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

[Chris B]

You really need to stop doing that.

When your opponent is busy making a mistake, it is rude to interrupt him.

 

[Larniavc]

No support for asserting evolution, the only challenge is to de-programme people form believing in dead unconscious things performing miracles for no reason, which we all have been force fed with for decades now.

The OP is asking for positive against ToE, not a lack of support for it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So far, no evidence against ToE, just assertions...

 

[Armoured]

When your opponent is busy making a mistake, it is rude to interrupt him.

He keeps saying stuff that sounds really interesting, and I get disappointed when it turns out the claims are made from whole cloth.

See also: Gobekli Tepe being a brothel.

 

[Armoured]

The OP is asking for positive against ToE, not a lack of support for it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So far, no evidence against ToE, just assertions...

But that's all they ever come up with, it's like a Pascal's Wager of origin theories... "if we disprove evolution, then Biblical Creationism must be true by default".

 

[Chris B]

The only real problem is Reason. If we assume that a brain arose that then started to ponder on the world, then Reason cannot definitively exist.
For if logical propositions are only the product of specific chemical processes in the brain, than if those processes were different, then that would be logical. There is then no way for us to ascertain if something follows something else at all, since reasoning is dependant on processes that might just as well have been different. What we consider 'reasonable' might just be a product of our biology and not on account of concepts actually being related or conclusions necessarily following our specific axioms or thought processes. (Often we see different people coming to vastly different conclusions with the same data set, which actually supports this)
In this way then, if we accept the evolutionary origin of consciousness and reason, then we must doubt the very reasoning which we had used to accept the evolutionary origin in the first place. This does not of course mean our reasoning is wrong nor that evolution does not occur, but it does make all human knowledge highly suspect, if nothing else.

Ah, this is something found in C S Lewis that he unfortunately proposed as a problem and then used more as a knock-down argument than as something to chew over to see if there was a resolution.

Your post contains several statements of consequences or implications that are not necessarily so.
And you certainly overlook the effect of natural selection, which works on thinking as well as on physical attributes.

I agree that certain knowledge and solid proof is difficult if not impossible to obtain outside of certain formallydefined situations, but that doesn't achieve or demonstrate any support for non-evolutionary possibilities as the doubt and uncertainty is at least equally present.
A lot of work has been done on why people think differently, where they do, and why they think poorly, where they do (and a lot of us demonstrably do.
Visual illusions can be a good way in. The eye/brain system can be fooled and go wrong.
It turns out that a reason for this generally exists, on the evolutionary model.
Mostly it's about getting more speed, for which short-cuts and abbreviated processes are used.
(Waiting around to see *exactly* what large thing with big teeth is approaching is not usually a survival strategy.)
But that "quick alert" reflex is often often out-of date in modern society, which has appeared very quickly and presented greater variety than theses systems are used to handling: evolution lagging behind a rapidly changing environment, as one might expect.
See it in residual (or not-so-residual) tribalism. "Wrong" clothes or accent or skin colour can set off triggers that would have been more appropriate 15,000 years ago.
See it in our largely outdated craving for salt, fats and sugars: when they were scarce in diet, that was a good thing.
Now that trained reflex is quite often harmful, as they are not (for most, anyway)

The "proof" of thinking is in how well it works.
We only have a thought-model of the universe. But as (only) an approximate map it is good enough to produce... well man look around at modern technology, including computer chips, lasers...

Nah, our thinking is pretty good, but not perfect.
Interestingly we can improve it by thinking about it.

 

[Hieronymus]

The OP is asking for positive against ToE, not a lack of support for it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

True, but it is still absence of evidence, or proof.
And that's evidence for an idea without support in reality.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Ah, this is something found in C S Lewis that he unfortunately proposed as a problem and then used more as a knock-down argument than as something to chew over to see if there was a resolution.

Your post contains several statements of consequences or implications that are not necessarily so.
And you certainly overlook the effect of natural selection, which works on thinking as well as on physical attributes.

I agree that certain knowledge and solid proof is difficult if not impossible to obtain outside of certain formallydefined situations, but that doesn't achieve or demonstrate any support for non-evolutionary possibilities as the doubt and uncertainty is at least equally present.
A lot of work has been done on why people think differently, where they do, and why they think poorly, where they do (and a lot of us demonstrably do.
Visual illusions can be a good way in. The eye/brain system can be fooled and go wrong.
It turns out that a reason for this generally exists, on the evolutionary model.
Mostly it's about getting more speed, for which short-cuts and abbreviated processes are used.
(Waiting around to see *exactly* what large thing with big teeth is approaching is not usually a survival strategy.)
But that "quick alert" reflex is often often out-of date in modern society, which has appeared very quickly and presented greater variety than theses systems are used to handling: evolution lagging behind a rapidly changing environment, as one might expect.
See it in residual (or not-so-residual) tribalism. "Wrong" clothes or accent or skin colour can set off triggers that would have been more appropriate 15,000 years ago.
See it in our largely outdated craving for salt, fats and sugars: when they were scarce in diet, that was a good thing.
Now that trained reflex is quite often harmful, as they are not (for most, anyway)

The "proof" of thinking is in how well it works.
We only have a thought-model of the universe. But as (only) an approximate map it is good enough to produce... well man look around at modern technology, including computer chips, lasers...

