by workers who predicted where fossil hominid remains were and then went out and found them: Eugen (or Eugene) DuBois and Pithecanthropus (now known as Homo erectus) in Java, and Louis Leakey and his hominid finds in East Africa (see the 10th-13th links below).

Before moving on to Creation, I want to emphasize several points.

First, the word "theory" has a different meaning in science then it does popularly. In science, a theory is an explanation or set of explanations for which there is a considerable body of supporting work, usually over a considerable period of time. Darwinian evolution, or, more exactly, the NeoDarwinian synthesis, now has 150 years of testing behind it. The popular meaning of "theory" is a yet untested or unsupported idea. This is closer to what science call a hypothesis, if it isn't a wild guess or assertion of opinion. A lot of confusion can be avoided if this difference is kept in mind.

Second, the NeoDarwinian synthesis is not something to just toss aside. It is the basic organizing theory in biology. There is very little in biology now that does not depend on or bear on evolution. Further, much evidence supporting evolution is basis in other scientific disciplines, such as physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry and so forth. Further, there are other field, such as medicine which depend on the insights gained from evolution.

Third, if you examine the links below, you'll find lots of disagreements among evolutionary scientists. This is not a weakness, but a strength. This is how science works. Ideas are presented, supported, tested, pulled apart, argued over until the idea is rejected, or tentatively accepted.

Classical physics was a set of explanations that had developed over a thousand-plus years. However at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th centuries, it was found that it could not explain certain phenomena and was disproved. Yet we are still taught physics as new theories were proposed, tested and refined which incorporate what classic physics explained and also those phenomena that it could not.

Regarding Creation, I cannot build any case for its acceptance. Generally, creation is based on the belief in a God or Gods who acted to bring the material world into existence. More specifically, we tend to equate "creation" with a more or less literal interpretation of the book of Genesis in the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

There really is nothing here to intersect or debate on. Either you believe in that interpretation or not. There is nothing that science can test for.

Science can only work with material causes and material phenomena. Why is this? Because science takes an explanation and tests it, trying to disprove it (you can't prove something is true, you can only disprove it).

How can you test creation? Every piece of evidence mentioned above can be met by the statement: "God in His wisdom has ordained it to be so".

There is really nothing to be said further, there is no point where they come to grips.

Why then the "controversy"? It is because some people of belief feel that the concept of evolution is so contrary to belief that it should not be taught, or if it does that creation should be taught too.

In the US, there is now almost forty years of case law that concludes that Creation is a specific form of religious belief and cannot be taught in public schools as science (see the 14th and 15th links below).

Creation supporters want creation in some form taught to oppose evolution. They have tried to repackage creationism as "Creation Science" or "Scientific Creationism", they have tied to get equal time for it in the classroom, and the courts have in each case declared it to be religion, not science.

Most recently, creationism has been repackaged as "Intelligent Design", with the more modest goal of "teaching the controversy", by which they mean the "scientific" controversy.

Intelligent design got its day in court in the case Kitzmiller vs Dover, where all parties wanted the judge to rule on whether ID was or was not science. Judge Jones clearly ruled that ID was not science, only creationism--i.e. religion renamed. (see link 15 below for links to all the case documents, and link 16 for Judge Jones' decision).

One of the most damning exhibits presented was proof that the ID textbook "Of Pandas and People" was really a Creation Science textbook, with ID language replacing Creationist language. In fact a poor job was done, so that the term "creationists" was replaced with "cdesign proponentsists" instead of the intended "intelligent design proponents" (see links 17-21 below).

So if creationism is religion, not science, where do they draw a scientific case. The blunt fact is that they don't. Their "case" is based on misrepresenting the work of evolutionists, selective quoting to make individuals say things other then they actually said. They want to get some form of creation into the schools (currently this form is Intelligent Design) to effect a societal change, not to teach science. (this is not really denied by the creationists, they quite openly have their strategy, called the "Wedge Strategy" on the web, see link 22. For more on creationist tactics and their refutation, see "Panda's Thumb", link 23 below).

To conclude, evolution is a well-supported scientific theory with almost 150 years of scientific study backing it up. Creation is a religious belief, incapable of scientific testing. The "controversy" is to try to promote religion in society under the guise of science.

To the extent the controversy should be taught, it should be taught in social science classes.

1. http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth...

2.http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/...

3.http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7615...

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

5. http://www.geocities.com/pride_lands/Lig...

6. http://blog.case.edu/singham/2007/08/01/...

7. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...

8. http://www.amazon.com/Life-Young-Planet-...

9. http://www.amazon.com/At-Waters-Edge-Fin...

10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/edu...

11. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/...

12. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lle...

13. http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/foundati...

14. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/article...

15. http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=5

16. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/20...

17. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/ori...

18. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/ori...

19. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/ori...

20. http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/ori...

21. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005...

22. http://www.antievolution.org/features/we...

23. http://www.pandasthumb.org/

Source(s):

Finally, I hold two degrees in paleoanthropology (human evolution). Also, I am a Christian, active in my congregation and former member of the church council.

wl

Answer 16

you can't refute it with out learning the tools used in anthropology.  Carbon dating, fossil dating and collection and also basic society values.  Basically your best bet is to go with the collection issue.  How does the collector affect the data.  Apply this to the issue.  I take a thermometer and stick it in the pool to take the temperature of it.  Now I'm 60 ft tall with a a really big thermometer.Did the thermometer affect the pools temperature?  So does the belief in something affect how it's perceived?  Go along those lines and you might be able to come up with an acceptable answer for yourself.

Answer 17

You can't without being dishonest or ignorant.

Answer 18

First, you need to have a workable explanation of how life works and how we have evolved. Then you and others have to test your theory, research it, defend it and show why it's better then evolution.

Evolution has been around for billions of years. It's going to take some doing.

Oh, if you mean the theory of evolution, It's only been around for 150 years. However, none of the basic concepts of evolution have been "refuted."

Creationist spend most of their 'research" finding issues in evolution and arguing about them. Somehow they see this as building support for their own theories. However, that's just backwards.