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

[Chris B]

If so, what's wrong that we can not run faster than a dog?

Bounding like a kangaroo would be fun.
The answer can emerge, considered from an evolutionary perspective.
But from the perspective of miraculous creation? Why we are so limited becomes more difficult to handle unless just hopped over with "God did it so it must be right. Oh, except for anything we can assign to The Fall, of course."

 

[Armoured]

Both sides do this.

for example?

Do you want God above you, judging you?

Why would God judge someone for following the story His own creation tells? Or would you like to play a "the fossils/astronomy /geology/biochemistry/cosmology et al that point to a 14 billion year old universe are tricks to test our faith/of the devil" card?

 

[Chris B]

Both sides do this.
Do you want God above you, judging you?

What I want doesn't affect what is... I'm after the truth of it, welcome or unwelcome.
I've already got proof enough that the world is not arranged for my personal wishes or convenience.

But I'm not sure both sides do do self-working tricks to the same degree*.
Scientists are better, I suggest, at self-critique and spotting bad arguments being used by scientists.




*It does happen. I have seen papers which fell perfectly into the "spiders hear with their legs" fallacy.

"If you make a loud noise near a spider it runs away.
But if you cut a spider's legs off and make a loud noise near it, it doesn't run away.
Therefore spiders hear with their legs."

 

[juvenissun]

Bounding like a kangaroo would be fun.
The answer can emerge, considered from an evolutionary perspective.
But from the perspective of miraculous creation? Why we are so limited becomes more difficult to handle unless just hopped over with "God did it so it must be right. Oh, except for anything we can assign to The Fall, of course."

You only know these two trivial reasons. There are more in-depth reasons for we are what we are.
Human can not be evolved.

 

[Hieronymus]

What I want doesn't affect what is...

... true in your opinion.
Of course it does.
Humans want things to be true regardless of reality.
That's why the cat is funny, we can relate.

 

[Chris B]

You only know these two trivial reasons. There are more in-depth reasons for we are what we are.
Human can not be evolved.

From what depths of a black hat did you pull that "only"!?

Why should me giving *an example* be taken as the entire limits of my knowledge?
Except perhaps from extreme wishful thinking...

"Human cannot be evolved"? Why not?
That appears to be dogma brought in from outside the scientific field.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

UV filter is the answer to why blood vessels are on top of the receptors.

Dr Menton has produced some excellent videos of the workings of the human eye so perhaps those who still insist on quoting this kind of argument should listen to what a real expert has to say on the subject. This is a good example of how people have been so indoctrinated by the religion of naturalism that no matter what objections anyone else raises, it will be rejected. It's interesting that all this was prophesised in the Bible long ago and it's now coming true before our very eyes (ironic really, considering the subject of the quote above).

 

[Chris B]

...sigh...
The "eye argument" again....
So they told you our eyes are no good?
Well, they're wrong.
UV filter is the answer to why blood vessels are on top of the receptors.

Mutations would explain your wisdom tooth problem.

Scrabbling, scrabbling.

Eyes have been my professional field for 30 years.
(Optometrist, retired.)
The human eye is a magnificent ... mess.
There are far better eyes around.
"UV filter is the answer to why blood vessels are on top of the receptors."
That doesn't even make it to the starting line as an explanation (where did it come from?)
and it isn't near the top of the list of eye weaknesses anyway.

And for the jaw? It's not my teeth alone. It's a general tendency.
Yes, I've seen the anti-evolutionary line on this... It's not good enough, given how misaligned wisdom teeth can be.
The "larger skull" thought makes more sense. And fits with the painful childbirth datum.

 

[Hieronymus]

Dr Menton has produced some excellent videos of the workings of the human eye so perhaps those who still insist on quoting this kind of argument should listen to what a real expert has to say on the subject. This is a good example of how people have been so indoctrinated by the religion of naturalism that no matter what objections anyone else raises, it will be rejected. It's interesting that all this was prophesised in the Bible long ago and it's now coming true before our very eyes (ironic really, considering the subject of the quote above).

How about the peppered moth then...

 

[Hieronymus]

Scrabbling, scrabbling.

Eyes have been my professional field for 30 years.
(Optometrist, retired.)
The human eye is a magnificent ... mess.

O yes, it's such a mess, it still outperforms any digital cam by far.

There are far better eyes around.

Even better !

"UV filter is the answer to why blood vessels are on top of the receptors."

Yes it is, and probably for cooling too.

 

[Chris B]

... true in your opinion.
Of course it does.
Humans want things to be true regardless of reality.
That's why the cat is funny, we can relate.

No it doesn't. It affects what I might *wish* to be true, but not what is true.
and an aware person can start to pick up something of their own bias.
Looking out for "wish fulfillment" on the one hand and "instinctive rejection" on the other.
A totally unbiased position or perspective is probably impossible, but some progress can be made in the area.

One of my practices was to read more books by people I disagreed with that those with whom I agreed.
The latter told me nothing new and mainly just gave warm feelings about being assuredly "right".
If you only accumulate support around you, how will you know whether or not the opposing view has a decent case?
It doesn't get a fair look-in.

 

[Hieronymus]

No it doesn't. It affects what I might *wish* to be true, but not what is true.

Get real.

 

[Chris B]

O yes, it's such a mess, it still outperforms any digital cam by far.Even better !Yes it is, and probably for cooling too.

That's it?
... "like being savaged by a dead sheep."

 

[Chris B]

Get real.

You see something unreal?
Please elaborate.

 

[Hieronymus]

That's it?
... "like being savaged by a dead sheep."

Look, friend, if you want to believe mammalian eyes form for no reason, or any eye for that matter, be my guest.
But maybe have a look at what you think you can ascribe to accidental circumstances:

 

[Hieronymus]

=====never mind already=========

 

[bhsmte]

... true in your opinion.
Of course it does.
Humans want things to be true regardless of reality.
That's why the cat is funny, we can relate.

Lots of irony here.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

How about the peppered moth then...

Well, one site I've just looked at makes this comment, "For decades the peppered moth has been a standard classroom and textbook example of evolution. Millions of students have learned this "living proof" of natural selection. The story they have been, and are, being told is most likely false, or to put it more mildly, filled with half-truths." The Institute for Creation Research has this to say, "However, at any rate, the peppered moth demonstrates what creationists have been saying all along. Variation within a specific created type occurs all the time. Natural selection can select the variant best suited for an environment, but natural selection does not create anything new. Why, then, do evolutionists use this as Exhibit No. 1? This, obviously, must be the best evidence they have got."

 

[juvenissun]

"Human cannot be evolved"? Why not?
That appears to be dogma brought in from outside the scientific field.

Here we go again.
Human can not be evolved because its intelligence is off-scaled. That is certainly a VERY scientific statement.

 

[Chris B]

Look, friend, if you want to believe mammalian eyes form for no reason, or any eye for that matter, be my guest.
But maybe have a look at what you think you can ascribe to accidental circumstances:

Why do you keep inserting odd terms to try and improve your case?
"for no reason" is a false loading.
"accidental circumstances" too.

As for the video. It starts with the presumption of Intelligent Design.
If you only look at it that way, surprise, surprise, all you see is Intelligent Design.

Then false use of "design"
"multiple parts working together for a purpose"
No mention of the concept of "apparent design" and how it might be arrived at.
Examples of natural forces neatly avoid mention of natural selection on living beings.

It gets worse from there.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Cry, I think, that this is being taught to people whom I suspect have not been taught to think critically.