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

[Armoured]

Sigh. We discussed Lucy extensively a week or two ago. Please show how Lucy is a fraud or retract your claim.

Edit: Actually don't bother, you've just demonstrated that you are the one trying to deceive people by saying things like that when you know it's untrue. Do you not remember this thread?

It's not whether he remembers, it's more that he hopes we'd forget.

 

[Armoured]

That depends on which evolutionary theory you mean.
The general theory, or the Darwinist one.
But, ToE is the term used for Darwinism.

You're now suggesting the general theory of relativity is related to the theory of evolution?

 

[Armoured]

Lucy is not a forgery. Care to try again?

Meh, Lucy, Piltdown, it's all the same to someone who made his mind up before looking at the evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's your choice, but it was aimed at the original poster, who may not have such a closed mind.

"We should all have an open mind. But not SO open that our brains fall out" - Professor Richard Dawkins.

Funny, I thought that natural selection was, as the name implies, selecting from the best bits of each generation in order to pass onto the next and help the species survive. In other words, natural selection is not creating anything new but rather, it's filtering out/removing the parts that make a species less able to survive in its environment. The chance parts come into this when you consider where the best bits came from, which I understand to be mutations. Are you telling me that mutations aren't really a random/chance process?

Which results in a non-random process.

If I have a bag of a billion dice and a selection filter that only lets 6's through, then it is not a "random result" to end up with only 6's. Eventhough every throw of the dice is random.

Random input + non-random filter = non-random output.

Have you seen the DVD? If not, perhaps you should. You may find it quite enlightening.

Science is not done on DVD's.
Any idiot can record whatever nonsense he wishes and put it on a DVD.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Many other forgeries? Name ONE from the last 50 years, that was accepted as legit by the scientific community, then found to be fake. Just one. In fifty years. Shouldn't be tough, right?

The irony is, that even if he could name some, they would have been exposed as forgeries by............. scientists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Obviously, yes.
Mutations that survive anyhow are the cause of hereditary diseases.

Every newborn human has, on average, some 50 to 70 mutations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lucy is one of them.

How is Lucy a forgery?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Mutations are random. Evolution is not.

Hmm, I thought evolution depended on mutations. How silly of me.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

"We should all have an open mind. But not SO open that our brains fall out" - Professor Richard Dawkins

Oh yes, he's an expert at "Elephant hurtling" Does he ever listen to the drivel he comes out with at times?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

If I have a bag of a billion dice and a selection filter that only lets 6's through, then it is not a "random result" to end up with only 6's. Eventhough every throw of the dice is random.

Random input + non-random filter = non-random output.

This is an over-simplification.
It would only work if the things you were trying to filter actually existed in the first place. Since you have no idea what you are filtering for, you cannot obtain a non-random result.

 

[sfs]

Obviously, yes.
Mutations that survive anyhow are the cause of hereditary diseases.

I've corrected you on this statement before. Some mutations cause hereditary disease. Most mutations don't have any effect. Some mutations cause beneficial traits. All of this is well understood by geneticists.

 

[sfs]

This is an over-simplification.

An over-simplification, but basically correct -- unlike some of the things that creationists say about mutations

It would only work if the things you were trying to filter actually existed in the first place.

Mutations exist. The changes to traits that they cause also exist. So we're good on this point.

Since you have no idea what you are filtering for, you cannot obtain a non-random result.

We're not doing the filtering. What's doing the filtering is the competition to survive and produce offspring. Mutations that increase survival and reproduction survive the filtering better. This is all easily observed in lab and in the wild.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

We're not doing the filtering. What's doing the filtering is the competition to survive and produce offspring. Mutations that increase survival and reproduction survive the filtering better. This is all easily observed in lab and in the wild.

I don't think the creation scientists would disagree with you on that point.

 

[sfs]

I don't think the creation scientists would disagree with you on that point.

Quite. So why make a claim that even professional creationists reject?

 

[46AND2]

Hmm, I thought evolution depended on mutations. How silly of me.

Yes, so? You have been shown by several people now that it doesn't make evolution random.

 

[Hoghead1]

What theistic-evolution sources have you read, NotByChance? If you wanted to, you could put the label of "theistic evolution" onto me, though I would prefer a different term. Anyhow, seeing it from the inside, I can't agree with you at all. It find your claims way, way off base. That's why I wondering what sources you have read. Certainly you have not read anything I have published. So I am very curious just just what sources have you read.

 

[Armoured]

This is an over-simplification.
It would only work if the things you were trying to filter actually existed in the first place. Since you have no idea what you are filtering for, you cannot obtain a non-random result.

Yes you can. The thing being filtered for is "increased survival".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hmm, I thought evolution depended on mutations. How silly of me.

natural selection acts upon those mutations and variations in traits, promoting those favorable to survival and reproduction, and decreasing those that aren't. This is why dominant genes that result in conditions that kill before the reproductive years tend to be especially rare.

 

[Kylie]

Nothing can evolve into human.

Got any science to back this up?

Evolution acts on ANYTHING that can create copies of itself where those copies have slight variations. Since humans can make more humans and those new humans are not exactly the same as the humans that came before them, humans will indeed evolve over generations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is an over-simplification.

I responded in kind. Nonetheless, it illustrates the point. When you have something that filters the input according to specific criteria, then the output is not random - even when the input is.

It would only work if the things you were trying to filter actually existed in the first place.

Mutations demonstrably exist.

Since you have no idea what you are filtering for, you cannot obtain a non-random result.

Natural Selection filters for survival and reproduction.