There literally aren’t any serious scientific issues with evolutionary theory. ALL its major falsifiable predictions have been tested by the evidence, and the evidence inevitably supports the theory.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t still plenty of questions that remain to be answered, nor that the the theory itself doesn’t continue to evolve, but that is the nature of EVERY scientific theory: every question answered generates additional questions in a never-ending quest to further understand the phenomenon.

Creationists, lacking any credible evidence for their own creationism/ID claims, point to the questions that remain in evolutionary theory and claim they are evidence AGAINST the theory. This indicates either ignorance of the scientific method or, worse, intentional deception.

The evolution theory is in fact a breach of natural laws. It means that if you agree with it, you must agree with virgin birth and/or resurrection of the dead also, as they are also one time events that happened a long time ago.

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein

Debunking the evolution theory

Sorry, but that is not true at all. First off, we have no credible evidence of human virgin births and or the resurrection. The ONLY evidence comes from the Bible, which obviously has a strongly religious bias. The Bible is the CLAIM, not the evidence.

Second, evolution is an observed fact, and evolutionary theory is the scientific explanation for how it works. EVERY scientific explanation MUST make testable predictions that could potentially prove the claim false. You cannot make falsifiable predictions about virgin births or the resurrection.

Finally, I would like to point out that we have observed evolution in bacteria over the course of around 100,000 generations, recording each change step-by-step. Even under conditions that discourage evolutionary change, the bacteria became significantly larger and, more importantly, gained through mutation the ability to digest fuel that its original species was defined by being UNABLE to digest that exact fuel.

So the problem here is that you have not studied evolutionary theory and have been instead indoctrinated by religious propaganda.

“So the problem here is that you have not studied evolutionary theory …”

I’ve studied the functions of natural laws which and that’s all that is needed for me to debunk your evolution theory and also all false dogmas.

“…and have been instead indoctrinated by religious propaganda.”

You may call philosophical ideals as religious propaganda, but it stands firm. Emerging from a primitive era as backward illiterate savages as the theory evolution dictates, the question of who taught us to read, write and count arises. Can science provide us with proof of how it was done?

Well, you managed to COMPLETELY ignore the evidence I provided you with, so clearly you are not even slightly educated in evolutionary theory.

Nevertheless, I tried reading the document you linked…but it’s nothing more than unsupported assertions and wordy drivel. Worse, the claims about evolution are so woefully misinformed it’s just sad. For example:

“The theory of natural selection is indicative of nature's imperfections. According to it, Nature is still improving. This theory points out the absence in Nature at present of the best forms that it will produce in the future.”

My degree is in evolution science, so I do know a thing or two about the topic. First off, natural selection is the OBSERVED MECHANISM by which (most) evolution occurs. It has NOTHING to do with “imperfections,” but about natural genetic variations in individuals being more or less suitable for a particular environment, and thus having greater or lesser chances of successfully reproducing and thus spreading through a population.

Second, nature doesn’t “improve.” Species evolve to better survive and reproduce in a particular environment. You can call that “improving” to fit that environment, but as soon as that environment changes, different genetics will have an advantage than were advantageous in the prior environment. There is no goal of perfection, just reproductive success of certain genes resulting in evolutionary change in a population.

“We, on the other hand, believe in the pre-existence of all things in Nature, and in their later manifestation, not as originality, but as a manifestation of a pre-existing substance, lying latent in its bosom.”

Nobody cares what you BELIEVE, only what you can DEMONSTRATE to be true. I can easily demonstrate how fossils, genetics and homology provide powerful evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

“Our doctrine is, that out of nothing, nothing can come.”

Since there has NEVER been an observed example of “nothing,” that’s just a meaningless assertion.

“Therefore, whatever comes into existence, must have had a pre-existence in Nature.”

At the quantum level, virtual particles pop in and out of existence with no evident cause or source. And radioactive decay occurs completely randomly, with no pre-existing cause.

“We have thus, little respect for a theory such as Darwin which propounds that human species are a development of inferior animal nature.”

Absolutely wrong. We are animals BY DEFINITION, just as we are vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes BY DEFINITION. And what is advantageous in one environment may be entirely disadvantageous in another, so there is there is no “superior” or “inferior” animal nature, just more or less advantageous for a particular environment.

