• 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.

The best evidence against Evolution

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
'Evolution' refers to both the fact of evolution (a change in allele frequency over time) and the theory of evolution (the theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor, and variation is due to evolution by natural selection).

So, with that established, what's the best evidence or rationale against one or both?
 

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,976
52,615
Guam
✟5,142,742.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
'Evolution' refers to both the fact of evolution (a change in allele frequency over time) and the theory of evolution (the theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor, and variation is due to evolution by natural selection).

So, with that established, what's the best evidence or rationale against one or both?
Time.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟163,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
'Evolution' refers to both the fact of evolution (a change in allele frequency over time) and the theory of evolution (the theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor, and variation is due to evolution by natural selection).

So, with that established, what's the best evidence or rationale against one or both?

I don't know that it counts as evidence against, and it's probably only a bit of nitpicking of your phrasing, but I thought this study on UCA was interesting ... or should I say the criticisms of this study, which came later around post #59.

There was also a recent attempt at an explicit test of universal common ancestry, and this sparked debate, not automatic acceptance.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
'Evolution' refers to both the fact of evolution (a change in allele frequency over time) and the theory of evolution (the theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor, and variation is due to evolution by natural selection).

So, with that established, what's the best evidence or rationale against one or both?

1. My religious dogma demands I reject evolutionism.
2. Evolutionism makes me feel all "icky" inside. I prefer "warm and fuzzy."
:wave:
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
'Evolution' refers to both the fact of evolution (a change in allele frequency over time) and the theory of evolution (the theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor, and variation is due to evolution by natural selection).

So, with that established, what's the best evidence or rationale against one or both?
Anyone for the Nobel Prize and fame? NO:confused: Oh well ToE it is then:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
'Evolution' refers to both the fact of evolution (a change in allele frequency over time) and the theory of evolution (the theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor, and variation is due to evolution by natural selection).

So, with that established, what's the best evidence or rationale against one or both?

You cannot use evolution to define evolution.
No "...and variation is due to evolution by natural selection" its not.
Can't you evolutionists do this correcting?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
You cannot use evolution to define evolution.
No "...and variation is due to evolution by natural selection" its not.
Can't you evolutionists do this correcting?
If you got stuck at the first hurdle, maybe this race isn't for you. Thanks for trying, though! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Anyone for the Nobel Prize and fame? NO:confused: Oh well ToE it is then:thumbsup:

Even if what you agreed to is incorrect?
Evolution does not cause variation.
Variation allows for changes to happen.
Evolution is the end result of the natural selection process.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If you got stuck at the first hurdle, maybe this race isn't for you. Thanks for trying, though! :thumbsup:

Do I stop when the logic is wrong. Yes....that's a wall. Logic is no hurdle to jump unless your a new student of natural sciences.
You can't use a word to define itself. Don't bother trying.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Do I stop when the logic is wrong. Yes....that's a wall. Logic is no hurdle to jump unless your a new student of natural sciences.
You can't use a word to define itself. Don't bother trying.
Oooh, still struggling with that first hurdle. Keep at it, you'll get it eventually. Thanks for playing! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
G

good brother

Guest
'Evolution' refers to both the fact of evolution (a change in allele frequency over time) and the theory of evolution (the theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor, and variation is due to evolution by natural selection).

So, with that established, what's the best evidence or rationale against one or both?


In response to the OP, a pesky little thing called genetic limitations. Examples:

A horse and a donkey can be bred..... once. The outcome is a sterile crossbreed. The females are almost always sterile and the male is ALWAYS sterile. There will never be a reproducing population of horse/donkey mixes. This is the end of their genetic limitation.

Dogs and foxes cannot interbreed.

Many creatures that would seem to be very close anotomcally, cannot mingle. There are genetic limitations.

Of course, to the evolutionist, a cow can eventually become a whale over "long periods of time" and somehow that's "scientific", but what we see in the real world is that there are limitations on how far an animal can actually go.

