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

[Hieronymus]

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

Iḿ not even sure if putting a 'd' in front of it makes it mean degradation or decay, the opposite of development, wear and tear, entropy perhaps.

Why would life (living nature) be an exception to the obvious rule that a system without maintenance will develop problems?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would life (living nature) be an exception to the obvious rule that a system without maintenance will develop problems?

Natural selection is the maintenance.

 

[Chris B]

The origin of species obviously.

That's covered by the above. Nothing else required.
It can happen due to geographical isolation for a period, but even that isn't a necessity.
For one nice example:
Giraffes are splitting into separate species even though the ranges of the sub-species overlap.
These are inter-fertile but they no longer inter-mate, except in captivity when no other partner is available.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7156146.stm

 

[Hieronymus]

That's covered by the above.

No.

This means you've got nothing.
(not you personally)

 

[Armoured]

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

Well, now others are telling you. You've been linked to numerous sources on evolutionary theory in the past, including by me. You have had ample opportunity to familiarise yourself with what it ACTUALLY says. The fact you INSIST on using these mischarecterisations and strawmen, frankly, makes it difficult to believe you are interested in intellectually honest discussion.

 

[Armoured]

That's covered by the above. Nothing else required.
It can happen due to geographical isolation for a period, but even that isn't a necessity.
For one nice example:
Giraffes are splitting into separate species even though the ranges of the sub-species overlap.
These are inter-fertile but they no longer inter-mate, except in captivity when no other partner is available.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7156146.stm

Don't forget ring species.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, now others are telling you. You've been linked to numerous sources on evolutionary theory in the past, including by me. You have had ample opportunity to familiarise yourself with what it ACTUALLY says. The fact you INSIST on using these mischarecterisations and strawmen, frankly, makes it difficult to believe you are interested in intellectually honest discussion.

Say something useful: why doesn't the intelligence of animals evolve?

 

[Hoghead1]

Who says it doesn't evolve, Juven? Anything I've seen from science makes it clear that animal intelligence definitely does evolve. The higher on the scale, the more intelligent.

 

[Hieronymus]

Who says it doesn't evolve, Juven? Anything I've seen from science makes it clear that animal intelligence definitely does evolve. The higher on the scale, the more intelligent.

That is the correct evolutionary answer.

But many similar questions can be asked.

Why don; t we see any improvements in the survivability of organisms that dated very old based on naturalistic fossil interpretation and still live today?
The millions of years should have caused numerous mutations.

The evolutionists see it like this:

Every random mutation is a step in a direction.
There are numerous directions it can go to.
Numerous possibilities, every mutation represents / is one of the possibilities.
It can go in all directions.

It could be (the "chance" component of the theory) a step in the direction of development (good direction).
That is a step towards a beneficial characteristics,
therefore it is the better organism than the one without the mutation,
therefore it will survive natural selection.
And this is how organisms gradually become what we would call ''another species", developing towards specialized creatures who find their niche in the eco system.
After billions of years, you get living nature as we know it today, because steps in the good directions will dominate.

Do i have to point out the fallacies?

 

[SteveB28]

That is the correct evolutionary answer.

But many similar questions can be asked.

Why don; t we see any improvements in the survivability of organisms that dated very old based on naturalistic fossil interpretation and still live today?
The millions of years should have caused numerous mutations.

The evolutionists see it like this:

Every random mutation is a step in a direction.
There are numerous directions it can go to.
Numerous possibilities, every mutation represents / is on of the possibilities.
It can go in all directions.

It could be (the "chance" component of the theory) a step in the direction of development (good direction).
That is a step towards a beneficial characteristics,
therefore it is the better organism than the one without the mutation,
therefore it will survive natural selection.
And this is how organisms gradually become what we would call ''another species", developing towards specialized creatures who find their niche in the eco system.
After billions of years, you get living nature as we know it today, because steps in the good directions will dominate.

I'm not sure your use of 'good' and 'bad' as descriptors are appropriate, but there are elements of accuracy there.

 

[Armoured]

Glad you agree. The consequence is not the concern, the feature is the concern.
Do we see the improvement of intelligence of animals through evolution?
The answer is no.

Um, no, we do see intelligence increase in evolution, just as we see other traits increasing, and at times, decreasing, in evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Um, no, we do see intelligence increase in evolution, just as we see other traits increasing ... in evolution.

I agree that evolution is directional and the intelligence, in general, increased slightly with time.
The problem is the rate of increase. The rate is quite low in animals.
Human can not be evolved.

 

[Armoured]

I withdraw my earlier comments defending him. I hit the "button" around the time they start claiming you agree with their nonsense after you've just explained to them why it's wrong 2 or 3 times. Anyone who wants an intellectually honest discussion? Any time. If you're going to play preschool games, I have better things to do with my time.

 

[Shemjaza]

I agree that evolution is directional and the intelligence, in general, increased slightly with time.
The problem is the rate of increase. The rate is quite low in animals.
Human can not be evolved.

Why?

We're unusual, sure, but I don't see any evidence that makes us impossible.

 

[juvenissun]

Why?

We're unusual, sure, but I don't see any evidence that makes us impossible.

The degree of the unusualness makes it impossible.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't understand why you would say that, Juven. If "unusualness" is your standard for rejecting ideas, then why would you even begin to accept the biblical miracles, as you obviously do? They certainly are unusual.

 

[Chris B]

No.

What else do you see as necessary for speciation, then?

A disinclination or inability to mate with a portion of a previously interbreeding group has pretty much set a divide between the two populations.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

This means you've got nothing.
(not you personally)

Yes. The lack of interbreeding leads to population specific mutations accumulating in each population. That is speciation.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree that evolution is directional and the intelligence, in general, increased slightly with time.
The problem is the rate of increase. The rate is quite low in animals.
Human can not be evolved.

There is an animal species where the rate was higher. Humans.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why don; t we see any improvements in the survivability of organisms that dated very old based on naturalistic fossil interpretation and still live today?

Why should it be any different than today?

The evolutionists see it like this:

Every random mutation is a step in a direction.

We don't see it like that at all. Perhaps you should learn more about evolution?

For example, neutral mutations are a step in no direction when they first appear, but in the right environment, or in combination with another mutation, they can be a step in a different direction. Detrimental mutations are a step backwards, but they are removed through natural selection.

It could be (the "chance" component of the theory) a step in the direction of development (good direction).
That is a step towards a beneficial characteristics,
therefore it is the better organism than the one without the mutation,
therefore it will survive natural selection.
And this is how organisms gradually become what we would call ''another species", developing towards specialized creatures who find their niche in the eco system.
After billions of years, you get living nature as we know it today, because steps in the good directions will dominate.

"Good" is determined by their environment. If the environment changes, then what was once good is now bad. This is what leads to extinction events.