1 piece of evidence to disprove evolution..

You hear a lot about PreCambrian rabbits and other such anomalies, but that's the sort of thing that can cause a shift in timelines as opposed to falsifying a theory.The real evidence against evolution should come from the place we now have copious amounts of data: molecular biology. If you could prove that traits are not hereditary, evolution certainly would collapse. Similarly, if you could prove that differential reproductive success had no bearing on the frequency of alleles in a population, evolution is quite simply a goner.You may be interested to read this post where I answered an identical question to the one you're asking.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

Zealot,I thought your aim in starting this thread was to find out what evidence would 'disprove' evolution. Our responses, I hope, have made it clear that heritable variation and natural selection are the driving forces behind evolution. The fact that there are plausible pathways based on step-by-step improvements to establish the evolution of flight should demonstrate that these 'mutations' that you question are the observed reality of evolution.You say about a dozen times that you 'can't see' or 'fail to conceptualize' some detail or other, but is that the fault of descent with modification? Or is it some desire on your part to debunk the theory of evolution by natural selection?Please offer some evidence that these changes are not in fact heritable, or that natural selection cannot preserve advantageous variants, if you want to cast the theory of evolution into doubt. Otherwise realize that the cumulative effect of these changes is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

Zealot,Maybe we should ask you whether there is any amount of evidence that would convince you that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best explanation for the history of life on Earth. All scientific certainty is tentative, of course. However, several people have pointed out that Darwin's theory is supported by an abundance of evidence from various fields. All you seem to be saying is that if one area (for instance, the evolution of flight) is speculative, then the mountain of evidence in several other areas means nothing.It's impossible to show you flight evolving in birds. We can only safely say that it happened over numerous generations, eons ago. The only eyewitness account we have is a fossil record. Older reptilian forms had scales, then came certain reptiles with scales and feathers, and later came recognizable bird species with wings. From what we know about natural selection, we suspect certain species had an advantage because of the ability to glide and over time this became full-fledged flight. What's a better explanation?

quote:

---

I think Darwin stated something along the lines that the ToE could be proved false 'IF' it could be proved impossible for evolution from one species to another (well something to that effect) however this is impossible.

---

It would certainly be difficult for us to assert that one species evolved from a previous one if every species had its own genetic code, but this is not the case. All organisms share the DNA code. The mountain of molecular data that we currently have is well explained by the idea of common descent: that modern forms all share common ancestors.

quote:

---

You have something like what 100 000 (way more I'm sure) species that you can arrange (say the eye) from most simple to most complex and draw up a conclusion from that.

---

The conclusion we draw is that an eye, for example, didn't necessarily have to be formed exactly like a human eye to be of use to an organism's survival. If you're impressed with the complexity of the human eye, you're not alone. There's good reason to suspect that our ancestors could have survived with eyes that were not quite as complex, since we understand from looking at other species alive today that eyes don't have to be exactly like ours to aid in survival.

quote:

---

I know Christian's have difficulty answering questions sometimes, but just because you dont know the answer, doesn't mean it doesn't exists. Same ofcourse can be said about evolution.

---

I fully agree. But there will always be questions about Nature, and we have to find the theory that best explains our observations. Tell me what you need to see before you accept that the ToE is a good explanation for Nature and its history.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

Zealot,

quote:

---

I suppose for evolution (ignoring the Big Bang theory) to be fact, I would have to see either life on another planet, or evolution from 'essentialy nothing'.

---

Thanks for being honest. I guess your username should have told me how closed you are to any exchange of relevant information. Several people here have gone out of their way to clarify certain points you raised, and you've basically proven yourself incapable of understanding any of their valid responses.I wrongly assumed you wanted information about the theory of evolution by natural selection. I have no idea what you're looking for except to continue believing whatever it is you believe, regardless of whether it has any scientific basis. In your latest post alone you've introduced absolutely irrelevant, erroneous information such as:

• All scientific evidence that supports Darwin's theory is based on the assumption that Darwin's theory is true.
• Mathematicians and Einstein don't believe in chaos theory.
• Animals usually have two eyes.
• There are no intermediate microbes.
• Avian evolution doesn't have enough fossils.
• Only 90% of the human genome has been mapped.
• Flats and houses are different but are made of 97% similar materials.
• There's no reason the moon should revolve around the earth.

I don't know or care where these bizarre notions came from, I don't know how to begin to answer them, and I doubt you would take the time to understand the answers. There are plenty of books and websites with information on natural history, but you'll continue to depend on your considerable lack of imagination to keep you from grasping any of it. If any other participants here feel that further responses to your posts would be useful, fine. I see no indication that such effort would be anything more than a waste of time.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 08-17-2003]

From the sidelines: Sorry coach!