What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[joshua 1 9]

Your post was about punctuated equilibrium, which you did not understand. The "many universes theory" which is not even a theory, is a totally different subject. You need to try again, or admit that you screwed up.

Citation?

You do not need a citation, that is just an attempt to avoid the discussion. Is the universe finite or infinite? I say finite, does anyone want to present a case for an infinite universe? Some aspects of the evolutionary theory could only work in a infinite universe and the universe is not infinite. Not using classic physics: ONLY if you use quantum physics which they are rejecting. So sense they reject the theory of quantum physics they then have effectively argued for a finite universe that argument against an infinite universe undercuts their claim for evolution. They accuse me of not understanding the discussion and yet they are presenting an argument against themselves. The evidence would show that they need a better understanding so they would quit trying to argue against themselves. Although it makes it a lot easier for me when they defeat their own claims. Mostly due to contradictions and inconsistencies in their evolutionary theories. Of course they try to defend that when then claim "true" science is based on contradictions and disagreement when just the opposite is true. True science would be "the theory of everything" where all the theories fit together in agreement and they do not conflict with each other. To date they have not accomplished this but they are trying to accomplish that goal.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Many political and religious groups have consensus, that however doesn't mean they are right. Even courts of law, and juries, can have consensus and still be wrong. I think you overstate the consensus too. I bet many scientists sit back and scratch their heads, wondering is certain things in ToE are true or false. Consider past error found in ToE. The consensus should be instead that ToE is just a fallible theory and should never be taken out of the context. It should never be preached as anything but fallible theory. That is what it means to have an open mind and to be scientific. Some people however misuse ToE, they use it as a religion. They turn it into a false doctrine which tickles their ears, just as mankind does.

That is rather amazing how often the supreme court has a 5 to 4 decision. Now it would take a vote of 5 to 3 to overturn a lower court to resolve a contradictions between the courts in different states.

 

[Armoured]

I accept microevolution (minor changes). But I don't accept macroevolution (radical changes).

Because walking across town makes sense, but walking across the country is impossible.

 

[Armoured]

You do not need a citation, that is just an attempt to avoid the discussion. Is the universe finite or infinite? I say finite, does anyone want to present a case for an infinite universe? Some aspects of the evolutionary theory could only work in a infinite universe and the universe is not infinite. Not using classic physics: ONLY if you use quantum physics which they are rejecting. So sense they reject the theory of quantum physics they then have effectively argued for a finite universe that argument against an infinite universe undercuts their claim for evolution. They accuse me of not understanding the discussion and yet they are presenting an argument against themselves. The evidence would show that they need a better understanding so they would quit trying to argue against themselves. Although it makes it a lot easier for me when they defeat their own claims. Mostly due to contradictions and inconsistencies in their evolutionary theories. Of course they try to defend that when then claim "true" science is based on contradictions and disagreement when just the opposite is true. True science would be "the theory of everything" where all the theories fit together in agreement and they do not conflict with each other. To date they have not accomplished this but they are trying to accomplish that goal.

I do need a citation, because you made the claim that evolution requires an infinite universe. That's a bold claim, and I'm not just going to accept it because you say so.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The site you linked does not say that evolution requires an infinite universe.

This is all pretty basic. It is called the infinite monkey theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Also Hoyle even though he was an atheist, he argued against evolution based on the mathematical impossibility of it. So they came up with the infinite monkey theory to Argue against Hoyle's junk yard theory.

"Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past. One suggestion was to modify the law of gravity, so that it became repulsive. This could lead to the graph of the separation between two galaxies, being a curve that approached zero, but didn't actually pass through it, at any finite time in the past. Instead, the idea was that, as the galaxies moved apart, new galaxies were formed in between, from matter that was supposed to be continually created. This was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle.

The Steady State theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified".

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

 

[joshua 1 9]

Because walking across town makes sense, but walking across the country is impossible.

Unless your name is Forest Gump or Chuck Norris then you can do anything.

 

[Armoured]

This is all pretty basic. It is called the infinite monkey theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Also Hoyle even though he was an atheist, he argued against evolution based on the mathematical impossibility of it. So they came up with the infinite monkey theory to Argue against Hoyle's junk yard theory.

"Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past. One suggestion was to modify the law of gravity, so that it became repulsive. This could lead to the graph of the separation between two galaxies, being a curve that approached zero, but didn't actually pass through it, at any finite time in the past. Instead, the idea was that, as the galaxies moved apart, new galaxies were formed in between, from matter that was supposed to be continually created. This was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle.

