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

[joshua 1 9]

Yes you did, right here. This is YOU saying it.

Given your post has No Citations, that's YOU Saying it.

Wow really you have never heard it said that there are no two snowflakes that are alike? That is just common knowledge if it's accurate or not. Do you live in Texas or something where they almost never even heard of snow? Anyways now you know that I am not the one saying it. So you can do a google search and check into it for yourself. Just so you know for future reference. When I run a google search I look to see who is talking. So in this case National Geographic and the Washington Post are at the top of the list of organizations that say no two snow flakes are alike. I consider them to know what they are talking about. Often I look to see what the Universities have to say about it. While this does not make it true it does indicate what they (science) is teaching our students.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Evolution is a gradual process.

I see you are spreading more misinformation. Actually in the gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium discussion punctuated equilibrium seems to be winning out over your claim that evolution is a gradual process. Darwin got gradualism from the father of geology Charles Lyell. This was an argument in the catastrophism vs uniformitarianism debate. What works for Geology may not apply to Biology.

 

[joshua 1 9]

From desperation into total irrelevance.

If that is your strategy you can give it a shot to see if you can get it to work for you.

 

[Armoured]

Wow really you have never heard it said that there are no two snowflakes that are alike? That is just common knowledge if it's accurate or not. Do you live in Texas or something where they almost never even heard of snow? Anyways now you know that I am not the one saying it. So you can do a google search and check into it for yourself. Just so you know for future reference. When I run a google search I look to see who is talking. So in this case National Geographic and the Washington Post are at the top of the list of organizations that say no two snow flakes are alike. I consider them to know what they are talking about. Often I look to see what the Universities have to say about it. While this does not make it true it does indicate what they (science) is teaching our students.

No ones debating that no two snowflakes are alike. As usual, you have grabbed the wrong bit of the argument. Show that no two snowflakes being alike implies design.

 

[Armoured]

I see you are spreading more misinformation. Actually in the gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium discussion punctuated equilibrium seems to be winning out over your claim that evolution is a gradual process. Darwin got gradualism from the father of geology Charles Lyell. This was an argument in the catastrophism vs uniformitarianism debate. What works for Geology may not apply to Biology.

Got any citation to back up the claim that punctuated equilibrium is "winning"? And not a post about punctuation in the Origin of Species or whatever., something actually relevant? Because I'm guessing no.

 

[Hieronymus]

I see you are spreading more misinformation. Actually in the gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium discussion punctuated equilibrium seems to be winning out over your claim that evolution is a gradual process.

Punctuated equilibrianism is just another nail in the coffin for Darwinism, for obvious reasons.

 

[Armoured]

Punctuated equilibrianism is just another nail in the coffin for Darwinism, for obvious reasons.

More "obvious reasons " you can't or won't elaborate on? Come on, we're still all waiting for your evidence of Lucy being a forgery, don't get distracted.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Arguing against evolution, is basically the same as arguing against biology as a field.

There is a LOT even a HUGE amount of evolutionary speculation that has not been distinguished to be a part of the Biology book. Also fifty million, billion, quadrillion times I have said there is no conflict between Science and the Bible. So if you actually want to have a conversation about what they put into the Biology book then we can do that. How about if I make it simple for you and we use my son's high school biology book. Unit 5 Evolution: chapter 15 Darwin's Theory of Evolution, chapter 16 Evolution of Population, Chapter 17 The History of Life, Chapter 18 Classification.

Where would you like to begin? Text books tend to want to avoid controversy, so it is all pretty well hashed out by the time the information makes it into the text books that we give to our students.

 

[Hieronymus]

Got any citation to back up the claim that punctuated equilibrium is "winning"?

The fact that there's no evidence for gradual evolution doesn't leave many options, does it?

 

[Armoured]

There is a LOT even a HUGE amount of evolutionary speculation that has not been distinguished to be a part of the Biology book. Also fifty million, billion, quadrillion times I have said there is no conflict between Science and the Bible. So if you actually want to have a conversation about what they put into the Biology book then we can do that. How about if I make it simple for you and we use my son's high school biology book. Unit 5 Evolution: chapter 15 Darwin's Theory of Evolution, chapter 16 Evolution of Population, Chapter 17 The History of Life, Chapter 18 Classification.

Where would you like to begin? Text books tend to want to avoid controversy, so it is all pretty well hashed out by the time the information makes it into the text books that we give to our students.

