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

[juvenissun]

wolf didn't evolve into dog, man selectively bred dogs.

But any way... intelligence is just like any other trait, it evolves if it is beneficial within it's environment.

What species and which environment can not use more intelligence?
Do you see the advance of intelligence on any animals?
if not, why does it happen on human so fast?

 

[Armoured]

What species and which environment can not use more intelligence?

any environment when the cost of supporting a big brain outweighs the benefits

Do you see the advance of intelligence on any animals?
if not, why does it happen on human so fast?

what do you mean "so fast"?

 

[juvenissun]

Okay, then please show how this counts as evidence. i.e.:

P1: The Sky exists
P2: ...
...
C: There is evidence that God exists

If you do not want a logic proof, then it is easy:

The universe (sky) exists.
We do not know where does the universe come from.
So, God create the universe.

Don't take this a a proof. It is only an evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

any environment when the cost of supporting a big brain outweighs the benefits what do you mean "so fast"?

I guess you don't have a better argument to say.

 

[KWCrazy]

WHEN MATTER emerges from nothingness, sometimes it occurs right at the Schwartzchild radius, half gets pulled into the black hole, half goes out into the universe.

Stellar black holes form when the center of a very massive star collapses in upon itself. This collapse also causes a supernova, or an exploding star, that blasts part of the star into space. Black holes, then, aren't nothingness, but extremely dense concentrations of matter and energy. Matter does not emerge from nothingness. Matter can only be converted from existing energy.

 

[The Cadet]

If you do not want a logic proof, then it is easy:

The universe (sky) exists.
We do not know where does the universe come from.
So, God create the universe.

Don't take this a a proof. It is only an evidence.

Non sequitur. Not knowing where something comes from does not provide evidence that it came from a specific source. We used to not know where lightning came from, was that good evidence of Thor?

 

[Armoured]

I guess you don't have a better argument to say.

Better argument than WHAT? You put a large brained two year old human, and a stupid small brained two year old gazelle in a paddock with hungry lions, and then try to tell me the creature with the head so big it can barely move by itself is better suited to that environment.

Penguins aren't smart birds, but put a naked penguin and a naked human in the Antarctic wilderness, and see who lasts longer. There's any number of examples.

Intelligence is very useful in many environments , but don't make the mistake of thinking it is some sort of "super trait " that is superior to all others in all contexts.

 

[Armoured]

Stellar black holes form when the center of a very massive star collapses in upon itself. This collapse also causes a supernova, or an exploding star, that blasts part of the star into space. Black holes, then, aren't nothingness, but extremely dense concentrations of matter and energy. Matter does not emerge from nothingness. Matter can only be converted from existing energy.

I know what black holes are. And what you are saying is outdated. Matter DOES emerge from nothingness. Around black holes is where we can observe it, because everywhere else, it annihilates with its coproduced antimatter instantly. Seriously. Look it up. I'm not making it up.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here is the pitfall. Evidence is not a proof. Many people, include you in this case, are confused about it.
This is another reason I do not like to use the word "evidence".

I'd say the word proof gets misused worse. But yes, science doesn't prove, as its conclusions always have a chance of being wrong. However, science can disprove, and just because there is a chance that any given theory could be wrong doesn't mean that one's personal position has a chance of being right, or that assuming the theory is garbage for the chance of being wrong is justified.

 

[46AND2]

Iḿ not sure what you're referring to, other that what i mentioned.
Evidence actually shows there are only a few things under debate, which do not even change the message.
I mean, sure, you can raise doubts about things, but you'll have to substantiate it.

It doesn't matter if it is "only a few things" or whether they "do not even change the message." The point is that they are not corrected, but left in there...besides the point that what you say is not even true. There are DOZENS of examples, and some DO change the doctrine.

 

[USincognito]

The sad fact is, the best arguments for evolution are based on reasoning so faulty the average "expert" can be disproved with a 7th grade science book.

Yeah, that's not a fact. It might seem that way to Creationists because most of them only have a middle school understanding of science, but it's really not the case.

