What's the best evidence that disproves evolution?
- sk8terboy1963Lv 43 months agoFavorite Answer
If anyone EVER disproved evolution, that person would be instantly famous the world over not to mention rich beyond their wildest dreams............. still waiting.......
- DavidLv 73 months ago
How about a dozen reasons? One's not enough, two, maybe. How about a hundred? Not sure the length of the list is what will convince a denier. Evidence is for a thinker, a truth seeker, not an opinion seeker.
Sometimes it is argued that evolution is true because it is the "scientific consensus position." Most scientists believe in evolution. But this doesn't make it true. This fallacy is called the "inappropriate appeal to authority," or Ad Populum Fallacy.
Those atheists denying the evidence of the Bible are essentially saying "creation cannot be true because it involves the supernatural." Atheists fear and deny anything to do with God, and demand that Science must be limited to natural explanations.
This begs the question because whether the universe was naturally formed or supernaturally created is the very question at issue. In the above argument, the evolutionist has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove. Another example would be, "how can the Bible be right about a ~6,OOO-year-old earth, when we know from radiometric dating that the world is billions of years old?" This assumes that radiometric dating gives consistently reliable results; but creationists deny this and have offered evidence to the contrary. This hypothetical critic has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove.
Science is a methodology outlined by Francis Bacon—who accepted Genesis as history, by the way. Real science is accurate and precise, not vague and sloppy like historical science for evolution. Bacon was aware that the creation model is useful for discovery and collecting observations that can be repeatedly tested. The evolutionary model cannot be placed in this framework. For example, one cannot design an experiment to test evolutionary ideas. How can this be real science that demands burden of proof?
Evolution is the biggest hoax ever claimed to be "fact", and alongside it the supporting myth of millions/billions of years. The entire world has been hoodwinked w/o any valid evidence whatsoever! This is a blasphemy to intelligence and knowledge and truth, a grave error and destructive to us all, perpetrated with ulterior motive to destroy God so man can be god. There is simply too much evidence of coordinated effort to remove God from our society, an intolerance of Christianity. The trumpets have sounded and the push back has begun.
But let's get back to the evidence rather than circle our thinking around myths of OPINION like evolution. It's tiring chasing one's tail, and you can't go anywhere with it, or while doing it.
We could discuss the fossil record which contains the mineralized remains of organisms that once lived on the earth. This is exactly what creationists would expect to find, since the Bible records a global Flood which destroyed virtually all life on earth, burying billions of organisms in sediments which have now turned to rock. These fossils come in distinct groups or "kinds," which are found in a somewhat organized order, consistent with the progressive order in which these organisms were buried as the Flood waters rose to higher elevations with different ecologies.
Although there is much variation within each kind or taxonomic family, there is little if any evidence of change between those basic kinds--exactly what creationists would expect, but contrary to the natural expectations of evolutionists.
Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step (Futuyma 1983, p. 197).
Those saying evolution is a fact are confused and generally point to natural selection. Natural Selection alone is insufficient to result in Darwinian evolution.
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits, the Creation model using many of the same principles, something we agree on. But as a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds or a new genus to emerge.
There is no current explanation or hypothetical mechanism for Darwinian Evolution that has not been discredited by observation or experimentation.. Real science involves observable, testable and repeatable testing of evidence. Anyone can repeat and observe the results; empirical science, observational science, operational science, all the same thing.
Evolution is part of "historical" science that requires no observable, testable, repeatable evidence. Evolution is an unsupported OPINION.
Science cannot even make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—but let's say you can just for fun. Turn it into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.
What you are looking for is empirical evidence. That may be a new idea to most atheists, so define your terms. Empirical evidence is how we "know" something with a very high probability, by the integrity and detail of the evidence in truth of fact.
Empirical Evidence against evolution
1. Watson and Crick disproved Darwinian Evolution in 1953, but some people still must believe in "mythology & folklore," because we're still discussing it, still trying to get the correct information out to dispense with an infinite number of lies that develop around the myth called evolution.
