Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution/archive1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Giraffe neck

The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--Aschlafly 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)

How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? Humblpi 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

If anything the giraffes neck is an example supporting evolution, as the animals with longer necks (caused from a genetic mutation) would have survived to reproduction as there is less competition for the food from the high branches. SSSmith 19:10, 12 November 2008 (EST)

If the giraffes with shorter necks couldn't survive, then how did the young ones survive to become adults and reproduce?
Also, I've already answered this point lower down the page:
"It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.
Philip J. Rayment 07:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Refutations

Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.

1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.

2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.

3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).

4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.

5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.

6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.

7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.

8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.

9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.

10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.

11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.

I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--Thinker 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.
  1. "Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months" is story-telling. It doesn't explain how evolution could have come up with the idea. The rest of your point applies equally well to creation: God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.
  2. Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor. Vestigial organs are due to a degradation, whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires innovation.
  3. The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot". The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all. What's wrong with image inversion? That's a natural consequence of using a lens. As for the blind spot...
    Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[1]
  4. No comment.
  5. That makes sense. When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.
  6. The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all. The second part about mutations is story-telling.
  7. As for No. 1.
  8. Selection only selects from something that is already there. The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?
  9. That's an ad hoc rationalisation. It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.
  10. What molecular evidence? Molecularly, they are quite different.
  11. I agree that it makes no sense. I'll remove that one.
Philip J. Rayment 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
P.S. you had a typo in your first point. I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!

Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory. My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory.

Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.

I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.

1) All origins theory is story-telling. The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).

2) Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light there is no such thing as certainty in science).

3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.

4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.

5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.

The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.

6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.

7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)

8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.

9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called Diplognathus was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)

10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)

And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --Thinker 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."
The point here is simple: one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution. Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.
It only takes one counterexample. Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.--Aschlafly 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
In principle it only takes one counterexample. In practice, it's not that simple. Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius. We run 100 tests to see if that's true. One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees. Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)? And that was for a very specific hypothesis. Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses. Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded. At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all. Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework. Of course there are plenty of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough. Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that none of the proposed points actually follow through as counterexamples.
The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because beauty is not a biological characteristic; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.
And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work in that role. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them because they work well enough.
A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.
As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).
Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --Thinker 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
You write that "beauty can happen by chance." That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.
When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance." If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off. Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--Aschlafly 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Responding to Thinker...

"All origins theory is story-telling": In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator, is just a made-up story.

"The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible": True. Which is where evolution hopelessly fails. It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.

"...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.": Huh? Evolution is a claim about what actually happened. Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because they can see the contradiction). Whether or not it happened is very relevant.

"Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...": But the claim was that it doesn't identify a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true. Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor if evolution is true. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing. So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.

"Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.": Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against evolution, not biology. The two are not synonymous.

Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?

"It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.": No, it doesn't serve well. Evidence of things working well is evidence of good design. Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that. The same applies to your response to No. 7.

"All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.

"Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.": Except that these intermediate forms are almost entirely lacking.

"scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.": Two different types of keratin. And from this article:
‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.

"The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry": Or a common designer.

"The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because beauty is not a biological characteristic; beauty is a human aesthetic.": Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic. However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying. A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[2].

"...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...": No, they don't. They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.

"...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.": No, they don't ignore such gradual development; they argue against it.

"IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work in that role.": No, it argues that without the missing part, it will not work in any role.

"If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.": Hand-waving story telling.

"Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.": Oh? The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?

