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

[Hieronymus]

...? What on Earth would "devolution" be?

Data corruption.

 

[46AND2]

Data corruption.

"data corruption" is part of evolution. There is no such thing as devolution. Not that the chemical reactions of DNA replication actually amount to data corruption, but to use your term...

 

[Cearbhall]

Data corruption.

Are we in the matrix?

 

[Hieronymus]

Are we in the matrix?

Yes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Data corruption.

Are we corrupted chimps because we have 40 million mutations compared to the chimp genome?

 

[juvenissun]

There isn't even a tree, so what are we even talking about?

Tree is not a life.

 

[juvenissun]

It doesn't lead.
Look at the fossil record, most especially at all the widespread and branches leading... nowhere.

We are not at the top of a ladder or pyramid except by the most speciesist of perspectives.
(I blame over-simplified school textbooks.)
H. G. Wells. "There is no reason whatever to believe that the order of nature has any greater bias in favour of man than it had in favour of the ichthyosaur or the pterodactyl. "

Evolution means niches get filled, variations, mutations get a chance to prove themselves in existing or changed environments.
But evolution has no goal on mind, no platonic ideal of a living creature to aim at.
("For six hundred million years I work on dinosaurs then along comes this ruddy great rock and blows the lot!")

B-.

 

[Cearbhall]

B-.

And how would you make it A-worthy?

 

[The Cadet]

Tree is not a life.

Is a life not tree?
Is life a not tree?
Life is a tree not?

(Seriously, word salad is fun and all but this is getting ridiculous.)

 

[juvenissun]

And how would you make it A-worthy?

Narrow down the topic and go deeper.

For example, you said: "Look at the fossil record, most especially at all the widespread and branches leading... nowhere." Why does it lead to "nowhere"? Does one of them lead to human?

By the way, I appreciate your reply. Most people would simply let it go or give back some nonsenses.

 

[Cearbhall]

Narrow down the topic and go deeper.

For example, you said: "Look at the fossil record, most especially at all the widespread and branches leading... nowhere." Why does it lead to "nowhere"? Does one of them lead to human?

No, that wasn't me.

 

[juvenissun]

Is a life not tree?
Is life a not tree?
Life is a tree not?

(Seriously, word salad is fun and all but this is getting ridiculous.)

All the above are correct.

 

[juvenissun]

No, that wasn't me.

Credit to you anyway.

 

[Cearbhall]

Credit to you anyway.

No...

 

[Armoured]

Fair enough, I'm not a scientist. I just mean that we're reproducing and we haven't figured out a way to end gene mutation, ergo, evolution.

But mutations, by themselves, aren't evolution. Evolution requires natural selection OF mutations, and that's the bit that arguably doesn't affect the human population any more.

 

[Armoured]

It leads to a usually larger and more complicate (i.e. better) life form.

We literally discussed this like a page ago. You were told why this is a misconception then, and guess what? A page later, it hasn't magically become true.

 

[Chris B]

That's just natural selection, not evolution.

Descent with difference, and natural selection.
That's what evolution is.

Nothing more. No guiding hand, no purpose.
What stays alive long enough to breed gets to go to the next round of the same.
Interestingly, more behaviours than might be expected turn out to have survival merit.

What else are you including in the idea of evolution?

 

[Chris B]

Mutations cause devolution.

The return of decision making from a central authority to local ones?
That's a bit advanced.

 

[Hieronymus]

Descent with difference, and natural selection.
That's what evolution is.

Nothing more. No guiding hand, no purpose.
What stays alive long enough to breed gets to go to the next round of the same.
Interestingly, more behaviours than might be expected turn out to have survival merit.

What else are you including in the idea of evolution?

The origin of species obviously.

 

[juvenissun]

We literally discussed this like a page ago. You were told why this is a misconception then, and guess what? A page later, it hasn't magically become true.

Because I am not convinced on what you told me at all.