“For, if we were to accept this, we would be at a loss to trace the origin of human language and the possession of Divine knowledge, which are peculiar to mankind only, and which are not self-acquired, but can only be learned from others.”

Nonsense. People make up stories all the time. It doesn’t make them “divine knowledge.” Additionally, virtually all animal species have the capacity to communicate, and that is especially true for the most intelligent species. Whales, elephants, chimpanzees and even bees ALL have their own languages used to communicate information to others of their species. And many of them learn and transmit that information to others. Human languages are more complex, sure, but that’s only by virtue of our greater intelligence, not because of any special divine knowledge.

“But the hypothesis which makes this theory possible is not reasonable in itself.”

And that sentence reveals that you don’t even understand how science works. So time for some definitions you REALLY need to know for anything you say to make sense:

In science, a THEORY is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not ‘guesses’ but reliable accounts of the real world” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory). Thus, a theory in science is equivalent to what people commonly refer to as a “fact.” Some examples include general relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, germ theory, plate tectonics, the Big Bang theory, and evolutionary theory.

A HYPOTHESIS is “a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation” (https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=hypothesis). That is the closest scientific term to what people commonly mean when they use the term “theory.” There are countless hypotheses, but some examples include the many worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics, the holographic principle, and the RNA world hypothesis of abiogenesis.

To be continued.....

A HYPOTHESIS is “a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation” (https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=hypothesis). That is the closest scientific term to what people commonly mean when they use the term “theory.” There are countless hypotheses, but some examples include the many worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics, the holographic principle, and the RNA world hypothesis of abiogenesis.

A FACT is “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)” (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/scientific%20fact). A theory NEVER “graduates” to a fact but is instead BASED ON facts. Examples include fossils in undisturbed geological layers being ordered by lineage, all known life being based on DNA, the Earth and universe being billions of years old, and that species evolve.

And a LAW is “a statement, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.” … “Laws are narrower in scope than scientific theories, which may entail one or several laws.” (https://www.definitions.net/definition/scientific+law). So a law is not an explanation for a phenomenon, and no theory ever “graduates” to a law. Examples include universal gravitation, fluid dynamics, heat conduction, and the laws of thermodynamics.

So to summarize, a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, typically based on observed facts and laws, and a theory is a hypothesis or several hypotheses that have undergone extensive testing and are supported by a wide body of evidence. A theory is the HIGHEST level of certainty for an explanation in science. And evolutionary theory is the best scientific explanation for the observed phenomenon of evolution.

“No savage nation has ever become self-civilized, and we can always trace the civilization of one nation to another which is already civilized.”

Since we have ample archaeological evidence demonstrating the gradual evolution of civilization, from early Neolithic to the modern age, your claim obviously doesn’t comport with reality.

Again, what matters is what you can DEMONSTRATE to be true. That requires evidence. And if you’re going to make claims about the supernatural, for which there is no credible evidence, well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Amazing! I really do commend you for the effort of rebutting my criticism of the evolution theory. It has been a very very long time since someone of your claim in support of the evolution theory has ever done this. Thank you again.

The very serious problem of intellectuals

"Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking." Albert Einstein

This is so important for one who needs to know the truth of man and his world.

Einstein is a genius and his thoughts must should be of considerable importance to the rational mind. Here is another - “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

Neither lame nor blind can be the source of any learning of how it all began. Whatever is a fact (truth) must be in harmony with reasoning & science and both confirming to the laws of nature and Einstein is saying only one philosophy have the answer.

"We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." Albert Einstein

“Since we have ample archaeological evidence demonstrating the gradual evolution of civilization”

The question still remains, who taught us to speak, read, write and count?

Don’t tell me a backward illiterate savage did it, because according to your evolution theory they were kind that were around.

“My degree is in evolution science, so I do know a thing or two about the topic.”

When it comes to philosophy, a degree doesn’t mean you’re intelligent.

"Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education." Bertrand Russell

Amazing! I really do commend you for the effort of rebutting my criticism of the evolution theory. It has been a very very long time since someone of your claim in support of the evolution theory has ever done this. Thank you again.

You’re welcome.