Nah, our thinking is pretty good, but not perfect.
Interestingly we can improve it by thinking about it.

Yes, but you cannot trust your reasoning entirely. Even the evolutionary support of why it can be so or the evolutionary adaptation of thought itself, still hits the problem of equating thought to chemical process that kills off definitive reason. So accepting evolution of thought negates the very act of accepting it. It doesn't matter whether we think it is probably right or that our thinking is not perfect, the philosophical basis is a house of cards. There is no resolution possible if you negate reason, for you cannot reason if reason does not apply.

Yes, I greatly simplified the argument to better fit the medium of a post, as I think you are aware.

I never said anything about support for non-evolutionary ideas, it obviously doesn't. I merely answered the OP by giving what I think is the greatest flaw in evolutionary biology.

 

[Larniavc]

True, but it is still absence of evidence, or proof.
And that's evidence for an idea without support in reality.

You are ignoring the evidence for evolution and are unable to provide evidence against ToE (as the OP asked).

 

[In situ]

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

Precambrian rabbits and crockducks... unfortunately no Cambrian rabbits have been found, but the crockduck has recently been discovered.

 

[In situ]

What are some questions that evolution can't answer?

What is 2+2?

What facts can it not explain?

The fact that the sun shines.

Comments?

The theory of evolution explain all relevant data in a consistent and coherent manner. The theory of evolution is better proven than the theory of gravity. Why don't you ask the same question about the theory of gravity as well? What is wrong with all creationists that insist in saying it does not explain data when it does?

 

[Extraneous]

What is 2+2?



The theory of evolution explain all relevant data in a consistent and coherent manner. The theory of evolution is better proven than the theory of gravity. Why don't you ask the same question about the theory of gravity as well? What is wrong with all creationists that insist in saying it does not explain data when it does?

Maybe its because evolution has paraded around so many false missing link fossils, and that they also claim DNA proves what happened hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years ago, even though Science cannot even Read 80% of human DNA. Or maybe its their assertion that this DNA, which they are too illiterate to read, is junk DNA. Perhaps its their previous assertion that the human appendix was a useless organ. Or perhaps its their denial that these things are fallacies which are part of ToE

 

[Extraneous]

Precambrian rabbits and crockducks... unfortunately no Cambrian rabbits have been found, but the crockduck has recently been discovered.
View attachment 172609

lol

 

[In situ]

Maybe its because evolution has paraded around so many false missing link fossils

Instead of making a sweeping comment, can you name any particular false missing links used as evidence today?

Btw, you do realize that everything that ever has lived and still lives is a "missing" link, do you? That is, what is a "link" between two groups is arbitrary and dependends on how you group things.

For instance if we study mammal like reptiles is the therapsids the missing link between the synapsids and cynodonts or is therapsids a true group by it self and cynodonts the missing link between therapsids and mammals or is there a "missing" link in between them? The answer is, it all depends on how you decide to classify living things since all living beings forms a continuum of "missing" links with no jumps - a.k.a. the nested set of life.

and that they also claim DNA proves what happened hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years ago

The evidence from DNA is an observation - observations are not claims. Observations are facts. The facts tells us DNA forms a nested set that correlates almost perfect with the nested set found in the taxonomic classification, and any other classification done by date. These observations proves common ancestor beyond reasonable doubts.

If you don't know what the nested set of life is, you better get your self acquainted with it or stop making ignorant claims about the foundation of knowledge which all of our understanding in biology rest on. Without it, biology would be similar to do stamp collecting, which it basically was before Darwin. Nobody understood why life was a nested set, it did not made any sense before Darwin, but Darwin explained it in his book. And so far we have no other alternative explanation who stood the test onto why life is a nested set.

even though Science cannot even Read 80% of human DNA.

You are free to download the entire human genome from the UniGene project at NCBI (National Center for BioInformation at National Institute of Health). As far as I know, the human genome, along with numerous other species, has been publicly available for anyone to download for at least the past 16 years. If you want you can even get your own genome sequenced for a reasonable doable amount, done in a day or so.

Besides that the entire Human Genome was published in Nature about ten years ago (2003 or so I believe) - I know this because I got the issue myself at home but can't bother to find it right now to tell the exact date.

Or maybe its their assertion that this DNA, which they are too illiterate to read, is junk DNA. Perhaps its their previous assertion that the human appendix was a useless organ. Or perhaps its their denial that these things are fallacies which are part of ToE

Or maybe you got it all wrong due to ignorance, and the tenth of thousands scientists and biologist that spent decades study these things actually is not incompetent, as you suggest they are, but manage to get it right. Ever considered that to be an option?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it does, it amazes me that you do not see that. Of course the claim is that infinity is not possible.

