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

[joshua 1 9]

But a person can misinterpret something as having design that doesn't.

Everything has a design and fits into the master plan. That is why no two snowflakes are alike. This is really more along the line of the Buddhist religion. Christianity does not get into this as much as they do.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If a species of 0 IQ changed into another species of 150 IQ, what was the source of that increased IQ ?
Intelligence evolved on the fly? No intelligence pre-existing before all things?

According to this article everything has some IQ. They talk about plastic having a "memory".

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-lede-t.html

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution is nonsense. I mean macro-evolution.

Driving is nonsense. I mean driving for a thousand miles, not just down the streets.

How could lower life forms evolve into more intelligent life forms ?

By accumulation of genetic changes, filtered by natural selection, off course.

If a species of 0 IQ changed into another species of 150 IQ, what was the source of that increased IQ ?

The physical brain.

Intelligence evolved on the fly? No intelligence pre-existing before all things?

Evolution is a gradual process. It doesn't happen over night.

The operating system of a PC works because it was programmed to follow rules and instructions.

The operating system of a pc isn't a living organism that reproduces with variation. So why would it be subject to the inevitable consequence of imperfect replication?

Who designed the rules and instructions in the DNA system ?

Nobody.

They evolved on the fly ?

Gradually.

Machines can function properly only if you provide sensible data, and won't do so otherwise.

Machines don't self-replicate with variation.

Garbage in, garbage out. On the other hand, the human mind is different. It is intelligent enough to understand even if you provide a partial entry, or pronounce incorrectly, or mis-spelt words.
The human mind is more than a machine, it is something evolution cannot explain.

The human mind is a construct of the physical brain.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But a person can misinterpret something as having design that doesn't.

Everything has a design that is why no two snowflakes are alike.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Driving is nonsense. I mean driving for a thousand miles, not just down the streets.

What is nonsense is to say that a car created itself and that there was no designer.

 

[pgp_protector]

Everything has a design and fits into the master plan. That is why no two snowflakes are alike. This is really more along the line of the Buddhist religion. Christianity does not get into this as much as they do.

2 snowflakes that are alike.

https://cbs3weather.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/snowflake-shapes/

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is nonsense is to say that a car created itself and that there was no designer.

Cars aren't living systems that self-replicate with variation.

Furthermore, you can go visit car factories where they are produced by humans.

You are welcome to point us to god's human factory.

 

[Hieronymus]

But we only have APPARENT design in nature.

Indeed,it appears everywhere you look.
A fine tuned universe and the genius of the phenomenon we call living nature.
Mankind still doesn't fathomit,although the scientific data keeps increasing.
Apparently it is designed and manufactured.
This is however unacceptable for naturalists, so they choose to limit their paradigm.

In order to have design, there must be INTENTION, and nothing about nature happening demonstrates an intention, other than what WE give it.

Then how do you think it appears to be designed?
Did we give intention to the liver?
Or did we just discover the function and purpose?
Or any organ for that matter.
We discover the purpose, the purpose (i.e. what it is intended for) was already there.
So your point is invalid.

Is a rock intended to be a tool or a weapon or a paperweight?.. It depends on how WE intend to use it. It's of no use at all to say that it was "designed" to be whatever we want to use it for.

Yes, a rock, but we're discussing living nature in particular.
In the eco system many organism have a purpose in keeping it a functioning system.

 

[Hieronymus]

Facts are facts.

Indeed.
And the fact is that there is no compelling evidence to support Darwin's 19th century conjecture.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Indeed,it appears everywhere you look.

That's not what the word "apparant" means.

A fine tuned universe and the genius of the phenomenon we call living nature.

Any universe will be "fine tuned" for the stuff found in it.
Hindsight fallacy.

Mankind still doesn't fathomit,although the scientific data keeps increasing.

Argument from ignorance.

Apparently it is designed and manufactured.

Again, that's not what the word "apparant" means in that context.

This is however unacceptable for naturalists, so they choose to limit their paradigm.

The only unacceptable thing here, is making bare assertions without evidence and drawing conclusions based on fallacious reasoning. Like arguing from ignorance or from hindsight.

Then how do you think it appears to be designed?

Because the human mind tends to impose purpose on just about anything. From hindsight.

Did we give intention to the liver? Or did we just discover the function and purpose?

We discovered its function. But that doesn't mean it was put there deliberatly pre-planned with intention.

Or any organ for that matter.

Indeed. Like male nipples. Or wisdom teeth. Or non-functioning eyes in moles, covered by a layer of skin.

We discover the purpose, the purpose (i.e. what it is intended for) was already there.

Function =/= purpose.

So your point is invalid.

No. Your point is a teleological fallacy, drawing conclusions that are drowning in bias while ignoring all the evidence of 21st century biology. All that, in context of your a priori religious beliefs.