Einstein is a genius and his thoughts must should be of considerable importance to the rational mind. Here is another - “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

Einstein was a genius in PHYSICS, not in other scientific fields. Also, his concept of religion was very different from yours, in that for him it was nothing more or less than the awe and wonder he experienced at the beauty of the universe. And since you seem to respect quotes so much, let’s see what you have to say about OTHER quotes from Einstein that elaborate on this:

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text.” – Albert Einstein

“I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.” — Albert Einstein

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.” — Albert Einstein

“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.” — Albert Einstein

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” — Albert Einstein

So do you still agree with Einstein? Or do you see that individual opinions, even by geniuses, are nevertheless nothing more than opinions?

The question still remains, who taught us to speak, read, write and count?

We taught OURSELVES how to do that. There are PLENTY of other animals in the world that are capable of speaking, counting and even tool use—just not to the level of complexity and sophistication that we do. That should be no surprise, since our brains are larger as a percentage of body size than any other known species.

Chimpanzees and bonobos use a variety of vocalizations, gestures, and facial expressions to communicate with each other.

Dolphins use a complex system of clicks, whistles, and body language to communicate with each other.

Crows and ravens are known for their problem-solving abilities and can use tools to access food. For example, New Caledonian crows have been observed creating and using tools from twigs and leaves to extract insects from tree bark.

Octopuses are highly intelligent and can solve puzzles, navigate mazes, and use tools like coconut shells for shelter.

Some parrot species, like the African Grey Parrot, can understand numerical concepts and count objects. The famous African Grey Parrot named Alex demonstrated the ability to count up to six and understand the concept of zero.

Even simple honeybees have shown the ability to count landmarks when navigating back to their hive. They can distinguish between different numbers of objects and use this information to find their way. And once back at the hive, they use body language to communicate exactly where to find food sources they’ve discovered.

Reading and writing are indeed more sophisticated than any known animals use in the wild, although some can be taught these skills. Considering that reading and writing are mostly of use within the context of civilization, and of much less use to small hunter-gatherer societies, it’s not surprising other animals haven’t developed these skills. Communication alone is sufficient in almost all cases.
To be continued......

Don’t tell me a backward illiterate savage did it, because according to your evolution theory they were the one ones around.

Yes, actually, we have evidence that “backward illiterate savages” taught themselves these communication skills. The cognitive abilities required for complex speech likely developed in Homo sapiens, and evidence suggests that early humans possessed the anatomical ability to produce a range of vowel sounds, setting the stage for sophisticated communication.

The development of reading and writing took several millennia and began with early symbolic marks, such as engravings on shells and bones, dating back to around 540,000 years ago. The first systematic writing systems emerged around 5,000 years ago, primarily for accounting purposes, evolving from simple tallies and tokens used for record-keeping. Writing systems like cuneiform and hieroglyphs allowed for more complex communication. The development of alphabetic writing systems, such as the Greek alphabet, provided even greater versatility in written communication.

Early humans used tally marks at least 40,000 years ago. Artifacts like the Lebombo bone, with its 29 notches, suggest that tally sticks were used for counting. Ancient numeral systems, such as those in Mesopotamia, emerged around 5,000 to 6,000 years ago, allowing for more efficient number representation. As societies became more complex, their counting systems evolved, leading to advanced techniques such as place-value notation and the use of base-10 and base-60 systems, which facilitated sophisticated mathematical calculations.

When it comes to philosophy, a degree doesn’t mean you’re intelligent.

I’m not expressing philosophical claims, I’m explaining evidence and concepts from evolutionary science. And in case you haven’t noticed, science requires more intelligence and education than any other field of human learning.

"Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education." Bertrand Russell

I don’t hold the reverence for quotes that you apparently do. But once again, I suspect you won’t hold these quotes quite so reverentially:

“Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.” — Bertrand Russell

“I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out.” — Bertrand Russell

“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.” — Bertrand Russell

“The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral. The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow.” — Bertrand Russell

“There is something feeble, and a little contemptible, about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought, and he therefore cannot carry his own reflection to any logical conclusion.” — Bertrand Russell

“We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different groups, substitute different emotions.” — Bertrand Russell

“I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its Churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.” — Bertrand Russell

“Religion is based ... mainly upon fear ... fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.” — Bertrand Russell

What you are doing by picking and choosing the quotes that appear to fit your agenda, while ignoring the many more from the same people who show they do not share your agenda, is called “cherry picking.” It’s a form of fallacy that one should always endeavor to avoid.