People accept evolution because they don't know better.[\quote]
Oh the irony. The truth is just the opposite. People reject evolution because of their ignorance and scientific illiteracy.

Scientists accept it because they know that the only alternative is a Creator; that plus it's ingrained into them through years of teachers saying that it's true.

Tin foil hatted fantasy on your part.

 

[USincognito]

What species and which environment can not use more intelligence?

Bacteria, jellyfish, nematodes, etc get along just fine without intelligence. And have done so for millions to billions of years longer than humans or dogs.

 

[juvenissun]

Non sequitur. Not knowing where something comes from does not provide evidence that it came from a specific source. We used to not know where lightning came from, was that good evidence of Thor?

Yes, it WAS.

 

[juvenissun]

Bacteria, jellyfish, nematodes, etc get along just fine without intelligence. And have done so for millions to billions of years longer than humans or dogs.

An intelligent jellyfish ! Imagine that.

 

[juvenissun]

I'd say the word proof gets misused worse. But yes, science doesn't prove, as its conclusions always have a chance of being wrong. However, science can disprove, and just because there is a chance that any given theory could be wrong doesn't mean that one's personal position has a chance of being right, or that assuming the theory is garbage for the chance of being wrong is justified.

Of course, science tried very hard to prove.

 

[Chris B]

Exactly. If that's how nature behaves, then nature will follow those laws.

You're talking about the bonding and unbonding of subatomic particles too small to be affected by gravity. They don't pop out of existence. They become too small to be detected. They still exist.

Sorry, that's not right.
Research transient or virtual particles.
("virtual" is rather a misnomer as a name, but they've got stuck with it)

One possibility (of several) still viable the last time i looked is that the universe does indeed have a zero-sum energy.
That allows plenty of work to be done because all that requires is an uneven distribution of energy.
Increasing entropy does not mean energy disappearing, but energy becoming more evenly distributed, nd more unavailable to do work.

 

[Chris B]

science is just something some people throw around to help support their favorite pastime of coming to religious forums and attacking the religious beliefs of others.

Science is just that? Nothing else?
Wow.
All that research, all that technology.
The development of the Giant Hadron Collider.
The whole of quantum mechanics, hydrodynamics...
Just to help some people attack religious beliefs.

Wow.

 

[Chris B]

re:
"Chris B said: ↑
Now how could they do that, since the laws of physics as we know them are *derived* from observation of how nature behaves?"
Exactly. If that's how nature behaves, then nature will follow those laws.

To the extent we have identified the laws correctly, under all conditions.
In the last 100 years we have repeatedly discovered that what we had down as "laws" wasn't quite good enough under exceptional or extreme conditions that we did not commonly encounter.

Newtonian laws of motion don't hold when velocity becomes a significant fraction of the speed of light.
The nice and predictable effect of the law of gravity doesn't correctly predict the movement of distant galaxies.
The nice law which had been derived for the radiation from a black body was found to be an excellent fit for a range of wavelengths, and then go disastrously wrong in the ultraviolet. "The ultraviolet catastrophe" it was known as, and it became one of the first clues that new laws needed formulation to account for what the universe was doing where we previously has not looked in detail.
The laws we have are only human things, with no authority or perfection beyond their consistency with behaviour observed up until now.
The three laws of thermodynamics work incredibly well within their known constraints.
But to say that makes an exception (under conditions not yet observed) "impossible" is as valid as saying the Laws of Motion (Newton's) make relativistic effects "impossible".

I suggest you are holding the wrong end of the stick.
It's the "laws" that may have to move, or be amended, or be given limited areas of application...
Nature isn't bound by the laws we've managed to work out if they happen to be "good but not perfect"
Which we've had repeated evidence of happening.
I can think of at least three more examples of "laws broken by nature". Make that four.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Of course, science tried very hard to prove.

No, it was never intended to do that.

 

[Armoured]

An intelligent jellyfish ! Imagine that.

THat was the exact opposite of what he said. You asked "what doesn't need more intelligence? " Jelly fish is an answer to your question. Indeed, in some models, they are ready to become the dominant phylum on the planet. With no intelligence at all. Bacteria, too.