What is your favorite "evidence" to disprove evolution?

Question

If you believe in evolution like me then the stuipist thing you heard, other than the bible.

If you don't something other than a quote in the bible.

I'm looking for observations proven and backed by the scienticfic method.

My favorite is quoting Darwin about the devolpment of the eye and how it seems impossible. He didn't understand the geological time period that well.

Answer 1

The woman who called me and accusingly said

"Okay, if evolution is true, how come I've been going to the zoo for 30 years and I never saw a monkey turn into a person? I betcha didn't think about that, didja?".

Phew. Ignorance is astonishingly well-developed in creationists.

Answer 2

1- What were the "natural and coincidental variations" referred to by Darwin? It was true that some cows were bigger than others, while some had darker colors, yet how could these variations provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species?

2- Darwin asserted that "Living beings evolved gradually." In this case, there should have lived millions of "transitional forms." Yet there was no trace of these theoretical creatures in the fossil record. Darwin gave considerable thought to this problem, and eventually arrived at the conclusion that "further research would provide these fossils."

3- How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes, ears or wings? How can it be advocated that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if they had even a single part missing?

4- Before considering these questions, consider the following: How did the first organism, the so-called ancestor of all species according to Darwin, come into existence? Could natural processes give life to something which was originally inanimate?

Darwin was, at least, aware of some these questions, as can be seen from the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory." However, the answers he provided had no scientific validity. H.S. Lipson, a British physicist, makes the following comments about these "difficulties" of Darwin's:

On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt.

Answer 3

Ok How about this: Remember you asked,,,,Jim

Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods
of scientific
investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

"Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community
became very
excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey
as scientific
proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance
natural
processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a
mixture of
methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture
through an
electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment,
the products
were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the
individual links
of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in
our bodies,
newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now
proved life came
from chemicals.

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino
acids under
these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was
never
formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are
normal everyday
chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known
process that
has ever converted amino acids into a life form.

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino
acids in
those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Then
I realized
that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of
the subject
of chirality. Chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from
chemicals.

Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements
and similar
properties, they can still have different structures. When two
molecules appear
identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of
each other,
those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands
illustrate
chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they
are only
mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this
reason, chirality
can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each
individual molecule
is called an optical isomer.

When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having
chirality,
there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well
as the
right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a
random chance
process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of
the two
optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that
only a few
scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality
was missing
in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to
a
catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural
processes.

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of
amino acids
and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or
left-handed optical
isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be
synthesized in
the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA
molecule is made
up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides,
and these
nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer.
The "L"
isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist
in natural
DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed
these proteins
and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the
components
would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what
we see in
natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural
process create
proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with
billions of
"R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of
design? Even if
there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create
one isomer.
If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it
would work.
If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever
formed? Even if
there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined
which
process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance
natural process?
The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this
kind of control
is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide
molecules come
together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms
the double
helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each
component
contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA
the spiral
shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the
wrong
chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would
not
function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed
like a train
on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of
molecules
within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration
all at the
same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be
formed with
chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides
to come
together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the
same
chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one
product with
chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite
chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma.
According to
evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods
of time.
However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by
natural science
in any amount of time.

Answer 4

Common Sense ...
http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2005/5/15a/article_01.htm

Why I Believe the Bible
- A Nuclear Scientist Tells His Story
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/1/22a/article_01.htm
(Take your ^ pick!)

(NOTE : These URLs will likely be modified soon. After that, each subtitle can be entered in the Advanced Search engine at : http://watchtower.org/search/search_e.htm , which will give you links with the new URLs.)

Answer 5

Your question is fantastic, but the comment underneath is out of order.

I must say that you have a right to believe or not to believe, but that doesn't give you the right to use Holy Scriptures from any religion to express yourself with such hate.

I do hope you find happiness and get rid of the thorns in your heart.

Answer 6

Evolution is still a theory it hasn't been proven yet, until now.

Because the Missing link is still missing.

Big Bang is still a theory

If you believe on something that is not yet proven scientifically it will fall on belief category.

That is the truth and that is the fact.

Answer 7

I don't "believe in" evolution. I understand it.

Are there people who, say, "believe in" gravity?

To answer the question: "darwin changed his mind on his deathbed, so that proves evolution is a lie".

You know, like saying Newton recanted, so gravity is no longer valid. Because, you know, scientists just accept theories without giving them a second thought.

Answer 8

One of the evidences that evolution is not true is that the sun rose in the sky this morning. Another evidence is that the earth is rotating on its axis and it takes 365 days to complete this axis.
Another evidence is that humans have stopped evolving. If evolution were true we would have evolved into something else by now.

Answer 9

There are most likely elements of both evolution and creation in life.

There is no doubt that there are some elements of natural selection in the process of life. For example, moths in certain environments can assume the same color as their surroundings to evade predators. Its of course the moths that "stick out" from their surroundings that get eaten by their predators and do not survive to reproduce. Thus survivors produce and continue the species. Having said this, I think its naive to think that given that species adapt to their environments, that there is not an overall design element to the moth life form to begin with.

Although there are proven natural selection processes that occur within evolution theory, there are a lot of problems with the overall theory. For example, there are no "in-between" species meaning that species went from one to a completely different one without gradually changing. Darwin even had problems with his own theory. Also, it is more probable that a tornado go through a junk yard and create a 747 than for evolution to have created life. In other words, there is an element of "design" in the existence of life. If there is "design," there must be a creator. But there are definitely natural selection processes that also occur within the overall creation and adapting of life.

I think that there are some natural selection processes in life but that the overall design came from our Creator

Answer 10

didn't you say you studied evolution gary, and that's the best you can come up with? or were you lying when you said this: "For years I was an advocate of evolution..."