Quote something from the book that doesn't fundamentally rest on evolution. Go ahead.

 

[Hieronymus]

Arguing against evolution, is basically the same as arguing against biology as a field.

Ridiculous statement.

 

[sfs]

I see you are spreading more misinformation. Actually in the gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium discussion punctuated equilibrium seems to be winning out over your claim that evolution is a gradual process. Darwin got gradualism from the father of geology Charles Lyell. This was an argument in the catastrophism vs uniformitarianism debate. What works for Geology may not apply to Biology.

Punctuated equilibrium is also a gradual process. There are processes in evolution that are genuinely step-like (polyploid speciation, for example), but punctuated equilibrium isn't one of them. (In fact, it's not even a process, but rather a description.)

 

[sfs]

Ridiculous statement.

Why? Evolution is the central, organizing conceptual framework for biology.

 

[sfs]

Punctuated equilibrianism is just another nail in the coffin for Darwinism, for obvious reasons.

Since punctuated equilibrium, at least as proposed by Gould and Eldredge, is fundamentally a Darwinian process, my tentative conclusion is that you're making stuff up here.

 

[Armoured]

Ridiculous statement.

Less ridiculous than saying "ridiculous statement" without commentary.

 

[Armoured]

Since punctuated equilibrium, at least as proposed by Gould and Eldredge, is fundamentally a Darwinian process, my tentative conclusion is that you're making stuff up here.

"Tentative conclusion "? More like established theory!

 

[joshua 1 9]

More "obvious reasons " you can't or won't elaborate on? Come on, we're still all waiting for your evidence of Lucy being a forgery, don't get distracted.

Evolution is not controlled by gradual changes in the DNA over time. Evolution is controlled by rapid changes in the environment. For example one theory is that the Dinosaurs 64 million years ago were knocked out by a meter when it hit the earth. This would be a very rapid change that takes place in a moment of time resulting in a mass extinction and a re population of the earth with a very small remnant that survived the extinction and was able to adapt to the new conditions.

The Bible in various verses talks about how God will preserve a remnant onto Himself. Even though Israel was driven from their land and scattered to the world a remnant returned. If you listen to what science has to say about the DNA of that remnant of Judea then you will see that they are just as pure as the Bible says they will be.

Isaiah 10:22 For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, [yet] a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.

 

[The Cadet]

Punctuated equilibrianism is just another nail in the coffin for Darwinism, for obvious reasons.

Gosh, it sure is a shame that scientific theories are completely immutable and unchanging, and that belief in evolution is based on a hardline dogmatic approach to exactly what Darwin wrote.

...Oh, wait, that's not quite right.

See, here's the thing, Hieronymus. If you ask most PhD biologists whether they believe in "Darwinism", you're not going to get some big "gotcha" by pointing out that the theory has moved on since 1859 (in fact, most of them will roll their eyes, because the only people who use that stupid term are creationists trying to make a dishonest argument). That's what science does when presented with new data - it moves forward. Punctuated equilibrium helped explain an interesting anomaly in the fossil record, and became a feature of the theory of evolution. Just like the theory worked in DNA, despite the fact that Darwin's writings never spoke of the stuff.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Punctuated equilibrium is also a gradual process. There are processes in evolution that are genuinely step-like (polyploid speciation, for example), but punctuated equilibrium isn't one of them. (In fact, it's not even a process, but rather a description.)

Ok but the point was that: "There are questions on which modern biologists would disagree with Darwin". At least that is what the text book says. So do you agree with or disagree with what the text book teaches on the subject of Evolution? Because it looks like they are admitting that there was a lot that Darwin did not get right.

 

[Armoured]

Evolution is not controlled by gradual changes in the DNA over time. Evolution is controlled by rapid changes in the environment. For example one theory is that the Dinosaurs 64 million years ago were knocked out by a meter when it hit the earth. This would be a very rapid change that takes place in a moment of time resulting in a mass extinction and a re population of the earth with a very small remnant that survived the extinction and was able to adapt to the new conditions.

The Bible in various verses talks about how God will preserve a remnant onto Himself. Even though Israel was driven from their land and scattered to the world a remnant returned. If you listen to what science has to say about the DNA of that remnant of Judea then you will see that they are just as pure as the Bible says they will be.

Isaiah 10:22 For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, [yet] a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.

Meteors and mass extinctions aren't part of evolutionary theory. Although, obviously, they free up many ecological niches for evolution to refill.