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

[DogmaHunter]

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

You mean, besides the fact that every single newborn comes with a set of mutations that is inherited by off spring and which can be harmful, neutral or beneficial?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok but the point was that: "There are questions on which modern biologists would disagree with Darwin"

Duh. Obviously.... Darwin didn't even know about DNA.
Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. You are aware that he came up with Natural Selection some 200 years ago, right?

Newton, the father of gravity, was also wrong about a lot of things.
You are surprised by this?

Because it looks like they are admitting that there was a lot that Darwin did not get right.

Yep, just like Newton was wrong about a lot of things.
Why is that a problem?

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

Hi Joshua 1 9

Can I ask you if you accept the TOE and common descent? Would it be correct to say that you accept some type of theistic evolution? I only ask because I'm not sure on your position.

Thanks

 

[joshua 1 9]

You mean, besides the fact that every single newborn comes with a set of mutations that is inherited by off spring and which can be harmful, neutral or beneficial?

The vast, vast, vast majority are neutral or harmful. So the preponderance of the evidence is against "evolution" if that is what you want to use for evidence.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why is that a problem?

The problem is that you were spreading mis information because you said that evolution is a gradual process, then after I pointed out punctuated equilibrium you changed your mind and decided that the gradualism argument is obsolete and outdated. So actually your making my point for me.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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

You can deny it a quadrillion times and that will not make it untrue. But in general if you repeat something enough people will believe it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It seems you have no idea what PE is about.

Nobody does, if science did understand it we would not be having this conversation. We know that the climate and environmental conditions change. This causes a mass extinction followed by a population explosion or a evolutionary radiation. Far to often we can observe the effect but we do not clearly understand the cause. So this is going to create a lot of speculation as to just what the exact cause really is.

 

[Hieronymus]

We know that the climate and environmental conditions change. This causes a mass extinction followed by a population explosion or a evolutionary radiation.

It is a well established fact in biology that organisms can adapt to their environment, it s sometimes referred to as "micro-evolution", which is not accurate, because it doesn't involve mutations.
Sure, species can go extinct or be decimated.

 

[Picky Picky]

You can deny it a quadrillion times and that will not make it untrue. But in general if you repeat something enough people will believe it.

Although your quote from Wm James says the opposite ...

 

[DogmaHunter]

The vast, vast, vast majority are neutral or harmful. So the preponderance of the evidence is against "evolution" if that is what you want to use for evidence.

In a process like evolution, as long as some are beneficial, evolution happens.

More ignorance on your part it seems.

Neutral ones, by definition, are neutral.
Harmful ones are quickly removed from the genepool.
Beneficial ones are selected for and spread in the genepool.

 

[Tree of Life]

Men have claimed lots of things. So what?

You're right. Maybe Jesus' resurrection was just a lucky guess on his part. There's probably not much more to it than that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem is that you were spreading mis information because you said that evolution is a gradual process

It IS a gradual process.

, then after I pointed out punctuated equilibrium you changed your mind and decided that the gradualism argument is obsolete and outdated.

Where have I said this?
It seems you are imagining things. You are free to quote me, where I said this. Good luck with that.

What I actually said, is the PE is just as gradual. PE is a submodel of evolution theory.
And it is more about the environment then anything else.

To repeat myself, PE states that speciation slows down when the environment is stable, while it speeds up when the environment is changed radically. Which is perfectly sensible, since a changing environment changes selection pressures.

The process by which speciation happens, remains unchanged: mutation + selection.
From one generation to the next. Gradually.

So actually your making my point for me.

Only in your imagination, it seems.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can deny it a quadrillion times and that will not make it untrue.

Fortunatly for me, the burden of proof is on you for your own claims.

But in general if you repeat something enough people will believe it.

Yep. As demonstrated by creationists.
In reasonable discussion though, evidence is required.

 

[joshua 1 9]

In a process like evolution, as long as some are beneficial, evolution happens.

The evidence for me that some are beneficial is very inconclusive. You have failed to meet your burdon of proof.

More ignorance on your part it seems.

This statement is a blatant violation of the rules.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nobody does, if science did understand it we would not be having this conversation.

Nope, it's just you that doesn't get it.
PE is a pretty worked out model in the actual field of biology.

I explained it in a nutshell as well. Apparantly you skipped over that part. Unsurprisingly.

We know that the climate and environmental conditions change.

From time to time. PE is about rather sudden changes.

This causes a mass extinction followed by a population explosion or a evolutionary radiation.

Yep. Radically changing selection pressures, which accelerates the process of speciation. Not overall mutation rates or how mutations are inherited by off spring. Those processes stay the same. That is to say, they stay gradual processes.

Far to often we can observe the effect but we do not clearly understand the cause. So this is going to create a lot of speculation as to just what the exact cause really is.

Your ignorance on the matter is not an argument against it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Itis awell established fact in biology that organisms can adapt to their environment

Tell me, how does the process of adaption work?

, it s sometimes referred to as "micro-evolution"

... by creationists, to make it seem as if the process is somehow different from "macro-evolution". In actual biology, it's just evolution. The exact same processes are at play. The only difference is the amount of relative generations and amount of accumulated changes.

, which is not accurate, because it doesn't involve mutations.

It does.

Sure, species can go extinct or be decimated.

Or speciate further. Or simply survive and remain more or less the same.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The evidence for me that some are beneficial is very inconclusive.

Perhaps that is just because you get your information from creationist sources.

You have failed to meet your burdon of proof.

What burden of proof? You yourself acknowledged in your post that some mutations are beneficial, by stating that "the vast majority are neutral or harmful". That implies that you acknowledge that (at least) a minority is beneficial.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

See point 2 for a few examples:

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:

• Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
• Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
• Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
• A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
• Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
• In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

This statement is a blatant violation of the rules.

What rules?
If you demonstrate to be ignorant on a topic, am I not allowed to say so?

 

[bhsmte]

You're right. Maybe Jesus' resurrection was just a lucky guess on his part. There's probably not much more to it than that.

Or maybe just a story they wanted to believe in.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not that poster, but I claim DNA may have been straight prior to the Fall.

Today it's a twisted helix.

Thus our world is in the twisted shape it's in now.

(Just a pet theory of mine. )

That would require a complete change in the laws of physics, changes that would kill all life as we know it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W
Browse my playlist some time.

This is a discussion thread, not a recommended viewing thread.