Are there any facts contrary to T.O.E?

[AV1611VET]

Oh, well.

My answer to the OP is: "missing links."

Do with it what you want.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

No one can fact ToE or the Big Bang. You are asking for facts on a subject that may not be factual. I had to Google this because I'm ignorant and there are questions to the theory. I can honestly say I don't know!

Holes in the theory of evolution.
Based on the provided search results, here are some “holes” or challenges to the theory of evolution:

So... we're just going with AI now? Ok...

Lack of information addition: The theory of evolution struggles to explain how complex organisms arose from simpler ones, as it doesn’t provide a clear mechanism for adding new information to the genome. (Source: “Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works”)

Define "New Information"? We know the mechanisms by which new traits can arise. We've observed this in nature and the lab.

Speed of evolution: The theory of evolution faces difficulties in explaining how drastic changes can occur quickly enough to account for the diversity of life on Earth. (Source: “Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works”)

This isn't really a thing. Most people cannot fathom the times frames in which evolution operates. Besides, if one takes the "biblical" view used to argue against evolution, the flood, evolution, micro or otherwise, would have to operate at speeds that would make the Creator's head spin.

Origin of the first living cell: The theory of evolution is silent on how the first living cell arose spontaneously, and this remains a significant challenge. (Source: “Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works”)

The theory of evolution does not address this. This is abiogenesis and there are many working hypotheses and ongoing research. The ToE deals with the diversification of already existing life.

Mind and natural selection: Some argue that natural selection requires a “mind” or intentionality to “select for” certain traits, which contradicts the idea of evolution as a purely mechanistic process. (Source: “Why everything you’ve been told about evolution is wrong”)

That "some argue" is not itself an argument. No one has yet shown that "mind" is a requirement for anything explained by the ToE.

Design and complexity: Creationists point to the complexity and design evident in living organisms, arguing that this cannot be explained solely by natural selection and random variation. (Source: “Creationists Point to Huge Holes in Evolution ‘Theory’”)

This is just incredulity. Again, no one has shown that any complex living system could not have come about with known mechanisms or, the thing that they would actually need to do, shown that a different mechanism better explains what we observe.

Lack of transitional fossils: Despite extensive fossil records, some argue that transitional forms between major groups of organisms are scarce or missing, challenging the theory of evolution. (Source: “Objections to evolution”)

There are plenty of "transitional" fossils. In fact, ALL fossils are transitional. Every organism that has ever lived existed between species that preceded and came after them.

Evolutionary mechanism: Alternative theories, such as Lamarckism and orthogenesis, have been proposed as alternatives to natural selection, highlighting ongoing debates within the scientific community about the underlying mechanisms of evolution. (Source: “Objections to evolution”)

Lamarckism preceded the origins of the ToE by several decades so the ToE was, in fact, an alternative to that. Lamarckism has been displaced by the ToE because the ToE is a better explanation of what we observe. Orthogenesis sits within the ToE. It is not an alternative to it. And just like "mind" it has not been shown what mechanisms would be involved in this "directionality" other than those encompassed within the ToE such as mutation and natural selection.

 

[Astrid]

No one can fact ToE or the Big Bang. You are asking for facts on a subject that may not be factual. I had to Google this because I'm ignorant and there are questions to the theory. I can honestly say I don't know!

Holes in the theory of evolution.
Based on the provided search results, here are some “holes” or challenges to the theory of evolution:

Lack of information addition: The theory of evolution struggles to explain how complex organisms arose from simpler ones, as it doesn’t provide a clear mechanism for adding new information to the genome. (Source: “Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works”)

Speed of evolution: The theory of evolution faces difficulties in explaining how drastic changes can occur quickly enough to account for the diversity of life on Earth. (Source: “Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works”)

Origin of the first living cell: The theory of evolution is silent on how the first living cell arose spontaneously, and this remains a significant challenge. (Source: “Holes in the Theory - How Evolution Works”)

Mind and natural selection: Some argue that natural selection requires a “mind” or intentionality to “select for” certain traits, which contradicts the idea of evolution as a purely mechanistic process. (Source: “Why everything you’ve been told about evolution is wrong”)

Design and complexity: Creationists point to the complexity and design evident in living organisms, arguing that this cannot be explained solely by natural selection and random variation. (Source: “Creationists Point to Huge Holes in Evolution ‘Theory’”)

Lack of transitional fossils: Despite extensive fossil records, some argue that transitional forms between major groups of organisms are scarce or missing, challenging the theory of evolution. (Source: “Objections to evolution”)

Evolutionary mechanism: Alternative theories, such as Lamarckism and orthogenesis, have been proposed as alternatives to natural selection, highlighting ongoing debates within the scientific community about the underlying mechanisms of evolution. (Source: “Objections to evolution”)

Rather than respond to your gish gallop
( note I asked for just 1 ( one) fact avoid that
exact sort of thing) i will just address your opening lines.

