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

[The Cadet]

I'm looking for solid evidence against the theory of evolution, logical science backed explanations about the appearance of humankind that puts major holes in the theory of evolution, OTHER THAN the Bible says so...

Anyone have any?

...You'd do about as well starting a thread looking for solid evidence against germ theory, the theory of gravity or the atomic theory. Except that we actually understand evolution better than we understand gravity (seriously, once you hit the quantum mechanical level things get really weird).

Spoiler: Just for laughs

Evolution is the unifying theory of biology. As the evangelical christian Theodore Dobzhanski so famously wrote, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (the link is to a reading of his writing on the subject; I recommend it highly). Evolutionary theory has been used to help treat HIV and other diseases, to predict where we can find the fossils of a "missing link", and to link countless seemingly-disparate fields together and further our understanding. If there were good evidence against evolution, it would not be taught in schools and universities across the developed world, and its main opponent would be a competing scientific theory, not an unfalsifiable religious doctrine. You're looking for something that doesn't exist.

 

[Hieronymus]

previous

Your signature says God hates hypocrisy.
Jesus would be a hypocrite when He affirms Scripture, including Genesis, which He did, and evolution was true.

 

[The Cadet]

Yes, but not in one short, simple, layman's terms sentence of specifically how our DNA doesn't jive with the theory of evolution, or one short simple answer of the greatest evidence against evolution...

I'm a simple man, and I need short, simple answers...

Could you just tell us again, in one short paragraph, or sentence?

He thinks that naturalistic explanations cannot explain the origins of DNA. Even if they were unable to currently, this is not evidence that they will not be able to in the future, and would have very little to do with evolution - once an imperfectly-self-replicating molecule is present, evolution can and does explain the arising complexity. If you're looking for a complex explanation from him, save your breath - he doesn't have one. The whole argument basically comes down to "It's impossible because... uh... reasons, I guess?"

 

[The Cadet]

Your signature says God hates hypocrisy.
Jesus would be a hypocrite when He affirms Scripture, including Genesis, which He did, and evolution was true.

This, @Neogaia777 . This is the argument. This is the one, singular argument against evolution: it contradicts certain interpretations of the bible. It's not for nothing that you will almost never find a secular opponent of evolution.

 

[Neogaia777]

Your signature says God hates hypocrisy.
Jesus would be a hypocrite when He affirms Scripture, including Genesis, which He did, and evolution was true.

Not necessarily, I recently discovered a possibility in which both could be true...

 

[Hieronymus]

Not necessarily, I recently discovered a possibility in which both could be true...

It's an important part of the whole story that man was made in God's image (representative of God as a 'sapient mammal', that man fell from grace, that death was introduced by that, that the world ended up in the serpent's hands, that wickedness thrived and God judged the world with the flood, that man still didn't clean up his act, and the diaspora from Babel.
Fundamental stuff.

Who can believe this, if evolution is true?
I couldn't either, at least, not without serious doubts.
And i found ambiguous constructions too, to marry God with the naturalistic ideas.
Yes, it can be kind of done, but it's problematic.
Well you found that out yourself, so you opened this topic.

But then i was made aware of the problems of naturalism, and the lack of explanatory power of it.
Don't be fooled by the loudness of naturalism.
Yes, ToE may be the only scientific theory for the origins of man, but they ignore the possibility of a Creator.
So does this say anything about God?
No, because they ignore the possibility.
They HAVE TO ascribe the origins of man to dead unconscious causes.
Do you HAVE TO ascribe our origins to dead unconscious things?
NO, because God is alive and conscious.
If He wasn't, there would be no point in being a Christian.

So what withholds you to acknowledge God did it?
You don't have to answer me that, but you open this topic from a crisis in your faith.
Well, of course you will be in a crisis when you look at God through naturalistic glasses, because through naturalistic glasses, God is not visible.
There's a baby in the bath water. Don't throw it out.

 

[Hoghead1]

But that does seem what it is like, Hier.

 

[Neogaia777]

It's an important part of the whole story that man was made in God's image (representative of God as a 'sapient mammal', that man fell from grace, that death was introduced by that, that the world ended up in the serpent's hands, that wickedness thrived and God judged the world with the flood, that man still didn't clean up his act, and the diaspora from Babel.
Fundamental stuff.

Who can believe this, if evolution is true?
I couldn't either, at least, not without serious doubts.
And i found ambiguous constructions too, to marry God with the naturalistic ideas.
Yes, it can be kind of done, but it's problematic.
Well you found that out yourself, so you opened this topic.

But then i was made aware of the problems of naturalism, and the lack of explanatory power of it.
Don't be fooled by the loudness of naturalism.
Yes, ToE may be the only scientific theory for the origins of man, but they ignore the possibility of a Creator.
So does this say anything about God?
No, because they ignore the possibility.
They HAVE TO ascribe the origins of man to dead unconscious causes.
Do you HAVE TO ascribe our origins to dead unconscious things?
NO, because God is alive and conscious.
If He wasn't, there would be no point in being a Christian.

So what withholds you to acknowledge God did it?

I don't, I am in fact a person who has seen and heard and have personal proof of God... But I also see logic to the ToE, and sometimes the only way to fight logic, if you can't convince them of the supernatural, can only be fought with opposing logic, and that's what I'm looking for...

