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

[Hoghead1]

I said life was evidence, but it is evidence that only those with spiritual eyes can see.

OK, but who has the spiritual eyes? I guess you and not those who might disagree with you.

 

[Armoured]

Designed? Looks designed.

 

[Armoured]

Your point is weak here. Yes, there is design, but there is also much chaos. As Hume once remarked, at attacking the design argument, the womb of nature spews forth all sorts of abominations. Order schmorder. To strengthen your posit90on, you need to account for this disorder and chaos.

"The Fall", in 3...2...

 

[Hoghead1]

Alright, I'm done offering the Bible as a truth for my claims. I understand that my effort was futile, and I'll admit that you've all won this debate in some respects, as I was a fool for getting into it as I did. Truth is still truth, but I digress.

How about you now gather all the evidence you have and prove that God doesn't exist and that if He does He, for some reason or another, chose to let us evolve.

Reminds me of my mom when she used to get frustrated and say, "Alright, go ahead, do what you want. I'm just your poor mother. What do I know? "

 

[The Cadet]

Alright, I'm done offering the Bible as a truth for my claims. I understand that my effort was futile, and I'll admit that you've all won this debate in some respects, as I was a fool for getting into it as I did. Truth is still truth, but I digress.

How about you now gather all the evidence you have and prove that God doesn't exist and that if He does He, for some reason or another, chose to let us evolve.

Seems to me at least a couple of people you're arguing with believe in God.

 

[Chris B]

Exactly. I don't have to get to those yet (many many such examples). Only the intelligence different would be a powerful evidence already.

Wrong inference. You are just picking your "special skill".

In a fight between a human and a shark the human always wins.
Unless the fight is underwater.

 

[Chris B]

Indeed. Is it logical to believe that man came from soup? Do computers come from junkyards?

Total non sequitur and sad evidence of the absence of any useful level of critical examining thought.
Did you examine and consider that parallel the slightest degree before you swallowed it?
If you had, you might have spotted why it is inappropriate, provides a false example and argument...

But then that also applies to whoever first used the argument and published it somewhere, to have it uncritically adopted and copied.

 

[Chris B]

Well, the design present in even the smallest forms of life is a clear evidence that we have a designer of some sort.

Well, there's a flawed logic chain.
You'd probably have to work out for yourself why it is.
Not everyone can see it at first.

 

[Chris B]

Okay, where did the selection mechanism come from in the case of life?

Life! Successful life through generations. If you have, yes by chance, something that gives you a slight edge, in survival or in reproductive efficiency (two different "strategies" can be thought of immediately, both seen on the planet to this day) then there is a bias to your type having more descendants and the variation being spread. Next variation on stage for the game of life, please...

A horrendous casualty rate of failure is irrelevant as long as a few (tougher) versions survive, to found the basis of the new population.
That alone would be enough to produce bacteria resistant to antibacterials, over time. Which we see.
(In fact they can do a bit better than that.)

 

[Chris B]

Care to explain how it is inferior? How would you have designed the human body?

I'm an optometrist (retired)
The human eye is a magnificent mess.
It is "designed" to fail, in that it's good at lasting through to the individual having children and being there till they reach adulthood.
The human lens (not cornea) never stops growing, which in later life promotes presbyopia, glaucoma and cataract.
Better if it stopped growing (as some other parts of the body do) at maturity. 24 would be good.
Just for one thing.

 

[46AND2]

Yes, says the scientists who refuse to believe the global flood. Where did all of these fossils come from? Don't bones need to be covered quickly to fossilize? Is evolution really the only viable model of interpretation, or is that simply your bias?

No. Fossils don't need to be covered quickly to fossilize.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Google hits are not evidence.
Google "Harry Potter" for example.

Google scholar.

Those are science publications. Not random blog posts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do we ever see a new life form evolved out in the wild?

Yes.

I guess it is not that uncommon to see a life form extinct in the wild.

No. Especially not since humans came on the scene and disrupted / destroyed plenty of natural habitat of many species.

 

[DogmaHunter]

THAT is the problem of evolution.

No. THAT is rather the problem of ignoring evidence, like fossils.

But, for human evolution(?), that is only a minor problem. If there is a set of skeletons looks like life forms between monkey and human, where and how do you make a cut to separate? A smooth transition does not work in this case. It must be an abrupt and quick change.

No. Evolution is a gradual process. Not an "abrupt and quick" one.

 

[DogmaHunter]

See the development of intelligence among animals. Was the later dinos smarter than the earlier dinos after nearly 200 million years of evolution?

This assumes that a certain level of intelligence is, or should be, the inevitable outcome of an evolutionary process.

This is, off course, simply false.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Randomly mutating data doesn't write new useful data.

Ignoring the loaded and incorrect terms used in that statement....

I'ld say that:
- the mutation that makes Tibetans more fit for living at high altitudes is pretty usefull to Tibetans.
- the mutation that makes bacteria resistant to anti-biotics is pretty usefull to the bacteria.
- the mutation that makes an organism able to digest nylon, is pretty usefull to that organism.
- .......

It will only survive if it still works despite data corruption.

Or it will have MORE chance of survival if the "data corruption" actually improves the organism's resistance to certain deseases, or its ability to hide in the bushes, or its ability to better see its prey, or...

Unfortunately it produces hereditary diseases too.

Yes and those bloodlines die out rather quickly in the wild.

 

[DogmaHunter]

P1: The Sky exists
P2: Nothing can auto-originate, so the sky had to have an external Creator. We call such a Creator "God."
P3: God exists

Assumed conclusion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Use the evolution model, the evidences are everywhere.
Wolf evolved into dog. How much intelligence increased when compare the two?
You can use ANY other animals to fit into this format of argument.

Again assuming that intelligens MUST be the result of an evolutionary process.

Again a very wrong assumption.

 

[juvenissun]

Additionally, human intelligence is greatly exaggerated.

If no comparison, how to you measure exaggeration?

 

[juvenissun]

Wrong inference. You are just picking your "special skill".

In a fight between a human and a shark the human always wins.
Unless the fight is underwater.

Smart human. Really smart.