In Christ, GB
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Even if what you agreed to is incorrect?
Evolution does not cause variation.
Variation allows for changes to happen.
Evolution is the end result of the natural selection process.
Evolution is the PROCESS it is not the end result. In fact there is no "End result" as such since all life forms are in transition and evolution is an ongoing process! :p
 
Upvote 0

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
46
✟39,014.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Of course, to the evolutionist, a cow can eventually become a whale over "long periods of time" and somehow that's "scientific", but what we see in the real world is that there are limitations on how far an animal can actually go.

How many times are you guys going to toss up this strawman? I know it's hard to be honest, intellectually, but if you try REALLY hard...
 
Upvote 0

Norman321

Member
May 18, 2012
393
5
✟564.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
'Evolution' refers to both the fact of evolution (a change in allele frequency over time) and the theory of evolution (the theory that all life is descended from a common ancestor, and variation is due to evolution by natural selection).

So, with that established, what's the best evidence or rationale against one or both?
"We’ve defined evolution as descent with modification from a common ancestor, but exactly what has been modified? Evolution only occurs when there is a change in gene frequency within a population over time."
Evolution 101: Descent with Modification

The problem is when you try to marry the "fact" of evolution with the "theory" of evolution. No one argues change in allele frequency. No one argues common ancestor. What we do not go along with is the modification. In fact science is beginning to discover there is no modification and that the real difference is caused by enhancers and transcription factors. It is not a change in allele frequency that makes one cell different from another cell.

"Both heart and gut muscle cells develop from the same pool of precursor cells. Enhancers for both groups seem to be made available to transcription factors in the precursor cells, before they 'grow up' to be either heart or muscle cells. If this is the case, scientists could work out the relationships between cells by looking at what occupied enhancers they share."Collective action: Occupied genetic switches hold clues to cells' history

The best argument is the one that everyone seems to agree with. In all of science sooner or later a new mechanism comes along to replace the mechanism of the old outdated obsolete theory. So in that regard evolution is on the same level as all scientific thoeries and laws. For example just what is the law of gravity? At the time Newtons law did what they needed it to do. But today we have to use Einsteins law to accomplish what we need to accomplish in this fast paced day and age. (of people going to and fro)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Norman321

Member
May 18, 2012
393
5
✟564.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
How many times are you guys going to toss up this strawman? I know it's hard to be honest, intellectually, but if you try REALLY hard...
Other then his poor choice of a cow to a whale, just what is your problem with the fact that God has established limits? It that not was science does is show just what the limits are? So really the anything goes with no limits attitude of Gould type of evos (post neo darwinism) is just plain unscientific.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
In response to the OP, a pesky little thing called genetic limitations. Examples:

A horse and a donkey can be bred..... once. The outcome is a sterile crossbreed. The females are almost always sterile and the male is ALWAYS sterile. There will never be a reproducing population of horse/donkey mixes. This is the end of their genetic limitation.

Dogs and foxes cannot interbreed.

Many creatures that would seem to be very close anotomcally, cannot mingle. There are genetic limitations.
As expected by evolution: species split and become genetically distinct, to the extent that cross-breeding, if at all possible, doesn't yield fertile offspring. What was once once species, is now two.

Of course, to the evolutionist, a cow can eventually become a whale over "long periods of time" and somehow that's "scientific", but what we see in the real world is that there are limitations on how far an animal can actually go.
What you say here has no bearing on what you said before.

First, cows won't become whales. Species don't evolve into pre-existing species. I'd err that you were being farcical, but there are people who genuinely don't realise this.

Second, the genetic limitations you describe first relate to the genetic distinctiveness of horses and donkeys, dogs and foxes, etc. The limitation exists inasmuch as the two species can no longer interbreed, and so evolution in one population won't cross over to the other. This limitation is otherwise known as speciation, and is a cornerstone of evolution.

What you describe next is something altogether different. You are now saying there's a limit on how distinct a species can evolve from its ancestral species. That's using the word 'limitation' in a completely different way, has nothing to do with the first part of your post, and is unsupported by the evidence.

Evolution explains why donkeys and horses can only breed infertile offspring, that's not evidence against it at all. The second, completely different thing you said, is simply an unsubstantiated claim - there's no evidence that species are somehow limited in how distinct they can become from their ancestral species, and all the evidence in the world that species as distinct as jellyfish and birds share a common ancestor.

So... no, neither are evidence against evolution :)
 
Upvote 0