The mechanism for Darwinian Evolution was discredited in 1953 when Watson and Cricks discovery of DNA refuted Darwin's assertion that the possible variation was infinite thereby disproving the common dissent aspect of Darwin's Model.
2. Crick says the human genome cannot occur randomly. If life cannot occur randomly, evolution in the past is impossible. Proof enough. Even if they some day do figure out how to create life from non-life in the lab, doesn't make any difference.
3. Evolution relies on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is empirically proven false over and over, and will remain false until it isn't. Abiogenesis violates the natural universal law of biogenesis--life comes from life, not non-life. Abiogenesis is scientifically proven false. That means evolution has no starting point and is therefore non-existent.
4. The Natural Laws pertaining to information hold that information is immaterial and that matter cannot bring forth anything immaterial. Yet the whole of the material universe contains vast amounts of information. To assert a materialistic explanation, it is necessary to demonstrate information arising from material interactions.. When we include DNA into the mix we are talking not just information but language - including syntax and grammar and complex algorithms. Not only can science not explain this but the Natural Laws pertaining to Information assert this type of information cannot be produced by matter or material interactions.
This is yet another line of evidence that invalidates systematic materialism..
5. Natural selection is well established but a common tactic is to point to evidence of natural selection and assert it proves common descent.. best to clarify Common Descent so everybody is talking about the same thing.
a. The net product of natural selection is a loss of information - the opposite of what is needed to drive common descent.
b. Gene knockout experiments have demonstrated once a gene is knocked out the cell uses other pathways to obtain what it needs. As a result there is no basis for natural selection to preserve the mutation, and good reasons not to.
c. Experiments and observation demonstrate most mutations are not random but are the product of guided physiological processes - once again observation and experimentation contradict the evolutionary model's claims.
d. Genes are not central and experimental evidence has demonstrated it is not the genes but other factors that determine body types - as all the selection in the world will not produce a novel body type because body type is not mediated by the genes.
At first the inferences used to argue evolution are almost compelling, but looking more closely they all fall through. Evolution fails because the more observations you make and the more data you gather the less viable it becomes. The point has been reached where those arguing for evolution sound more like the Greek Sophists than scientists!
-- the Darwinist's have been comparing the genes but ignoring the organization and structure.. Looking at organization and structure they would have found that the genes for this or that protein was located on different chromosomes. Genomics is concluding that all mammals have a common compliment of proteins (and so genes coding for those proteins) but where those proteins are coded in the Genome varies from genus to genus. Building a tree of life taking into consideration where in the genome the individual proteins are coded and you have something completely different than just looking at individual genes. This is one of several reasons Genetics and genomics empirically disprove Darwinism.
The simple fact is the more data that comes in - the less plausible Darwinism (any of it's forms) becomes. Were it not for the social and political aspects of the theory it would have been abandoned a long time ago.
- 3 months ago
Well, just by chance planets of differing sizes appeared and collided, causing some of them to spin into orbit. One of the planets was a fiery ball and a medium planet that orbited it was luckily just the right distance away, so that the large fiery planet provided light and warmth to the medium one, and as the medium planet turned on it's lucky perfectly angled axis it was half in daylight and half in dark for set periods. At the same time, another, smaller planet provided light to the medium planet during a set period of time. The medium planet started to 'sweat' from the heat of the fiery planet and this sweat formed itself into oceans, rivers and lakes, and the heat from the fiery planet would draw moisture from these water sources and return it in the form of rain.Just by chance, life forms, so small they were invisible to the naked eye, began to develop and luckily they developed in such a way that eventually they would reproduce. Also by chance, some of those life forms all of which were from the same source split, and some developed into flora and fauna, and the others into living creatures. The lucky thing about that was the life forms that became plants, provided a source of food for the life forms that became creatures. Then quite unbelievably some of the creatures transitioned into different forms. Some would fly in the air, some live in the waters and others walk on the ground. The ones that luckily managed to walk on the ground became dissatisfied wit heating plants, so they killed and ate the ones that flew in the air, and the ones that lived in the sea. Then, they became dissatisfied with that and began killing and eating each other. However, just by chance the creatures that could walk (not the others) learned how to communicate and decided not to kill each other, but rather they split into groups, moved to different areas and started talking gobbledegook. The main theme of this is 'chance' luck' and 'unbelievably'.
