What are the loopholes in the Theory of Evolution? Are there any?

Question

I am no scientist, can you tell me in plain terms whether there are any inconsistencies in Darwin's theory.

Also, how they prove the age of a fossil? Are the existing dating techniques capable of determining the age of fossils that they claim as billions of years old?

Answer 1

No Not Really! Im not eeghead but I worked in coal mine. And what came out of there was anceint forrest laid down millions of years ago! I could see the trees and leaves and the stuff in it! And it could not have happened 6000 years ago! You think OIL is much older than that one!!!!

Answer 2

Science IS based on assumptions.  When you break it back down to the basics, there are certain assumptions that are used as the basis for all further development, like axioms and postulates in mathematics.  Things that cannot be proved but which have never been shown to be false.

One of the basic tenets of geology is that that processes occurring on earth are essentially the same as the processes that have always occurred (the present is the key to the past).  Erosion breaks up rock and the broken rock migrates downhill, forming sediments, as an example.

Are there holes in the theory?  There are holes in every theory.  Ask Newton how Einstein showed a problem with his theories (if only you could, that WOULD be an interesting discussion).  With the Darwinian theory, the problems are in the details, but they aren't real problems, in the way that a non-scientist would look at it, they are areas where the mechanisms require clarification.

As for dating, we have to return to the idea that things happen now in the same way they have always happened.  This is the basis of dating using radionuclides.  We know from current observations that radioactive elements decay with a pretty well defined probability.  The reasons for this are pretty well founded in chemistry and physics and the process can therefore be treated with mathematical precision.

Based on this idea, we can measure parent and daughter isotopes in rocks and derive a pretty good estimate of the age of formation of a given rock or mineral.  measurement error is a primary source of uncertainty-we cannot measure to the accuracy that allows us to know more than within a small error range the actual date.  I couldn't say the rock formed 247,365.275 years ago from the data, but I could safely say 250 million give or take 15 million years ago, for example.

Using different dates for different rocks, and how the relations between sediments and the dated rocks define a time window for the time of deposition allows us to say the fossil we found in a sediment was from an animal that lived about 250 million yearas ago (again, an exact year is not possible from the information and technological limitations on dating techniques, and other factors).

The closer to now, the more accurate the dating becomes, in most cases.

An honest scientist will say that, yes, there are problems and uncertainties in how we understand the world.  However, these problems and uncertainties are not the same as a non-scientist would look at them.  they don't make the information false, they just make the information inexact.

I hope that helps.

Oh, a final comment.  Science is generally not contrary to the existence of god.  In fact many scientists find that science emphasizes the likelihood of a god (I am not one of them, but I can see why some feel that way).  All that science tells us is that certain myths associated with some religions are unlikely given what we can observe.  This doesn't make the religion false UNLESS you are one of those who believes that every word that is the basis of a religion (say, the bible) is necessarily true or the religion is false (which is not a valid argument, in my view), and since the religion is true, then all of the words that are the basis of that religion are true (the bible is the word of god to be taken literally).  THAT is a concept that I have a problem with and cannot accept.

Answer 3

There are none that suggest a serious or fundamental flaw in the theory.  If there were, we wouldn't call it a theory.  A scientific theory is not a guess.  Science talk and everyday talk are kind of like two different languages, in scientific language 'theory' best translates to the everyday word 'fact' and the everyday word 'theory' translates to the scientific word 'hypothesis.'  That's kind of complicated I guess, but what I'm trying to say is that to call something a scientific theory, it's been so well tested that a normal non scientist would call it 'proven.'  Science does not believe in proving things though, we think there's always the possibility we might discover something new.

Anyways, like I said, there are no serious flaws in the theory of evolution.  There are many points of debate within it and many scientists that question aspects of it, but they are questions about finer details of the theory, not the fundamental idea that things evolved from a common ancestor.  This basic idea is supported by so much evidence and contradicted by no evidence, so it's very unlikely (but still possible!) that it will ever be shown to be 'wrong.'

If you want to know more about the specifics, you should go here - http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs....

You can also click search at the top of that page and type in any specific point you want to know more about.  Here's one about finding the age of rocks - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.h...

