What is the best evidence refuting the Theory of Evolution?
I am as well versed in the Theory of Evolution as the average american should be, but is not. I keep hearing people say it was debunked or it was proven false.
So far the evidence I have been provided by anti evolutionists is pretty much nonsense. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
So, what is the best evidence that refutes evolution?
Sources are mandatory!
Creationism was dropped from scientific acknowledgement and study in 1850 because of a tremendous lack of evidence and large amounts of evidence against it as well as common sense, rationality, and logic.
Evolution is still being studied. The fact that it is still being studied is evidence that evidence for it exists, therefore you don't even need to show it. Is evolution absolute fact? No, it is a theory, however, most people think theory means "idea", this is not the case. A theory is an idea that is highly supported by reasonable amounts of evidence. In the case of evolution, it is a HIGHLY supported theory, borderline truth, however obviously we cant go back in time to observe it so that is why it isn't fact yet. A vast amount of evidence for evolution exists, and this evidence is irrefutable. What, you think that when scientists find something they don't try to disprove it? Of course not! The first thing scientists do is try to debunk it, and when they cant it becomes accepted. So if these scientists with masters degrees in biology and years of experience in the field of evolutionary science cannot disprove it, what makes you think average people, let alone creationists can?
Basically there is ZERO evidence against evolution. No factual evidence anyways. The only thing you'll find is poorly pieced together arguments from ignorant god believers desperately trying to refute it with absurd statements and assumptions.
This. Evolution is still having information published, fossils found, DNA decoded and much more.
That alone, just that ONE article destroys creationism completely.
Creationism is wrong. There is no more point talking about it, just that one article proves that evolution must have happened and that the earth is older than 6000 years.
That's called physical evidence and it's very useful for finding the truth.
I find it sad that even though that article is based on real evidence, there will still be creationists, simply because creationism isn't based on science or evidence or fact or logic, but based on religion and the bible.
That is another reason I am hostile to religion. Even though I have proved them wrong, they will still tell me I will burn in hell for reporting the truth.
I wonder if they think the Sun orbits Earth still.
The Discovery Institute has a track record of teaching pseudoscience, that is why neither I nor any of the scientific organizations I listed trust it's work. And it's not just evolutionists who disagree with the Discovery Institute, it just happens to be the entire scientific community. When we look at the Discovery Institutes work, we can refute each and every piece of its work, and the Discovery Institute just remains silent and sends out another press release assuring its gullible supporters that ID is stronger than ever. The Discovery Institute is really just an argument from ignorance.
I found a few examples on their website:
1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.
1. DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).
2. Irreducible complexity is claimed to indicate (but does not) that certain systems could not have evolved gradually. However, jumping from there to the conclusion that those systems were designed is an argument from incredulity. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design.
3. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
The scientific community has already refuted every point that the Discovery Institute has made, and instead of being good scientists and GLADLY accepting that they are wrong, they choose to be stubborn little children and pretend like their idea is still valid.
Oh Ax, you and your implications ;)
No, I'm saying that many creationists who claim to have rebutted evolution are nothing more than pseudoscientific conmen (COUGH, Kent Hovind, COUGH).
The majority of Christians accept evolution at least to some degree, but I find it interesting that those who don't accept it at all are the ones on the TV making their own religion look bad.
Sources are mandatory, and you didn't cite any.
There is plenty of evidence supporting "macro" evolution. Please review the source I have cited and rethink your position, I don't think you've done enough research.
Also, how can something be a theory in science if it has no evidence to back itself up? You would do well to look up the definition for scientific theory.
"Macro evolution has never been observed" (www.talkorigins.org)
There is so many flaws in what you claim to be evidence, that I hardly know where to begin. First of all some one's opinion is not evidence.
Difference between macro and micro:Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
In your link, "Speciation has been observed and documented." The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/