What is the most unquestionable argument against evolution?

Question

One that doesn't rely on circular strawman reasoning like "if a watch has a maker, then everything else has a maker", arguments that result from a complete misunderstanding of evolution like "if humans came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys", or arguments that take things out of context like "if scientists disagree on how evolution occured, than evolution itself must be false". There are many reasons why these arguments are easily shot down. Many complex things like snowflakes aren't directly created, but formed by natural processes. New landforms have been observed to be created by geological processes. Manmade things like watches obviously can't evolve since they don't reproduce and aren't part of nature. Evolution is not about replacing one life form with another, because of divergence and common ancestors. Also, scientists have disagreements in all areas of science, not just evolution.

Answer 1

If you're trying to say that dead ordered snowflakes arising from dead molecules is the same as life arising from dead chemicals, In fact, there is no parallel between the two issues at all. To put it simply, water forming
snowflakes is 'doing what comes naturally', given the properties of the system. There is no need for any external information or programming to be added to the system—the existing properties of the water molecule and the atmospheric conditions are enough to give rise inevitably to snowflake-type patterns.

However, there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems. That is because the properties of the 'finished product' are not programmed in the components of the system. It takes the addition of some extra information—either by an intelligent mind at work or a programmed machine. What would be analogous is if you saw a doily crocheted into the pattern of a snowflake. There is no natural,
spontaneous tendency for the components of the system (for example, wool or cotton fibres) to assume that shape. The pattern has to be imposed by external information—either by the operation of mind or a programmed machine.

So whenever you see a snowflake doily, you instinctively recognize this fact and see it as the result of creation, as you should when you contemplate a section of a chromosome—the raw ingredients are not sufficient without a source of information. In living things, that information has come from the parent organism (a programmed mechanism) which arose from its parent which arose.... You might find that the doily has been crocheted by a programmed machine in a factory, which might itself have been built by another machine—but eventually that information had to arise in a mind. A snowflake pattern as water freezes may appear beautiful, but it is not the same thing at all, because no external programming or information has to be applied.
A similar issue (sometimes raised by evolutionists who should know better) is that of salt crystal formation as a warm saturated solution cools down. Not only is the chemical tendency already present in the sodium and chloride ions (making the end result inevitable, unlike the imagined evolutionary process), but the type of 'order' which arises is quite unlike the complexity of living things in kind, not just degree. A simple example will show the two types of order in alphabet letters:


1. ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC


2. A CAT SAT ON THE MAT


Both are 'ordered', but only type 2 resembles the ordering in, say, a protein molecule. Chop the first sequence in half, and the two halves are essentially the same. Break a crystal of salt in two, and you see the same effect. Chop a protein (for example haemoglobin) molecule in half and you no longer have haemoglobin—the two halves don't resemble one another. That is because the ordering is like that in the type 2 example above—chop that sentence in half and it loses all its meaning.
To put it another way, as a salt crystal grows and grows, it is like continuing the type 1 sequence above. The sequence gets longer, the crystal gets bigger (simply more of the same), but not more complex. For simple organisms to become more complex (or simple chemicals to become a living thing) would be like the type 2 sentence becoming a whole story about cats, for example.
Also, The watchmaker argument is not circular, strawman reason. You apparently don't understand the argument. The idea is that if a watch needs a intelligent designer because there is obvious design there, why would something that is infinitely more complex like the original first life form(the first cell), also not need a designer? You said "Manmade things like watches obviously can't evolve since they don't reproduce and aren't part of nature". If you find a watch sitting on top of a rock out in the forest and you break that watch down to it's basic elements it's just as natural as the rock. If the rock could evolve, why couln't the watch? The reason is because the watch has irreducible complexity and specified complexity. The rock doesn't. As far as the watch not being able to reproduce........The dead chemicals from which the first cell came from could not reproduce either and yet you're saying that they somehow came together to produce the first life form which is infinitely more complex than a watch. So why couldn't dead chemicals come together to produce a watch.

Answer 2

more suitable complicated than that. It is going more suitable like this. you initiate with the "information" that god exists, and that he cares about the universe and human beings in certain. that's then frustrating to have self assurance that he does no longer were messing round such as his creation with the intention to get what he needed (us, apparently). so as that they pass searching for the transitions in evolution that are very frustrating to describe. that could no longer frustrating - we've in problem-free words been reading evolutionary biology for somewhat over a century. They both deduce that evolution became helped alongside or that it only did not happen. in case you look on the same data with the idea that god does no longer exist or does no longer intrude interior the universe, you're surprised by how nicely evolution explains each little thing, and also you assume that eventually we are going to comprehend how those "effortless" transitions got here about. There extremely is not any aspect arguing, because the positions are extremely separated by the initiating assumptions, no longer the data or the common sense.

Answer 3

Evolution is only a theory designed to explain observable evidence. It can never be proven true period. And until observable evidence appears to the contrary it can never be proven false. Now I don't understand why people turn this to a struggle of Science vs. God! Science is a human logic process just as natural as believing in God is..

Answer 4

That is because unlike pure dogma science is always scrutinizing itself, asking questions enquiring and evolveing!Science keeps descovering things it didn't know about when that happens everything has to be reavaluated to see if it all still holds true. Tha't great! It's honest.

Personally I believe in evolution. I don't usually arguew it with people who don't. Unless they open up the question. I am rethinking that though.

Do you think that dogmatic beliefs attract people who need a simple answer? Or at least one that is consistant?

Peace and good will.

LAST darlin! You need to rethink that comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 5

Poohcat1 - the second law of thermodynamics obviously does not apply - it only applies to closed systems, and it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Of course, it's the only arguments against evolution would come from people who can't understand science.

Answer 6

I think the best argument the xtians could use is that the bible is merely human accounts of God, and that Evolution is gods will. I would deem such a person touting that as agnostic. Which is almost correct.

Answer 7

How about: a moth changing color as proof of evolution is the best argument I've ever heard for racism in my life.

Have a sugar cookie and some iced tea.

Answer 8

I have actually 3 questions for evolutionists.
1. How was gravity formed?
2. How did homo habilis become homo sapiens?
3. Why were there primitive life forms on earth?

Peace and every blessing!

Answer 9

There is no argument against what you believe...

there are too many "You's" in your mind!~

Answer 10

All science known to man to this day has proven that "matter cannot create itself " !