Can you offer ONE piece of evidence that challenges evolution?

Question

Be specific. Stay coherent. No bible quotes please.

And just 1 piece is all I need. The 1st responder to show evidence that hasn't already been thoroughly refuted by those who actually study the natural world (scientists, biologists, anthropologists) will win...I kid you not... 10 POINTS & 5 STARS!

Jade asked for evidence that challenges creationism: How about carbon dating. It's actually very accurate. Detractors neglect the different isotopes used to gauge carbon based specimens of various eras. We've already dated ancient samples of modern man to over 50K years. Creationists, via The Bible, tell us we've only been around for about 6k.

I've got a few dozen more, but in keeping with the spirit of the question I'll leave it at that.

"I'm an atheist" asks if plants evolve or just humans.

Life evolves or dies out. Do plants live? Now you have the answer.

Stevekos- sorry , but I'll take Ken Miller's word over your daughter's any day. A fledgling bio major wouldn't be considered an authority on the topic.

As for your problem with the question, don't talk yourself in so many circles. The question stands on it its own. The "evidence" must "challenge". Your poorly presented anecdotal evidence doesn't challenge evolution.

I think it needs to be understood: offering up unanswered questions as evidence against (anything) is intellectual butchery. The god of the gaps mentality is an endless spiral that only discourages objective research and discovery. The "unknown" is just that...unknown. It's not evidence.

Answer 1

Challenges evolution as we currently understand it? Well, based upon the differences in the DNA of chimpanzees and humans it is estimated that we diverged roughly 6 million years ago... Fossils of post-divergence species have been dated before this though...

Also, one might argue that evolution, as we understand it, is no longer prevalent due to our current level of technology. We keep species from going extinct, even when we weren't the direct cause of the danger to the species, we eliminate new species we introduce that dominate new ecosystems, and we offer counterexamples within our own species in which organisms that are in no way more fit survive and reproduce much more readily than others (Winning the lottery is an extreme example which gets people with no redeeming qualities laid).

Answer 2

As a creation believing Christian, I do not claim that there is no evidence that supports evolution. It is clear and scientifically proven the evolution takes place. What is lacking in evidence is macro-evolution, that one species/kind of animal turns into another kind. For example, dinosaurs turning into birds. Or apes and humans sharing a common ancestor. There is a surprising lack of fossil evidence for these kinds of changes, of transitional forms between kinds. Nearly all of those, for example, which evolutionary biologists have presented as transitional forms between ape-kind and mankind have been debunked. They were later proven to be either genuine apes/chimps, such as Lucy, or a pig's tooth, as was (If I remember which one) Piltdown man, or else fall within the normal variance of modern humans. With all the fossils available for study, we should see more transitional fossils between kinds if evolution were true, yet at present scientists only have a very few possible candidates, most of which are debated.

Answer 3

My daughter is studying bio-technology, and has been working on several research projects in the process, so she not only gets to study the processes of biology in 'theory' but in practice. She does not call herself a practicing Christian but in her words 'Evolution cannot explain the immense complexities involved in the most basic biological chemical pathways - DNA and RNA need to be both present at the same time to allow for genetic reproduction. The production of PROTEINS and ENZYMES needed to power biological activity require this activity to be present already to produce them. These processes could never be produced spontaneously all at once by any mechanism proposed by 'natural' evolutionary processes, which must have happened if evolution were true. It is like saying you can put half an engine together and get a rudimentary engine that will still work, and be capable of self-improvement as well - it's not logical. Evolution requires a leap of faith at this level.' She has taken this position not because her 'religion' demands it, but because the science does. Nothing in chemistry can even remotely begin to account for the level of complexity demanded by evolutionary biology.

By the way your challenge is a trick. Evidence is just that - testimony supporting a proposition to be evaluated and judged taking into account all of the other evidence. Rarely is one piece of evidence on it's own sufficient to establish a case. Decide for yourself whether this is evidence for you or not. It doesn't bother me either way.

Answer 4

Can we say FOSSIL RECORD?

." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)

"Evolution REQUIRES intermediate forms between species and paleontology DOES NOT provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).

If there is NO links between new species as the fossil record proves, then there is no evolving.

When are people gonna realize that evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. There is NO factual evidence that evolution is true.

I have no doubt that the earth is billions of years old, The bible proves out that we are not the first, there were dinosaurs and other "manlike creatures here before adam, however we are the first made in God's image. However there is no record of the creature we are today being here any further back than 7000 years, what we find are manlike, similar in shape, but deffinitly NOT what we are today and there is NO link between them.

Answer 5

Extrapolation is what makes all of the dating tecniques science useless. I could time how long it takes me to walk 100 yards and then take that fact and "try" to extrapolate how far I would walk in 1 year. The problem with this is that there are so many variables that make the answer meaningless. What about sleeping, changes of pace, weather, injury, and on and on. Dating using isotopes and relying on half-lifes that are in the 10's of thousands of years immediately require either studying the breakdown of isotopes for thousands of years (only way to know for sure) or make grand guesses as to it's reliability and predictablility. Science looks at a large coal deposit and determines that it would take x number of years for the earth to create that much compost needed to create that much coal. Problem is, what if the amount of plant life at other times in this planets history was much greater? Of course it would. What about studies of erosion and then looking at the Grand Canyon and how long it would take the Colorado River to create that beautiful landscape. Extrapolate and you get millions of years. What if there was a worldwide flood? Would that create something like the Grand Canyon in waaaay less time? Of course it would. What about the layering effects? What if the rock layers were not from the slow gradual mineral deposits over millions of years but were the result of the kind of layering found at river basins. There is a natural sorting and layering process that would inevitably take place in a huge flood that easily explains rock layers without requiring "billions of years." If dating tecniques were so reliable how come they frequently date things known to be under 100 years old as millions of years old. And numerous tests on the same thing but rendering drastically different results. So many questions, so many variables, so many guesses presented as facts by science.

Answer 6

I will as soon as you offer one piece of evidence that challenges the existance of God that hasnt been thoroughly refuted by those who actually study theology.


The lack of evidence of evolution from species to species challenges evolution as the way life exists today.

Evolution within a species is clearly documented and proven.

Answer 7

Haha! If someone could do that, they'd be in line for a Nobel Prize, never mind your 10 points and 5 stars! I won't hold my breath.

Answer 8

I don't think any amount of evidence will change a persons mind on this issue. I'm a Christian and I believe God created man. If you on the other hand, think you are a modern day Monkey, that's your business.

Answer 9

I think you've found it, Charlie.

We've got crackers. Certainly crackers prove evolution wrong!

The buttery flavor, the crisp lean form, the sublime crunch...Irreducibly complex, I tell you.

:-) winks and bites into Pringles

Answer 10

Can you offer one piece of evidence that challenges creationism?

It seems like evidence only goes for one or the other, not against. This is practically a trick question!

edit:
Carbon dating doesn't disprove creation. There are assumptions that scientists have to make in order to use carbon dating, and those assumptions are based on evolution. But that's a whole different debate...