Your post was about punctuated equilibrium, which you did not understand. The "many universes theory" which is not even a theory, is a totally different subject. You need to try again, or admit that you screwed up.

 

[Extraneous]

Instead of makign a sweaign comment, can you name any particular false missing links used by as evidence today?



The evidence from DNA is an observation - observations are not claims. Observations are facts. The facts tells us DNA forms a nested set that correlates almost perfect with the nested set found in the taxonomic classification, and any other classification done by date. These observations proves common ancestor beyond reasonable doubts.



You free to download the human genome from the UniGene project at NCBI. As far as I know, it has been public available for any one to download for at least the past 16 years. If you want you can even get your own genome sequenced for a reasonable doable amount, done in a day or so.



Or maybe you got it all wrong, and the tenth of thousands scientists and biologist that spent decades study these things actually got it right. Ever consider that to be an option?

I see it for what it is, a flawed theory, that has many problems, and is far from observing anything. You however would have us believe that its as cut and dry as observing apple pie.

 

[In situ]

I see it for what it is, a flawed theory, that has many problems, and is far from observing anything. You however would have us believe that its as cut and dry as observing apple pie.

Again you make sweeping statements. How am I, or anyone, supposed to meet such criticism?

The general consensus among scientist is that the theory explains available data in a coherent and consistent way. To this you opposed with the claims it is "a flawed theory" that it has "many problem" and that is has "no observational evidence" - all which is typical nonsense YEC claims with no actual evidence to support these assertions. (btw, I edited my post a bit while you did you reply and suggest you go back and read the edits).

When it come to observational evidence, I have already informed you about that the nested set of life is a proof of common ancestor - everywhere we look we see the very same nested set. This is not a claim, but hard observational facts, which implies that common ancestor is an observed fact. Or do you have any other explanation for the nest set of life? I don't think so, because so far nobody have.

Again I if you actually have anything of substance which you believe are a problem, a flaw, claim to be an observation but is not, then tell us so we can examine the evidence you got for our self.

 

[Chris B]

Yes, but you cannot trust your reasoning entirely.

Agreed. It makes it a right can of worms as soon as thinking when any high degree of precision or confidence is being aimed at.

So accepting evolution of thought negates the very act of accepting it.

at the level of "definitive", yes. (Which doesn't drop immediately from perfect to zero in the reliability stakes.)

There is no resolution possible if you negate reason, for you cannot reason if reason does not apply.

Yes, I greatly simplified the argument to better fit the medium of a post, as I think you are aware.

Working in absolute or binary terms that's right.
(And since that is simpler and less stressful, up to a critical point, many people default to it.)

Fuzzy logic and probability does serve better in a lot of circumstances, but it is not so tidy. Even if you can state the key terms with precision: "god", "spirit" "faith" "love" can come with notoriously variable meanings and connotation values associated with them, killing precision and certainty in communication.

Asked about "x", C. E. M. Joad tended to reply "well, it all depends on what you mean by "x" "
So often it does, but tying terms down neatly can seem such a boring preliminary when the user knows exactly what *they* mean by such.
(But even they may not be sure in practice: that's when a term has become a buzzword, for example. Used without real understanding. A little fashionable box passed around, everyone assuming everyone else knows what's inside it, and no-one wanting to display ignorance by asking: just pass the box on.)

 

[Hieronymus]

Again you make sweeping statements. How am I, or anyone, supposed to meet such critisism?

The general consensus among scientist is that the the theory explains avaible data in coherent and consistent way.

They have made the choice rather, that everything comes about naturally, that is naturalism, which is a belief.
So they dismiss Theism (super-naturalism), by choice.

 

[Extraneous]

Again you make sweeping statements. How am I, or anyone, supposed to meet such criticism?

The general consensus among scientist is that the theory explains available data in a coherent and consistent way. To this you opposed with the claim it is "a flawed theory" that it has "many problem" and that is has "no observational evidence" - all which is typical nonsense YEC claims with no actual evidence to support these assertions. (btw, I edited my post a bit while you did you reply and suggest you go back and read the edits).

When it come to observational evidence, I have already informed you about that the nested set of life is a proof of common ancestor - everywhere we look we see the very same nested set. This is not a claim, but hard observational facts, which implies that common ancestor is an observed fact. Or do you have any other explanation for the nest set of life? I don't think so, because so far nobody have.

Again I if you actually have anything of substance which you believe are a problem, a flaw, claim to be an observation but is not, then tell us so we can examine the evidence you got for our self.

Many political and religious groups have consensus, that however doesn't mean they are right. Even courts of law, and juries, can have consensus and still be wrong. I think you overstate the consensus too. I bet many scientists sit back and scratch their heads, wondering is certain things in ToE are true or false. Consider past error found in ToE. The consensus should be instead that ToE is just a fallible theory and should never be taken out of the context. It should never be preached as anything but fallible theory. That is what it means to have an open mind and to be scientific. Some people however misuse ToE, they use it as a religion. They turn it into a false doctrine which tickles their ears, just as mankind does.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I accept microevolution (minor changes). But I don't accept macroevolution (radical changes).