Answer 4

nope, no loopholes.

works the way the school says.

fossil ages are more difficult.

remains that are less than 50,000 or so years old can be fairly accurately dated using carbon-14 analysis.

older than that, there's a different technique, whose name escapes me at the moment.

it's not as accurate, but is reasonably so.

in addition, there are indications at various points in the history of the world that are fairly universal.

for example, 65m years ago, there is a layer found all over that's pretty high in iridium, that was deposited when the asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs.

why would you ask?

Answer 5

There are anomalies, but nothing that could disprove the theory.  For instance, some of the earliest invertebrates have more complex organs than their supposed ascendants, even though evolution usually causes an increase in complexity along lineages of species. But there is usually a reason, such as the advantage of requiring less energy- therefore less food - to keep all those organs functioning could cause simpler organs to develop.

As for the second question, fossils themselves can not be dated too far back with carbon datinng, but the strata they are found in can.  For example, by performing radiometric dating on the potassium or uranium in certain rocks, you can go back many millions of years, and any organism that was buried in the strata would share its approximate age.

Answer 6

<<What are the loopholes in the Theory of Evolution? Are there any?>>

It's presently the only theory that can explain the retention of vestigial "egg-teeth" on the jaws of newly born koalas.  These are outgrowths of bone for bashing through parchment eggshells that no longer develop.  Koalas now have no need for such equipment, but they're born with them regardless.  People have been looking for loopholes for 150 years, and none have been found.

<<Also, how they prove the age of a fossil? Are the existing dating techniques capable of determining the age of fossils that they claim as billions of years old?>>

Explaining the ins and outs of that would take a long time, so I think I'll restricht myself to a few words for a start.  There are two main groups of methods; relative dating and absolute dating.  There are several other useful techniques as well, but I'll stick to those two for now.

Relative dating involves determining that this layer of rock is older or younger than that layer, and the basic logic is as follows.  If layer a is stratigraphically below layer b, then it must be older.  Layer b can't have been deposited on layer a unless layer a were already there.

You also get particular fossil species that are numericaly fairly common but only occurred for a relatively short space of time, say a couple of million years.  Some of these are known as index fossils.  If that species is present at a particular locality, then it gives you a very good reason for assuming the locality dates from that particular relatively short space of time especially when, as typically happens, the wider fossil flora and fauna at your locality strongly overlaps with other places where that index fossil has been found.  This can all help indicated your fossil locality is about the same age as some other place perhaps hundreds of miles away, or even thousands of miles, but it says nothing about numbers of years.

Absolute dating

This is where numbers can come in.  Certain materials are radioactive and break down at known and regular rates to daughter products; uranium to lead and that sort of thing.  This doesn't happen as regularly as clockwork.  Actually, it's more regular than clockwork.  Clocks these days are adjusted in accordance with atomic clocks because those are the more accurate time-keepers.  We're talking here of radioactive half-lives.

In some cases half-lives are short affairs, and in other cases they can last for millions or billions of years.  It's the amount of time required for half the radioactive material to break down into its daughter product, or, indeed daughter products (plural).  As the rate of decay is regular, should such materials be present in a rock layer -often as volcanic ash, then you can work out how long that radioactive time-keeper has been ticking, and that's the age of the rock that ash is in.

You can then apply information like that to relative dating as well.  For example, rock layer b contains datable ash and is 200 million years old.  The layer above it is younger than that, and the layer below is older.

Answer 7

The easiest way to disprove evolution is to change the facts to fit your faith.

However, there are no scientifically accepted competing theories.  Loopholes exist in laws of man.  Laws of nature don't have loopholes.

If you don't believe in evolution be sure to tell your doctor you don't want the new anti-biotics.  You won't need them because bacteria hasn't evolved in your world to be resistant to old anti-biotics.

Answer 8

James Usher said the earth is 6000 years old, geologist say the earth is more than 4 billion years old. radiometric dating is used by geologist to date minerals and fossils. Typical the mineral is zircon used in radiometric dating not carbon-14. However there are many isotopes that can be used in half-life radiometric dating. Simply put almost any traces of radioactive isotope can be used in radiometric dating. The physics and chemistry of radioactive isotopes, half-life and radiometric dating are not controversial or theoretical. So the age of the dated the fossils and the fossil record pretty much certain fact. So much in fact the ceasium standard the ISO standard for legal trade and communication for time(second) is based on radioactive decay since the 1950s. Evolutionary inconsistencies with evidence should be published for review.