- 3 months ago
This is just my thoughts only not based on anything.
As a teenager I enjoyed science and was very much into the thought man evolve over time.
Now with better understanding. We adapt, no need to evolve. A billion years on earth is not the same as traveling a billion in space.
When humans evolve there no longer humans. When an apes evolves there no longer apes. When the sun evolves it is no longer a sun.
Thinking about it a human could never be anything but human.
Evolution is nothing but mans process into the future. We only adapt to new challenges.
If man tries to evolve into something else using science and A. I. Then this is a false definition of evolution.
Evolution would have to take place naturally without mutations, enhancements, or time.
It would have to change in the blink of an eye. Anything else is adaptation.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous3 months ago
Homeostasis disproves evolution.
- PaulLv 73 months ago
That would be like trying to "disprove" oxygen. ALL available evidence, hundreds of millions of pieces of evidence, reveals, verifies and proves biological evolution. No-one thinks otherwise except members of unauthorized manmade churches that reject scientific facts that conflict with their misinterpretations of the Bible. Besides, proof of non-existence, of anything, is a rational impossibility. Proof requires evidence, and a non-existent entity cannot provide evidence of its non-existence.
- JeancommunicatesLv 73 months ago
You mean besides the moon dust, magnetic field or fossil records.
- Anonymous3 months ago
If you find any please let me know in a private message because a novel prize would be a great feather to have in my cap.
If anyone in the sciences could pull this off their career would be set for life.
- Anonymous3 months ago
Sorry to tell you this but scientists are constantly testing evolution, an so far, after 200 years of research, evolution has passed every test.
- Anonymous3 months ago
1)Apemen and elephantmen are cursed Tower of Babel masons (Book of Jasher, Chapter 9, verse 35).
2)Scientists tried controlling animals; they can't because free will is protected by the Holy Spirit; so, they used artificial intelligence (aka demons) to control them using nanotechnology; demons supply scientists with knowledge (in return, scientists do something demonic).
3)Antichrist's people will be naked; they will claim that they're sinless. Antichrist will allow all sin. All sin will be repeated (except deicide).
4)Katy Perry promotes cannibalism (at the same time showing what the elites do in their spare time: they fook little kids and then eat them; it's their new etiquette according to ruski orthodox elder antoniy).
5)5G will kill vaccinated; Georgia guidestones says max 500 million (this number fits with orthodox prophecy that seven percent of people will be left). So, assume all vocanoes blowing up, all nuclear power stations blowing up, all coasts flooded by megatsunamis, all planes falling, all coasts becoming stinkjobs because of H2S, vaccinated people dead lying around and stinking up the place with the unbearable stench even though it's winter time.
6)Mark of the beast = mandatory thing where you can't buy or sell without; it'll be given out in secret when people sign up for food (or when they steal it, etc.); satan has so many ways to mark everyone (it's not even funny).
7)If you escape mark of the beast, then ur direct ancestors will go to heaven (according to saint vyacheslav krasheninnikov). how to escape it? by hiding within a small group (7-15 people according to saints seraphim of sarov and gabriel urgebadze from georgia). no documents; burn all the documents that u can find 'cuz docs r from satan. no electronics so that u won't be tracked; even broken unplugged 1970tv set will show the antichrist using tesla's ether.
8)dinosaurs live under our level; they will get out thru sinkholes and lakes; to kill them, go for their nerves.
9)marked people have three strands of dna so that demons can live inside of them forever; but angel will cut these immortals' heads clean off duncan mcleod's style at the end of apocalypse; then final judgement; then permanent hell because they wanted discount from the antichrist using his little grey board with no name on it (plastic card world passport)...little did they know that mark of the beast (green sixes by isotope rays) was given when they received that damned plastic grey card; forgive me...