" ..no one can fact TOE" is grammatical nonsense.

If you mean " there are no facts to support ToE" that
is worse nonsense. Every relevant fact on earth supports it.
No known facts are contrary.

Some things about theories you've not lesrned-

-A theory serves to explain a data set. "No facts" (as you claim), no theory. The worrld's educated community finds there is a theory.

-A complete data set for a theory is impossible

-That is why it cannot ever be proved true.


-Every theory is incomplete. The degree of incomepleteness determines strength or weakness of a theory.

- A theory can be disproved only by contrary facts

Incompleteness will neither prove nor disprove anything

You accomplish nothing by talking about so called " holes"
that you don't understand and get from iffy sources.

The educated people here, the world scientific community
are far more aware of gaps in data than you will ever be.

Now, if we may?

The topic calls for a contrary fact.

You don't have any. Why are you posting?

 

[Laodicean60]

So... we're just going with AI now? Ok...

Yes, I'm not a genius like the rest of you. All I'm saying is many have similar questions whether you like it or not that question your beliefs in the science. The evidence is inconclusive when you listen to both sides. There are too many questions for me to go all in one way or the other.

 

[Laodicean60]

The topic calls for a contrary fact.

But the facts I posted were called gish gallop.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

But the facts I posted were called gish gallop.

None of what you posted were facts that disprove the ToE though. I literally answered every one. And I didn't even use Google.

 

[Laodicean60]

I literally answered every one.

I said you were a Genius, didn't I? I won't argue our difference of beliefs.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I said you were a Genius, didn't I? I won't argue our difference of beliefs.

Why do you keep claiming that evolution is a belief, when it is supported by science? Why do you feel it's right to denigrate acceptance of science as if it's a belief in a derogatory way?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I said you were a Genius, didn't I? I won't argue our difference of beliefs.

Dude, I'm not a genius. I just care about what is actually true. I come to threads like this HOPING someone actually presents something I've never thought about or heard before that seems like it could actually be something challenging. I used to peruse a reddit forum about creationism and there was a poster there who would present arguments using scientific sources and very novel interpretations of actual scientific research. It forced me to have to actually read the science and understand it in order to figure out if what they were saying really was a challenge to the ToE. I learned so much. Enough that I didn't have to google anything you posted, because none of it is novel, new, unique, interesting or difficult to dismiss with a relatively shallow knowledge of what the ToE actually explains and a working knowledge of science.

You don't have to be a genius. You just have to care enough to challenge your own beliefs. Otherwise, why even post in a thread like this?

 

[essentialsaltes]

My answer to the OP is: "missing links."

Does the ToE imply there will be no missing links?

Of course not. Therefore that is not a fact contrary to the ToE.

 

[Astrid]

But the facts I posted were called gish gallop.

You posted zero ( 0 ) facts contrary to ToE.

As I already pointed out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does the ToE imply there will be no missing links?

So a crocoduck wouldn't disprove evolution, since the Theory of Evolution doesn't imply a bi-genus animal?

 

[Astrid]

Does the ToE imply there will be no missing links?

Of course not. Therefore that is not a fact contrary to the ToE.

There are...gasp... missing links in the story of
Jesus' life.

Would - be disproves best be cautious lest a missing page
disprove them. Poof!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So a crocoduck wouldn't disprove evolution, since the Theory of Evolution doesn't imply a bi-genus animal?

Such an animal would overturn the whole of biology.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

So a crocoduck wouldn't disprove evolution, since the Theory of Evolution doesn't imply a bi-genus animal?

Have you found such a creature? A pre-cambrian rabbit, perhaps?

 

[Laodicean60]

Why do you keep claiming that evolution is a belief, when it is supported by science? Why do you feel it's right to denigrate acceptance of science as if it's a belief in a derogatory way?

My beliefs have evolved depending on the evidence or lack of it and not just on this subject or others and I'm not smart enough to debate something I read about 30 years ago. As long as there are unanswered questions about it I'll carry my own belief about the beginning of mankind. Trying to prove or disprove is futile.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My beliefs have evolved depending on the evidence or lack of it and not just on this subject or others and I'm not smart enough to debate something I read about 30 years ago. As long as there are unanswered questions about it I'll carry my own belief about the beginning of mankind. Trying to prove or disprove is futile.

Did not answer my question at all so I'll ask it again:
Why do you keep claiming that evolution is a belief, when it is supported by science? Why do you feel it's right to denigrate acceptance of science as if it's a belief in a derogatory way?

 

[Laodicean60]

There are...gasp... missing links in the story of
Jesus' life.

Would - be disproves best be cautious lest a missing page
disprove them. Poof!

But He was a real man backed by evidence.

 

[Astrid]

Have you found such a creature? A pre-cambrian rabbit, perhaps?

Bring them on! I'd be as excited as anyone.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are...gasp... missing links in the story of Jesus' life.

Jesus' life isn't a scientific theory.