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

[juvenissun]

What kind of life form would you need to show up for you to believe it happens?

Animals. Such as fish, bird, beast, etc. A new form gradually showed up in the wild. Fossils not counted.

 

[juvenissun]

Drastically different, how?

Your two video clips in signature demonstrated it.

 

[Armoured]

Animals. Such as fish, bird, beast, etc. A new form gradually showed up in the wild. Fossils not counted.

New forms do gradually show up in the wild. All the time.

 

[Armoured]

Your two video clips in signature demonstrated it.

In your own words? If you understand your argument?

 

[Larniavc]

Animals. Such as fish, bird, beast, etc. A new form gradually showed up in the wild. Fossils not counted.

How can it be shown gradually if fossils are not used?

 

[juvenissun]

How can it be shown gradually if fossils are not used?

THAT is the problem of evolution.
But, for human evolution(?), that is only a minor problem. If there is a set of skeletons looks like life forms between monkey and human, where and how do you make a cut to separate? A smooth transition does not work in this case. It must be an abrupt and quick change.

 

[Neogaia777]

"The nail in the coffin that was the lynchpin"

What's that supposed to mean? That gives me nothing, do you not know?

God Bless!

 

[Armoured]

THAT is the problem of evolution.
But, for human evolution(?), that is only a minor problem. If there is a set of skeletons looks like life forms between monkey and human, where and how do you make a cut to separate? A smooth transition does not work in this case. It must be an abrupt and quick change.

Why?

 

[juvenissun]

Why?

Why what?

 

[Armoured]

Why what?

Why can't humans evolve gradually?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yeah, convincing point bro.
God bless you.

Science as a field does not accept frauds, including those that support the mainstream, well-accepted theories. Fossils are impossible to fake so well that no procedure will reveal the fake, and the fossils are not accepted until all the possible testing has been done. I will walk you through her skeleton, which was the first of many fossils of that species found.

this is her skeleton. As you can see, we have more than a complete half of her hip as well as the bone that connects to that joint.This is all the bones necessary to determine how the creature walked.
Now, here is a side by side comparison of a recreation of her hip and that of a modern chimpanzee

as you can see, her hip is very different than that of a chimpanzee, or any other non human ape species for that matter. However, it does greatly resemble a human hip, such as in this link (sorry, the pictures are beginning to take up a lot of room) http://shs2.westport.k12.ct.us/fore...orensic_skeletons/human_asian_male_pelvis.jpg
Now, given that Lucy's skull is nearly gone, with only part of a jaw and some fragments of cranium left, I wish to draw your attention to a skull from the same species http://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/photos/000/184/18459.adapt.768.1.jpg , least you want to argue that Lucy's remains are human. Here's a chimpanzee skull, so you know it isn't that either https://www.connecticutvalleybiological.com/system/html/sp2003-953d4cc1-a25c50dc.jpg Notice how much more elongated the chimp skull is to that of Lucy's species, yet compared to a human skull, her's is quite slanted and elongated. http://www.skullsunlimited.com/userfiles/image/category3_family_227_large.jpg

 

[Neogaia777]

Funny thing is that the "they" you speak of relating to what has been told to me, are Christian Biblical scholars. There's even a term for it: interpolations. And yes, there is a ton of evidence for it. Here is a start:

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

Some verses have been removed from some Bible translations, and remain in others. Some translations do not remove any of them at all.

Yes, in denominational churches, non-demnominational people use Bibles that include them all usually, that does not say anything about the authenticity of the writings...

 

[Herman Hedning]

Google hits are not evidence.
Google "Harry Potter" for example.

Hits on Google Scholar do indicate how often a subject gets treated in the scientific community. As for Harry Potter, yes of course there are hits on Google Scholar too. Some of them for publications authored by, for example, "Harry Potter", "Harry M. Potter", "Harry W. Potter Jr.", but most of them concerning interesting topics such as "A goblin or a dirty nose? The treatment of culture-specific references in translations of the Harry Potter books", "Harry Potter and international relations", "Marketing for Muggles: The Harry Potter way to higher profits".

 

[Larniavc]

THAT is the problem of evolution.
But, for human evolution(?), that is only a minor problem. If there is a set of skeletons looks like life forms between monkey and human, where and how do you make a cut to separate? A smooth transition does not work in this case. It must be an abrupt and quick change.

No. That is a problem for people who regect evidence and then say 'Look! No evidence!'

 

[46AND2]

Yes, in denominational churches, non-demnominational people use Bibles that include them all usually, that does not say anything about the authenticity of the writings...

I'm speaking specifically about verses which are known to be interpolations (supplemental verses added much later--decades and centuries later--by scribes). You think it is a good thing that a particular version of the Bible would include all of those?

 

[Hieronymus]

Science as a field does not accept frauds, including those that support the mainstream, well-accepted theories.

Yes, in an ideal world, science would be based solely on facts.
But it's a human endeavour, mistakes are made, in most fields of science.
Especially when you have an axe to grind or an assumption to prove.

It's a little hard though, to be sure certain parts found actually belong to the same organism, when the individual bones were scattered and incomplete (fragmentation).
So in case of Lucy, the actual fossils are not the hoax, although there are doubts the bones are from the same organism, but the artist's rendition, with human feet, is nothing more than an educated guess.
This is how it is a hoax, because it (Lucy as a reconstructed hominid) is presented as factual and scientific, purported to be a missing link between man and ape,within the paradigm of an ambiguous 19th century conjecture (Darwinism), but it is just a suggestion, an interpretation of the collection of strewn bones gathered.
Australopithecines are a group of extinct apes closely related to modern chimpanzees and orangutans.
Further studies of Lucy seem to indicate she was probably a 'knuckle-dragger'

The reconstructed pelvis does look compelling though, i must admit that.
But, since there is no evidence to support DNA codes itself to obtain positive development needed to get form Lucy to man, or from any 'hominid' to man, we can conclude Australopithecines simply went extinct.

However, i can see why people are convinced by such fossil interpretations.
Also because it is backed up by the large opinionmakers of the world.

I will stop calling Lucy a hoax though, because jumping to conclusions and making assumptions is not what a hoax is.

some reference:
http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Sci...archers-Lucy-is-not-direct-ancestor-of-humans

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm speaking specifically about verses which are known to be interpolations (supplemental verses added much later--decades and centuries later--by scribes).

a couple of verses are under debate, as they are missing in certain codices.
I guess that's what youŕe referring to.

 

[Hieronymus]

oops quoted myself...

 

[Hieronymus]

...and again...

 

[Hieronymus]

No. That is a problem for people who reject evidence and then say 'Look! No evidence!'

You mean atheists?