The Steady State theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified".

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

None of which supports your claim that evolution requires an infinite universe. As usual, I'm utterly bemused by your posting style. Do you genuinely believe you are actually supporting your case, or is it just a basic "Gish gallop"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do not need a citation, that is just an attempt to avoid the discussion. Is the universe finite or infinite? I say finite, does anyone want to present a case for an infinite universe? Some aspects of the evolutionary theory could only work in a infinite universe and the universe is not infinite. Not using classic physics: ONLY if you use quantum physics which they are rejecting. So sense they reject the theory of quantum physics they then have effectively argued for a finite universe that argument against an infinite universe undercuts their claim for evolution. They accuse me of not understanding the discussion and yet they are presenting an argument against themselves. The evidence would show that they need a better understanding so they would quit trying to argue against themselves. Although it makes it a lot easier for me when they defeat their own claims. Mostly due to contradictions and inconsistencies in their evolutionary theories. Of course they try to defend that when then claim "true" science is based on contradictions and disagreement when just the opposite is true. True science would be "the theory of everything" where all the theories fit together in agreement and they do not conflict with each other. To date they have not accomplished this but they are trying to accomplish that goal.

Of course you need a citation. You made an incorrect claim. You need to show that your claim is correct when challenged.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is all pretty basic. It is called the infinite monkey theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

No, the "infinite monkey theorem" is not even a theory again. You need to learn what a scientific theory is. If an idea is not testable it is not a theory. A scientific theory is an idea that has wide explanatory power and is testable and has passed many of those tests. If you have an idea that has wide explanatory power and is testable but it has not passed a significant number of tests you have a scientific hypothesis at best. And once again your link does not support your claim.

Also Hoyle even though he was an atheist, he argued against evolution based on the mathematical impossibility of it. So they came up with the infinite monkey theory to Argue against Hoyle's junk yard theory.

No, Hoyle was making a weak argument against abiogenesis when he made that statement. It is a very weak argument since it was a strawman argument. He had no idea how abiogenesis occurred so he made a strawman explanation of it. He pictured life as occurring in one action and that is now how the biologists studying this problem think that it occurred at all.

"Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past. One suggestion was to modify the law of gravity, so that it became repulsive. This could lead to the graph of the separation between two galaxies, being a curve that approached zero, but didn't actually pass through it, at any finite time in the past. Instead, the idea was that, as the galaxies moved apart, new galaxies were formed in between, from matter that was supposed to be continually created. This was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle.

And now you are not even discussing evolution, you are back to cosmology. You should keep focused on one subject at a time.

The Steady State theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified".

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Yes, the steady state universe was shown to be false. The universe as we know it had a beginning. But no one has shown any need for a god to start the universe.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Agreed. It makes it a right can of worms as soon as thinking when any high degree of precision or confidence is being aimed at.


at the level of "definitive", yes. (Which doesn't drop immediately from perfect to zero in the reliability stakes.)



Working in absolute or binary terms that's right.
(And since that is simpler and less stressful, up to a critical point, many people default to it.)

Fuzzy logic and probability does serve better in a lot of circumstances, but it is not so tidy. Even if you can state the key terms with precision: "god", "spirit" "faith" "love" can come with notoriously variable meanings and connotation values associated with them, killing precision and certainty in communication.

Asked about "x", C. E. M. Joad tended to reply "well, it all depends on what you mean by "x" "
So often it does, but tying terms down neatly can seem such a boring preliminary when the user knows exactly what *they* mean by such.
(But even they may not be sure in practice: that's when a term has become a buzzword, for example. Used without real understanding. A little fashionable box passed around, everyone assuming everyone else knows what's inside it, and no-one wanting to display ignorance by asking: just pass the box on.)

I thought I was being clear I was referring to absolutes. The problem is that there is no way to derive probabilities or partial logic if all reason remains suspect, so for this argument it has to be all or nothing, probability scales have the same problems only on a different level as well, down to the smallest axiom. Each statement would itself be nullified.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, the "infinite monkey theorem" is not even a theory again. You need to learn what a scientific theory is. If an idea is not testable it is not a theory. A scientific theory is an idea that has wide explanatory power and is testable and has passed many of those tests. If you have an idea that has wide explanatory power and is testable but it has not passed a significant number of tests you have a scientific hypothesis at best. And once again your link does not support your claim.