“So do you still agree with Einstein?”

Yes, I do. I was an atheist at the age 15 and it lasted for 20 years and during that time I agreed with everything Einstein had to say. And after another 20 years of studies of religions and the evolution theory, it was then I realized religions were blind and science was lame as Einstein put it. It simply means that, like I did, Einstein had done the same.

"Philosophy and reason will remain the most beautiful sanctuary they have always been for the select few." Albert Einstein

This is now my present state.

As I said before, a fact (truth) must be harmony with reasoning & science and both confirming to the laws of nature. The Vedic philosophy is where Einstein found out about the laws of nature, where no one else in science, including you, have no idea of how these laws work.

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein

Here is where science is lame and all other religions are blind.

Yes, India is the origin of human civilization and everything we know.

"India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace; human speech, the mother of history, grandmother of legend, and great grandmother of tradition. Our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only." Mark Twain, the world's leading anthropologist.

"I‘m convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc. It doesn’t behoove us, who were only savages and barbarians when these Indian people were civilized & learned, to dispute their antiquity." Voltaire

“We taught OURSELVES how to do that.”

You’re kidding me, right? Just saying it isn’t good enough. What proof does science has that it happened that way and why do we need institutions of learning? You can’t compare the mode of learning of humans to that of animals. Animals survive by instinct and humans can only do so by acquired knowledge.

Within the last 5000 years human civilization may have seemed to be evolving from a very primitive state, but it is not so. Rather, we have been emerging from a fallen state, where languages were already existent.

The laws of nature which you’re have difficulty understanding, dictates progression to be always downward validates this to be factual. Let me, put as simple as I can for you. Everything created by us match perfection in the beginning and with the passage of time gradually decline. The same goes for creation (https://www.vjsingh.info/creation.html) including human civilization, which you were taught to be all accidental. Humans have been on this planet for almost 4 million years. We Indians know because we were given instructions (https://www.vjsingh.info/revelation.html)

“I’m not expressing philosophical claims, I’m explaining evidence and concepts from evolutionary science.”

Well shouldn’t you turn to philosophy also, now that you know science is lame and your evidence doesn’t confirm to natural laws?

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God”

He is right about a personal God, who is one that intervenes in his creationcreation and breaches his own laws. In my philosophy, it isn’t so.

“What you are doing by picking and choosing the quotes that appear to fit your agenda,..”

I use the quotes of rational minds everywhere. It is only from this state a man can make progress towards the truth. I’m living proof that it is so. He didn’t reach my state of learning but all his quotes are direct hits on all false dogmas.

YOU are the one claiming science is lame. I am not—nor is Einstein, who as I already pointed out did NOT mean what you think. Wonder, excitement and awe of the universe is NOT a philosophical position, merely an emotional one. NOT being impressed with the beauty and order of the universe is what makes science lame, which is what Einstein was talking about when he referred to “religion.” He did NOT mean religion the way you mean it.

I use the quotes of rational minds everywhere. It is only from this state a man can make progress towards the truth. I’m living proof that it is so. He didn’t reach my state of learning but all his quotes are direct hits on all false dogmas.

You are living proof that people can THINK they are rational without being so. You don’t seem to have any interest in what the evidence tells us. Instead, you have a predetermined conclusion and then seek evidence you think supports it. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of how science works, and it is GUARANTEED to cause you to suffer from confirmation bias and accept beliefs that are unwarranted.

The bottom line: If you cannot DEMONSTRATE with FALSIFIABLE EVIDENCE that your beliefs are true, you CANNOT rationally claim that they are. And you have NO BUSINESS talking about what evolutionary theory teaches when every claim you’ve made about evolution is patently, demonstrably FALSE. Again, I’ve spent YEARS studying and teaching evolution academically and in the field, so what you’re saying is like a witch doctor claiming to a medical doctor that evil spirits are what cause smallpox, not a virus. You are a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

And since you don’t seem to be interested in actually learning from someone who knows this topic far better than you do, I’m done with this argument.

”And since you don’t seem to be interested in actually learning from someone who knows this topic far better than you do, I’m done with this argument.

Thank you Derek for having the patience of putting up with one wise, even though you have no idea of what wisdom is. You take care! It was nice conversing with you.

I leave you with this - "We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." Albert Einstein