- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,288
- 52,674
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So... we're just going with AI now? Ok...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:
Define "New Information"? We know the mechanisms by which new traits can arise. We've observed this in nature and the lab.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”)
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.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”)
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.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”)
That "some argue" is not itself an argument. No one has yet shown that "mind" is a requirement for anything explained by the ToE.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”)
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.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’”)
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.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”)
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.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 gallopNo 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”)
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.So... we're just going with AI now? Ok...
But the facts I posted were called gish gallop.The topic calls for a contrary fact.
None of what you posted were facts that disprove the ToE though. I literally answered every one. And I didn't even use Google.But the facts I posted were called gish gallop.
I said you were a Genius, didn't I? I won't argue our difference of beliefs.I literally answered every one.
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.I said you were a Genius, didn't I? I won't argue our difference of beliefs.
My answer to the OP is: "missing links."
You posted zero ( 0 ) facts contrary to ToE.But the facts I posted were called gish gallop.
Does the ToE imply there will be no missing links?
There are...gasp... missing links in the story ofDoes the ToE imply there will be no missing links?
Of course not. Therefore that is not a fact contrary to the ToE.
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?So a crocoduck wouldn't disprove evolution, since the Theory of Evolution doesn't imply a bi-genus animal?
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.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.
But He was a real man backed by evidence.There are...gasp... missing links in the story of
Jesus' life.
Would - be disproves best be cautious lest a missing page
disprove them. Poof!
Bring them on! I'd be as excited as anyone.Have you found such a creature? A pre-cambrian rabbit, perhaps?
There are...gasp... missing links in the story of Jesus' life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?