has anyone ever produced evidence against evolution?

Question

please no bible quotes

Answer 1

no.

we're still waiting.

Answer 2

No, there has never been any counter-evidence that has held up under scrutiny.

"How's this for evidence?"

"Dr. David Gentry" The "halo" man.

"Kent Hovind" Convicted and and in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion. (Money he squeezed from fellow fundies. How poetic.)

You guys have got to be kidding. There is not a single argument presented, wither by you or your cretinist mouthpieces, that has not been debunked for YEARS. Doubt it? Look here: http://www.talkorigins.org/ Of course, you either won't, you'll not understand what you find, or, most likely, simply deny the evidence.

BTW Which one of your pieces of evidence has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Don't bother squirming, the answer is NONE.

Answer 3

Lack of transitional forms:
One of the strongest cases against evolution is the total absence of transitional forms. Darwin himself recognized this:

“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 323.[12]



Walt Brown also provides the following quote:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” David M. Raup, ‘Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

And that was just a quick search....

Answer 4

Comets disintegrate rapidly as they approach the sun, most surviving less than 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000. (Science says the age of cometary material is similar to the 5 billion year age of the solar system)

30 million years ago, the surface of the sun would have been touching the earth

The oceans are the perfect size; if they were any bigger, they would be a swamp (humidity), and if they were any smaller the earth would be a desert (the water would boil away)

The earth’s magnetic field decreases by half, every 1,400 years. Careful measurements worldwide show that the strength of the field must have been much greater in the past. That’s fine 6,000 years ago, but if you go back just 2,000 more years, there’s a problem: EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD would have equaled that of a MAGNETIC STAR; that’s HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

If electric currents in the earth’s core are responsible for the earth’s magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth

The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were billions of years old, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth

Our earth is so precisely placed that even a one percent variation closer to or farther from the sun would make life impossible.

Recently, accurate lunar measurements show that the moon is drifting two inches farther from the earth each year. The rate would have been much higher in the past. Though that may not sound like much, if you believe the evolutionary view that the moon has been circling the earth for five billion years, you have a problem. Working backwards, the moon could not have been orbiting the earth for more than 1.4 billion years. In five billion years the moon would have receded 380,000 miles and would have significantly different effects on the earth, like much smaller tides.

When oil well drillers hit a pocket of oil deep in the earth, it’s possible it might spray crude oil into the air for days - even weeks - because of the tremendous pressure trapped below Earth’s surface in those sedimentary rocks. Even the densest sedimentary rocks have some degree of porosity. With time, the oil pressure would dissipate into the surrounding rock formations — taking just thousands of years, not millions. Tremendous pressures aren’t unusual in very deep wells, and if those oil deposits had been there for more than 5,000 years, in some cases there wouldn’t be any pressure left.

How's this for evidence?

Answer 5

Well there have been minor changes in response to new data over the years, but there is no valid evidence that contradicts the current theory of evolution. If there were, then it wouldn't be the current theory.

Answer 6

Last time I checked Evolution is still just a theory. What is a theory? A proposed explanation whose status is still speculative, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. When there is actual fact, evolution will be a law, until then it remains just a theory.

Answer 7

fossil record showing critters dated to be tens to hundred million yrs old that look exactly the same today. evidence of complex strata layers created in one day by volcanoes. evidence of radioactive material that could only result in being created rapidly. not providing transitional fossils and not counting people on this site i mean scientists. minimum gene set pool concept has proved the most simple forms of cells can only be reduced to around 360 different parts all required simultaneously for it to live, on paper that figure can only be reduced to around 250. they have found large mammal footprints along with dinosaurs, dinosaurs where meant to be extinct millions of years before mammals. um natural selection has never shown to create new information in the DNA. mutation has only ever proved to be either a neutral addition of information that is it has no affect or a detrimental one never a positive. that's about all i can think of at the moment but there is heaps.

Answer 8

That's the beauty of it. If a change in the existing theory can be reproduced, the theory changes.

So the current version is the most accurate that we have, but is always open to changes.

The same can't be said about "ID".

Answer 9

Evolution is a mind set.
It is a fluid belief that can be changed. When faced with evidence of hundreds of wrong guesses and sometimes flat out silly fabrications. You simply say "We have new evidence so we are getting closer."

Answer 10

No, but many people have pretended such evidence exists. Here's a list of these false claims and their refutations.

I expect a few will be posted here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Answer 11

Probably.... but then it has most likely been nullified with counter-evidence and forgotten for its failure at overall consistancy.