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

[Loudmouth]

So it has to be short and simple, yet it has to explain a complicated topic...I will repeat myself then:
God can, dead unconscious things can't explain the universe and living nature.

That's a claim, not evidence. The opening post asked for evidence, not empty assertions.

 

[Hieronymus]

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

This statement is a blatant violation of the rules.

It's not against the rules to say how things seem to be in your perception.
It wasn't nice though.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would require a complete change in the laws of physics,

What do you think dad and I have been talking about all these years?

... changes that would kill all life as we know it.

Well obviously we're still here, so ... no.

 

[Hieronymus]

Tell me, how does the process of adaption work?

Ask a biologist, he can explain.

 

[Hieronymus]

That's a claim, not evidence. The opening post asked for evidence, not empty assertions.

And i didn;t ask you anything.

 

[Hieronymus]

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

Then report it.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Then all we have to do is show that beneficial adaptations are due to mutations, and you will accept evolution?

 

[bhsmte]

Ask a biologist, he can explain.

Do you trust the opinion of phd biologists, on the topic of biology?

 

[Loudmouth]

What do you think dad and I have been talking about all these years?

Stuff you don't understand.

Well obviously we're still here, so ... no.

No . . . as in the laws of physics were not different in the past. The changes required for DNA to not form a double helix would prevent every protein in your body from working properly. Your bones couldn't even form. You wouldn't be able to extract oxygen from the atmosphere.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then report it.

Why can't you discuss it? Hiding it under a bushel . . . no?

 

[bhsmte]

Why can't you discuss it? Hiding it under a bushel . . . no?

He is a man of few words.

 

[Loudmouth]

He is a man of few words.

And even less evidence.

 

[Hieronymus]

Then all we have to do is show that beneficial adaptations are due to mutations, and you will accept evolution?

Maybe, but it's about implementation of the present data, not corruption of existing data that miraculously turns out to be beneficial for temporary circumstances.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe, but it's about implementation of the present data, not corruption of existing data that miraculously turns out to be beneficial.

How do you differentiate between implementation and corruption?

 

[bhsmte]

And even less evidence.

He likes his videos though.

 

[Hieronymus]

And even less evidence.

I linked to the evidence.
But you're obviously free to ignore it.

Iḿ sorry iḿ not able to condense the information provided by the hours of lecture in a comment that will actually be read.

 

[Loudmouth]

I linked to the evidence.

This is a discussion forum.

 

[Hieronymus]

How do you differentiate between implementation and corruption?

Are you really asking this?
How about a dictionary, look up the meanings and see the difference between implementation and corruption.
You can do it!

 

[Hieronymus]

This is a discussion forum.

Then report it.
Whining is not discussion either.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you really asking this?
How about a dictionary, look up the meanings and see the difference between implementation and corruption.
You can do it!

I find no definitions for "corrupting mutation".

How do you determine if a mutation is a corruption or an implementation?