Yes, a rock, but we're discussing living nature in particular.
In the eco system many organism have a purpose in keeping it a functioning system.

That's again a false hindsight conclusion.
The balance of an eco-system isn't there because it was intended to be there. It rather is there because such systems tend to settle into such a balance. That balance can easily be disrupted by a sudden change in environmental conditions. Then things get out of hand quickly. Only to settle again in a new balance some time later. Not by intent, but by inevitable necessity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Indeed.
And the fact is that there is no compelling evidence to support Darwin's 19th century conjecture.

+200.000 papers on biological evolution disagree.

 

[sfs]

Indeed.
And the fact is that there is no compelling evidence to support Darwin's 19th century conjecture.

To remind you once again, this thread is about evidence against evolution. So far you've posted that Mitochondrial Eve is evidence against evolution, which is simply wrong. Do you have any actual evidence or not?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Everything has a design that is why no two snowflakes are alike.

Snowflakes aren't designed. They are formed naturally and it is well understood how this process works.

It happens when a tiny dust or pollen particle comes into contact with water vapor and freezes into a tiny crystal of ice.

 

[Chris B]

My friend we have reached an impasse of understanding I see.

It seems like it. From my perspective you are trying to avoid essential uncertainty.
(Do you not have trouble with the quantum world?)
Possibly because you see it as far more traumatic and chaotic than it need be.

If Reason is uncertain and not sound, then neither is its product.

Pushed to the limit, it is not.
Under everyday circumstances it does rather well.
Rather like Newton's laws of motion in that respect.

With no reference point, how can probability be established? How can something be closer to true or 'the best we have' if you have nothing to base what is best on?

No absolute, eternal reference point. That's not quite the same thing.
There are plenty of things that serve as foundation points.
Fun in physics at the moment is that two very successful building points don't seem to want to mesh together.
relativity and quantum mechanics. Where and what is quantum gravity?

But this is a long way from being totally lost or having no compass at all.

As to 'ruling things out', heliocentrism was ruled out, then back in, then out again etc. This is no method to base derivitive theory of probability on.

Yes, that's called progress. And it's messy. Almost inevitably with humans involved, and having a basis in observation and measurement, with limits on precision.
(I have the mind of an engineer so "right" is "within tolerance." "Exact" tends to get met with "how exact?"
It's everywhere but usually not consciously noticed. "2" is fuzzy round the edges, is nothing like as tidy and neat as it is commonly taken to be (which, commonly, is fine.) 1.51 or 2.49 might show up as 2 on scales or a spreadsheet. But accumulate them and odd things happen. Say by ten: 15.1 and 24.9 will show up as 15 and 25 on the same scales or spreadsheet. Take out the uncertainty first and it looks as though 10 x 2 = 20. Dead certain and precise. Or not.
Reality rules.

I am speaking metaphysically, so your examples are a bit superfluous.

A metaphysical approach devoid from physical observation is itself rather cut adrift.
Absolutes are easy enough to assert by fiat. It's actually quite popular, though that comes without an absolute consensus, to put it mildly, as to what the absolutes should be, or the authority behind them.
Certainty is elusive here too.

Do you have a proposed methodology for certainty and absolute? I've never found one free from uncertainty.
Though I've looked in a good few places in the past.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could you explain, how scientists all agree, the theory of evolution has only gotten stronger over the 150 years the theory has been around?

Because the Antichrist is going to use it during the Tribulation period to get scientists to take the Mark.

Are they all just stupid?

Blind.

Do you know something all these scientists are just missing?

Yes.

Is it just a giant conspiracy, including thousands of scientists around the world?

No comment.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It seems like it. From my perspective you are trying to avoid essential uncertainty.
(Do you not have trouble with the quantum world?)
Possibly because you see it as far more traumatic and chaotic than it need be.


Pushed to the limit, it is not.
Under everyday circumstances it does rather well.
Rather like Newton's laws of motion in that respect.

No absolute, eternal reference point. That's not quite the same thing.
There are plenty of things that serve as foundation points.
Fun in physics at the moment is that two very successful building points don't seem to want to mesh together.
relativity and quantum mechanics. Where and what is quantum gravity?

But this is a long way from being totally lost or having no compass at all.



Yes, that's called progress. And it's messy. Almost inevitably with humans involved, and having a basis in observation and measurement, with limits on precision.
(I have the mind of an engineer so "right" is "within tolerance." "Exact" tends to get met with "how exact?"
It's everywhere but usually not consciously noticed. "2" is fuzzy round the edges, is nothing like as tidy and neat as it is commonly taken to be (which, commonly, is fine.) 1.51 or 2.49 might show up as 2 on scales or a spreadsheet. But accumulate them and odd things happen. Say by ten: 15.1 and 24.9 will show up as 15 and 25 on the same scales or spreadsheet. Take out the uncertainty first and it looks as though 10 x 2 = 20. Dead certain and precise. Or not.
Reality rules.


