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

[Armoured]

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.

Darwin did very well with the information he had, but no modern biologist works with his theory as he wrote it. Science advances as new information is discovered.

That doesn't make Darwin wrong, it just makes his conclusions less refined than what we have today.

Jumbo jets don't mean the Wright brothers were wrong.

 

[Hieronymus]

More "obvious reasons " you can't or won't elaborate on?

I assume everyone who is familiar with the topic gets why.

Come on, we're still all waiting for your evidence of Lucy being a forgery, don't get distracted.

Google "Lucy hoax".
You'll see the feet (and therefore the posture) are fantasy.
Bye!

 

[joshua 1 9]

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.

I am 64 years now and I am on my third doctor. It happens quite often that the new doctor does not agree with my old doctor. I hear a lot of: they use to do things that way, they use to believe that but we do things different now.

 

[Hieronymus]

Less ridiculous than saying "ridiculous statement" without commentary.

For you, apparently.
And don;t forget the ridiculous statement itself wasn't explained or substantiated either.

 

[sfs]

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.

Of course there was a lot that Darwin did not get right. He was thoroughly wrong about inheritance, for example. That doesn't change the fact that he got the core ideas -- common descent and natural selection -- right, along with many subsidiary ones. We still have jobs because science isn't done yet.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Darwin did very well with the information he had, but no modern biologist works with his theory as he wrote it. Science advances as new information is discovered.

There must be a reason that people are still reading his books. The vast majority of people are forgotten within 100 years and there is no remembrance of them anywhere.

 

[Hieronymus]

the default apologetics...

Look, it should be clear by now that popular science is naturalistic.
No room for intelligent influence in that worldview, you see.
This does not at all mean science can therefore dismiss theism etcetera, it only means it's outside their paradigm.


Hmm...Sloppy worthing by me there, but no time now, sorry...
Hope you get the gist though.

 

[Armoured]

There must be a reason that people are still reading his books. The vast majority of people are forgotten within 100 years and there is no remembrance of them anywhere.

Same reason people still read Newton, Galileo, Plato and Aristotle.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Of course there was a lot that Darwin did not get right. He was thoroughly wrong about inheritance, for example. That doesn't change the fact that he got the core ideas -- common descent and natural selection -- right, along with many subsidiary ones. We still have jobs because science isn't done yet.

There are just as many things today that Science does not get right, just like there were a lot of things they did not get right 100 years ago. So we have every right to be very careful with what science tells us because our life may depend on following though to make sure the advice they give us is valid. Look at the situation with the food supply. There is a lot of processed food out there that is killing us and when it comes to science it is difficult to know who to listen to and who to believe.

 

[sfs]

I assume everyone who is familiar with the topic gets why.

Bad assumption. I'm very familiar with the topic, and your statement struck me as patently false. So why not offer an explanation?

 

[Armoured]

There are just as many things today that Science does not get right, just like there were a lot of things they did not get right 100 years ago. So we have every right to be very careful with what science tells us because our life may depend on following though to make sure the advice they give us is valid. Look at the situation with the food supply. There is a lot of processed food out there that is killing us and when it comes to science it is difficult to know who to listen to and who to believe.

No 9ne is zaying science gets everything 100% right. But the chances of a MAJOR upset like Evolutionary theory being completely wrong is vanishingly unlikely. Some of the details as we understand it today are definitely wrong, statistically speaking. That doesn't make the whole thing invalid.

 

[Jimmy D]

I assume everyone who is familiar with the topic gets why.Google "Lucy hoax".
You'll see the feet (and therefore the posture) are fantasy.
Bye!

You don't know do you? I doubt we'll get any explanation of why "Punctuated equilibrianism is just another nail in the coffin for Darwinism" either.

It seems like post these things you've heard on Creationist videos with very little understanding of the subject.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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

Mass extinctions are very much a part of Evolutionary theory and the last mass extinction took place around 12970 years ago when the ice age came to an end and global warming began. For example here is a drawing of ice age Flordia, current Flordia and the further Flordia. In the city of Miami they just changed the building codes to where people are required to build 36 inches higher then what the codes required last year. What is now coral refs use to be land.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No 9ne is zaying science gets everything 100% right. But the chances of a MAJOR upset like Evolutionary theory being completely wrong is vanishingly unlikely. Some of the details as we understand it today are definitely wrong, statistically speaking. That doesn't make the whole thing invalid.

Again my point was that I have no problem with what finds it's way into the text books. But I have just as much of a right as anyone to join the discussion as to what should be in the text books and what should not be in the text books. I realize Catholics have all their own schools but their students are still required to take the state testing and some people consider it to be important that the students do good on those tests.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

I assume everyone who is familiar with the topic gets why.Google "Lucy hoax".
You'll see the feet (and therefore the posture) are fantasy.
Bye!

Googled it (even though that's your job), and there was nothing about Lucy being a hoax from any reputable site--just some junk from Freepers and Forerunner. Didn't see anything at all about her feet, but her knees and spine show pretty clearly that she walked upright.

 

[Loudmouth]

I assume everyone who is familiar with the topic gets why.Google "Lucy hoax".
You'll see the feet (and therefore the posture) are fantasy.
Bye!

Here is a picture of 4 pelvises from human, Lucy, Ardipithicus, and chimp. Notice how Lucy's pelvis is much more like a human pelvis than a chimp pelvis. Lucy's pelvis was adapted for bipedal locomotion.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Punctuated equilibrium IS evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The topic is the evidence against the theory of evolution, not Darwin.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

So how do you explain humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor, and the differences seen between their genomes?

 

[Loudmouth]

What exactly are creationists claiming is a hoax as it pertains to this fossil (i.e. Lucy)?