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

[ClothedInGrace]

You just made the same argument.

The planaria does not have a brain or a heart. It has a useful eye. You are flat out wrong.

Its eye is not the same as our eye. Our eye needs a brain to work.

 

[Hieronymus]

I know that is, but it wasn't necessarily what I was arguing. The point is that everything is interconnected, so in order for us to have evolved an eye, everything else had to have been in place first.

(or at the same time)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, sure: how does an incredibly complex organ which transmits light waves into electrical impulses that the brain can piece together into something the organism can see, arise with no intelligence whatsoever?

Through random variation and natural selection. Variation will occur in a population and the variation will be within limits. Here is a video that explains it much more easily than I can:

 

[Loudmouth]

Its eye is not the same as our eye. Our eye needs a brain to work.

The evolution of the vertebrate eye would not have started with the human eye.

 

[Loudmouth]

(or at the same time)

The euglena does not have a brain or a heart, yet it has an eye. You are wrong.

 

[Hieronymus]

That claim is refuted by the simple Euglena who has a functional eye but no brain.

I mean on its own an eye spot is useless.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some jellyfish have human-like eyes, yet no brain and no heart.

http://www.livescience.com/7243-jellyfish-human-eyes.html

 

[Hieronymus]

The euglena does not have a brain or a heart, yet it has an eye. You are wrong.

Have you never heard of organelles?
Are you suggesting the eye spot is not integrated in / part of a system?

 

[Loudmouth]

I mean on its own an eye spot is useless.

It is?

That's strange, because the Euglena uses that eyespot to stay in sunlight so that it can photosynthesize.

Anymore falsities you wish to share with the group?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Through random variation and natural selection. Variation will occur in a population and the variation will be within limits. Here is a video that explains it much more easily than I can:

I just find it funny how they add on those layers as if that's what happens in nature, as if nature somehow necessitates that a creature mutate a certain way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He has, but you don't see it.
Probably because you can't accept a divine foot in the door.

Sorry, but all that has been presented are claims without evidence, most of which have been refuted.

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you never heard of organelles?

Just wait . . . . I'm almost done laughing . . . . hehehehe, hehehehe . . . almost done . . .

You think a brain is an organelle!!!!?????

HA!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every system is irreducibly complex.
It simply needs the essential parts to function.
Take away an essential part, and it doesn't function anymore.

How can a sane person even doubt this?

Because that is simple an empty claim with no supporting evidence. No system has been shown to be irreducibly complex. Behe made the mistake of picking out problems on the cutting edge of science that had not been solved at that time. One guess as to what happens quite often with problems on the cutting edge of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have not shown there is a logical reason to believe that we evolved.

Actually we have. Again, you need to learn what evidence is first. Creationists always claim that they understand the concept but almost everyone demonstrates that they do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is just your perception.

What we call "God's creation" is not explained by dead unconscious things following the laws of nature.
You know the arguments, but it means 'a divine foot in the door', which is unacceptable to you.

Repeating nonsense only makes it more nonsensical.

Try again.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Actually we have. Again, you need to learn what evidence is first. Creationists always claim that they understand the concept but almost everyone demonstrates that they do not.

Your 'evidence' only works if you believe it. I'm sorry your explanations of evolution are not enough to convince me that I am the product of mutation and millions of years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's an eye-spot, not an eye.
None the less, a Euglena also needs to be able to react to what the eye spot registers.
The probably seek light or dark, whatever it needs to do to help it thrive.
But just an eye spot is useless.

And it is the predecessor of an actual "eye". Yes, some sort of nervous system must exist for an organism to react. But if you are going to claim that an eye-spot is not an eye, by the same standards a nervous system is not a brain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your 'evidence' only works if you believe it. I'm sorry your explanations of evolution are not enough to convince me that I am the product of mutation and millions of years.

No, my evidence works because it is scientific evidence. One must actively resist learning not to accept scientific evidence. Most creationists work to keep themselves safe from reality by refusing to learn what evidence is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about the blunder of assuming "junk DNA"...

"Junk DNA" is still alive and well. You need to quit getting your "science" from creationist sites.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

No, my evidence works because it is scientific evidence. One must actively resist learning not to accept scientific evidence. Most creationists work to keep themselves safe from reality by refusing to learn what evidence is.

So you say... In reality you are just too eager to believe anything that fits into your worldview that science is the explanation for everything, even going so far as to say that humanity needs no intelligent explanation, but only a long series of mutation.