A metaphysical approach devoid from physical observation is itself rather cut adrift.
Absolutes are easy enough to assert by fiat. It's actually quite popular, though that comes without an absolute consensus, to put it mildly, as to what the absolutes should be, or the authority behind them.
Certainty is elusive here too.

Do you have a proposed methodology for certainty and absolute? I've never found one free from uncertainty.
Though I've looked in a good few places in the past.

I have no methodology for certainty or absolute values which does not imply some non-material Forms, Ideas or Monistic unity, which is one of the reasons I am a Protestant. I disagree with Naturalistic Materialism because of the innate uncertainty and no, 'foundation' points are not acceptable if we wish to approach what is 'true' in my opinion. I disagree with Bernstein's arguments of non-duality of answers and do not consider arbitrary human defined points as acceptable reference points of any value, nor human defined absolutes either. I value the idea of 'Truth' and probability and variance is unacceptable to me, hence I cannot ascribe to mindsets based on uncertainty and find then inherently flawed. (Not that I can be certain of anything I believe itself, but metaphysically I can at least say that truth exists)
That said, I have no problems with science or evolution. I consider both adequate tools that we can use to develop our society and explore our world, however I take offence at Naturalistic Materialism as a worldview. For the fact that people blindly accept it without even knowing what scientific method entails, I find shocking. I do not need to agree with something on every point to make use of it, and much practical knowledge is the result, but the metaphysics is far too dubious for a foundation of reasoning in my opinion, let alone existence. Human reason is just too flawed by nature for such value to be ascribed to it.
Yes, we have reached an impasse. I thank you for the discussion, it was enlightening.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Evolution is nonsense. I mean macro-evolution.
How could lower life forms evolve into more intelligent life forms ?
If a species of 0 IQ changed into another species of 150 IQ, what was the source of that increased IQ ?
Intelligence evolved on the fly? No intelligence pre-existing before all things?

The operating system of a PC works because it was programmed to follow rules and instructions.
Who designed the rules and instructions in the DNA system ? They evolved on the fly ?

Machines can function properly only if you provide sensible data, and won't do so otherwise. And if
you enter a partial entry, it won't understand you and hence won't give you the answer.
Garbage in, garbage out. On the other hand, the human mind is different. It is intelligent enough to
understand even if you provide a partial entry, or pronounce incorrectly, or mis-spelt words.
The human mind is more than a machine, it is something evolution cannot explain.

-_- surely you recognize that not all individuals within a species are equally intelligent. And, intellect has a demonstrable genetic component. Thus, if the more intelligent beings within a species consistently have the most reproductive success, each new generation will contribute towards a trend of higher intelligence. The reason why there aren't any species that match us in intellect is due to the fact that our ancestors pushed any candidate species into extinction, and we now take up that whole niche in the food chain. Also, IQ is a measurement specifically for humans, so technically applying it to any other species is using it wrong. It's also a fluid number; 100 is the average IQ of people in your age group, and the standards that met that when IQ tests were first being used were notably lower than they are today. In summary, the average person today is more academically adept than people from more than 70 years ago. Most people attribute that to better education rather than any genetic change, though.

Also, it never goes from 0 to 150, the increase in intelligence is far more gradual than that would imply, and to think that our average intellect can increase to 150 means you don't understand what IQ actually measures. 100 is always the average, if the next generation is smarter, that just means that 100 represents a more intelligent population than the previous generation's IQ of 100 did.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't true, Hier. You are going here on etiehr-or thinking. Either the Bible is all inerrant or it's all errant and useless. Such either-or thinking is irrational. Actually, it plays a major role in neuroses. But that is another story. The rational way to look at things is to realize that reality is often a shade of grey. A great concert can have wrong note in it and yet still be a great concert. Most great concerts do contain all sorts of bloopers, by the way. Either-or thinking is simply unrealistic.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Snowflakes aren't designed. They are formed naturally and it is well understood how this process works.

It happens when a tiny dust or pollen particle comes into contact with water vapor and freezes into a tiny crystal of ice.

The design follow the form or the structure. Why do animals have spots or stripes, because each hair is a different color and the patter follows the way the DNA works to give each hair a different color or pigment. In some animals there can be up to 40 different colors. But the pattern follows the way the DNA colors each one a different color.

"Form follows function is a principle associated with modernist architecture and industrial design in the 20th century. The principle is that the shape of a building or object should be primarily based upon its intended function or purpose." wiki

"Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law. Where function does not change, form does not change. The granite rocks, the ever-brooding hills, remain for ages; the lightning lives, comes into shape, and dies, in a twinkling.
It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function.This is the law."[3] wiki

 

[joshua 1 9]

Furthermore, you can go visit car factories where they are produced by humans.

Not in American where they are built by robots. Machines that build machines. The machines just grind up the humans and spit them out, at least according to charlie chapman.