You don't have to answer me that, but you open this topic from a crisis in your faith.

Quite the opposite, I came here to strengthen my faith to the point where it is 100% sure, and I'm almost there (I think anyway)

Great words by way,

God Bless!

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't, I am in fact a person who has seen and heard and have personal proof of God... But I also see logic to the ToE, and sometimes the only way to fight logic, if you can't convince them of the supernatural, can only be fought with opposing logic, and that's what I'm looking for...

Fight the logical with the theological!

 

[Cearbhall]

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

Interesting question. I'm trying to think of one, but they all seem to come back around and work in favor of the theory of evolution. For example, one could argue that evolution isn't very efficient and makes a lot of "mistakes," but doesn't that just suggest that it's all natural and that no one is running the show?

 

[bhsmte]

Fight the logical with the theological!

Some do AV, some do.

 

[The Cadet]

But then i was made aware of the problems of naturalism, and the lack of explanatory power of it.

What is naturalism unable to explain? What demonstrably existing thing can naturalism not explain?

See, here's the paradox with complaining about how "limited" naturalism is. Once you try to step outside the naturalistic paradigm, you need new ways of determining whether or not things are real. You need to figure out what is real and what is simply conjecture. Within naturalism, we have a very good mechanism for this - the scientific method and empricism. But outside of naturalism, that falls apart. So if you think naturalism lacks explanatory power... What are you replacing it with? What epistemology are you using?

 

[SteveB28]

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.

And, if they are wise, they will recognise errors and shift their position to account for them. Most courts, for example used to consider capital punishment a right and proper thing. In most places around the world, it has been realised that such an approach was wrong and brought little benefit. So they changed. It is only in the backward, barbaric regions that we still see this outmoded practice.

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.

ALL of science is a process of observing phenomena, offering tentative explanations, attempting to falsify those explanations and then modifying them if required.
The whole purpose of the process is to 'weed out' poor understanding and replace it with a better one - to replace gaps of ignorance with improved knowledge. This has applied equally to evolutionary theory as much as it has to any other field of study.

In 150 years of this process, however, the basic tenets of evolutionary theory have never been falsified.

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.

ALL scientific theories are "fallible", in that they are ALL capable of being falsified. In stark contrast with your own philosophy.

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.

Meaningless, empty rhetoric.

 

[SteveB28]

Perhaps I'm just simple minded but it would seem to me that if a man claimed to come from God, claimed that he would die and then rise again, and then died and rose again then this would challenge the idea that there is no God who interacts with the natural world. Is that silly?

Men have claimed lots of things. So what?

 

[SteveB28]

So how does it feel?

Then iḿ going to explain why it is foolish to compare gravity with evolution.

Evolution is said to be the cause of speciation, this is said to have happened in the distant past.
It is not supported by evidence. It is a well established fact in biology that organisms have the ability to adapt to their environment, but there is no evidence in support of changing into a new kind of organism, adapting the DNA code to implement new features, which were previously not present in the DNA code.
In short: no evidence for Darwinian Evolution.
The fossils don't support it either, even though they have us believe they do support it.

Gravity is an every day reality, a force that can be demonstrated, measured, experienced, you can calculate it, it is also a premise for life on earth by the way.

But, why does gravity do what it does? That's where a theory steps in. From that point of view, evolutionary theory has greater explanatory power than does gravitational theory.

 

[Moreso]

I don't, I am in fact a person who has seen and heard and have personal proof of God...

You mean you believe you have.

But I also see logic to the ToE, and sometimes the only way to fight logic, if you can't convince them of the supernatural, can only be fought with opposing logic, and that's what I'm looking for...

The supernatural does not exist it's a cop out, it's used when reality stops some people from believing what they want to believe.

Quite the opposite, I came here to strengthen my faith to the point where it is 100% sure, and I'm almost there (I think anyway)

Faith is only used when there is no evidence, the amount of faith required is directly proportional to the need to believe,
the greater the need the stronger the faith.

 

[Jimmy D]

Your signature says God hates hypocrisy.
Jesus would be a hypocrite when He affirms Scripture, including Genesis, which He did, and evolution was true.

Is it not hypocritical to accuse people of hoaxes (i.e fraudulent behavior) when it's not true? Is it not hypocritical to continue with that behavior when you're shown to be in error?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

It seems you have no idea what PE is about.
Under PE, evolution is still just as gradual.

PE states that as long as the environment remains stable, species remain stable.
When the environment changes, speciation accelerates, since selection pressures change drastically.

At no point does evolution stop being gradual in this process.

It's always the same with creationists.... they argue against biology like madmen, but they have very little knowledge about the models they are arguing against.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

It doesn't actually matter. Under PE, the evolutionary process is just as gradual.
Cats don't product dogs. Every newborn is of the same species as its direct parents.

Under PE, speciation is simply slowed down in periods of environmental stability, while it accelerates in periods of instability.

The underlying process that makes it happen stays the exact same: Gradual change over generations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

And you can repeat that claim another quadrillion times. It won't make it true.

So if you actually want to have a conversation about what they put into the Biology book then we can do that.

Before any such conversation can take place, you're actually going to have to inform yourself on biology. Because with every post, you show that you have very little knowledge of the evolutionary model.

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,

The only controversy in biological evolution, exists in the minds of the fundamentalist religious. In scientific circles, there is no such controversy at all.