No, Hoyle was making a weak argument against abiogenesis when he made that statement. It is a very weak argument since it was a strawman argument. He had no idea how abiogenesis occurred so he made a strawman explanation of it. He pictured life as occurring in one action and that is now how the biologists studying this problem think that it occurred at all.



And now you are not even discussing evolution, you are back to cosmology. You should keep focused on one subject at a time.



Yes, the steady state universe was shown to be false. The universe as we know it had a beginning. But no one has shown any need for a god to start the universe.

Nice try, really I have had at least 100 posts now where people do not even try to defend evolution. So at least your making an attempt.

 

[46AND2]

This is all pretty basic. It is called the infinite monkey theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Did you even read the section of this wiki page relating the infinite monkey theorem to evolution?

This link ALSO does not support your claim that evolution requires an infinite universe. In fact, it counters it.

 

[Blastcat]

The only real problem is Reason. If we assume that a brain arose that then started to ponder on the world, then Reason cannot definitively exist.

How do you arrive at the conclusion?

For if logical propositions are only the product of specific chemical processes in the brain, than if those processes were different, then that would be logical.

Any support for your claim?

There is then no way for us to ascertain if something follows something else at all, since reasoning is dependant on processes that might just as well have been different.

Is this assertion verifiable in any way?

What we consider 'reasonable' might just be a product of our biology and not on account of concepts actually being related or conclusions necessarily following our specific axioms or thought processes.

Our reasoning seems to work. Nature makes sense and is rather stable. We don't know that our thinking WASN'T just a product of our biology and formed by evolutionary forces. Your argument against evolution seems to discount the possibility of evolution, and THAT'S unreasonable, if anything is.

(Often we see different people coming to vastly different conclusions with the same data set, which actually supports this)

The only people I've ever met who disagree with TOE are those who either:

1. Don't understand it.
2. Have a need to disagree and therefore use confirmation bias.

In this way then, if we accept the evolutionary origin of consciousness and reason, then we must doubt the very reasoning which we had used to accept the evolutionary origin in the first place.

Could you defend this assertion?

This does not of course mean our reasoning is wrong nor that evolution does not occur, but it does make all human knowledge highly suspect, if nothing else.

I don't see how, could you elaborate?

 

[Neogaia777]

DNA i.m.o.DNA and the system in which it operates.Complexity and interdependency.

What is it about DNA that evolution has trouble explaining?

 

[Neogaia777]

Thank You all for your replies...

I always thought that evolution has trouble explaining the existence of giants, giant human skeletons and bones were discovered, giants like are spoken about in the bible?

How do giants figure into the theory of evolution?

 

[Blastcat]

Thank You all for your replies...

I always thought that evolution has trouble explaining the existence of giants, giant human skeletons and bones were discovered, giants like are spoken about in the bible?

How do giants figure into the theory of evolution?

I am not aware of giant bones being found. Do you have a source for this stunning new discovery?

 

[Neogaia777]

I am not aware of giant bones being found. Do you have a source for this stunning new discovery?

My wife has a webpage she found, just google "giant bones or skeletons discovered", and you'll get a lot of links...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice try, really I have had at least 100 posts now where people do not even try to defend evolution. So at least your making an attempt.

That is merely because your arguments are so astoundingly bad that your posts are self refuting.

 

[46AND2]

My wife has a webpage she found, just google "giant bones or skeletons discovered", and you'll get a lot of links...

A lot of links of hoaxes.

 

[Chris B]

I bet many scientists sit back and scratch their heads, wondering is certain things in ToE are true or false. Consider past error found in ToE.

Yep. That's how we've got a better ToE than we used to have. Poorer ideas amended or thrown out, ones better fitting old or new data brought in. It's called "progress".

The consensus should be instead that ToE is just a fallible theory and should never be taken out of the context. It should never be preached as anything but fallible theory.

Do you have anything to propose as a non-fallible theory?
I suggest that as soon as you involve human beings anywhere in the chain of thought or argument some degree of fallibility is almost inevitable (and the"almost is only there as a precaution.)

Some people however misuse ToE, they use it as a religion. They turn it into a false doctrine which tickles their ears, just as mankind does.

That's humanity again: there's hardly anything that can't be turned into a religion by some individuals, out of a sample size in billions, whether or not it is in the slightest bit suitable for that role. The use of inappropriate Capital Letters is often a clue to this happening.