Philip J. Rayment 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.
But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:
1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.
2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.
3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.
And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--Thinker 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
But what if some evidence proved that the bible is in fact, not infallible? Would you disregard that, Mr. Schlafly, as you suggest we do with the theory of evolution? I dont mean to judge, just please don't say that someone is closed-minded because they may not change their views because one part of the theory may appear to be faulty.
Arguing about this seems to be pointless anyways, since it is possible that one counterexample could prove the theory impossible, and it is possible that this counterexample could be overlooking something that neither side can see. --Ekeegan 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)


Thinker, evolution is used to disprove creation, whether it should be or not. And in a sense it should be, as (depending on how you define them), there are really only two options: a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. If one is correct, the other is wrong.
I reject that evolution is a core tenet of biology. Biology existed before Darwin published his idea, and the two are different concepts anyway. Biology is the study of living things (e.g. how they work), evolution is the study (if you like, I would say story) of how living things came to be.
This source says that the eye can detect a single photon, and this source says that the cephalopod eye can't see as well as the human eye. In any case, you are comparing eyes for different environments and that therefore have different purposes.
Philip J. Rayment 21:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to throw something out there regarding number 1. It appears to be a "tree falls in the forest"-type statement. It appears to say that beautiful phenomenon are designed (divinely) for human pleasure and thus they could not precede humanity. Ah.... what? User:Inspector 11:58, 1 June, 2009 (MST)

Consciousness

Excellent new point!--Aschlafly 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Bat counterexample

Superb again!--Aschlafly 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --Brossa 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

The article stated: "A bat can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore the bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight." 1) Bats do not require sonar to fly; the existence of 150 species of non-echolocating bats proves this. 2) Even ignoring the sonar of toothed whales and the echolocation of oilbirds and swiftlets, there are nonflying land animals that use echolocation: two genera (multiple species) of shrews and the tenrecs. Thus the statement that "an animal that can't fly doesn't need it" is also disproven. 3) Since mammalian flight and mammalian echolocation both exist in isolation, the flight-echolocation combination is not irreducibly complex and therefore does not disprove evolution.--Brossa 15:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

It was poorly worded, but the point was valid, that a certain group of creatures do need the sonar to fly, even if that was only some bats and not all. I've reinstated and improved the entry. Philip J. Rayment 22:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
It's clearly a waste of time to remove it again, but the point is most definitely not valid. To approach validity, there would have to be no current non-echolocating bats and no non-bat echolocators. There would also have to be no fossil evidence of non-echolocating bats and no fossil non-bat echolocators. In reality, none of these four conditions are met. Therefore there is no theoretical impediment to an echolocator evolving flight or a flyer evolving echolocation, since the two traits are entirely separable and need not have arisen simultaneously. --Brossa 23:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Reversion explained

"Thinker", please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--Aschlafly 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.
And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --Thinker 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Some Comments

Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either PatWills 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

No, PatWills, autumn foliage is beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.
As to animals, they don't dress themselves. They really don't.--Aschlafly 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. PatWills 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone. In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--Aschlafly 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. PatWills 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful. And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.
Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--Aschlafly 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. PatWills 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals? It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it. It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. Sideways 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty? Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity". So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?
Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty. It's a depressing fate. Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--Aschlafly 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? PatWills 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:
1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent. Facts are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. Can we say the same about beauty? If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful. What makes it beautiful is a perception. You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.
2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.
3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.
Sideways 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Sideways, your comment is not responsive. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with until you do, except to reiterate the following. Evolutionists must deny the existence of beauty, and you can see examples on this page. Suit yourself, but I'm going to spend my time with the 99.99% of the population that admits that beauty exists, and enjoys it. Depression awaits those who deny the existence of beauty, and you have free will to choose your own path.--Aschlafly 21:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Consciousness (2)

The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the only animal that could walk on land. We might expect that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't need to be so. HelpJazz 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Be careful not to confuse consciousness with self awareness. They are not the same, and I was talking bout the latter. Philip J. Rayment 21:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Ah I see, I'll be more careful. However, I still think the point is flawed though. HelpJazz 22:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an incremental process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--Aschlafly 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. PatWills 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)


There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:

  • Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.
  • Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality.
  • Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'.
  • Self-sacrifice: animals do exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is abundant. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).
  • "Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: it is not linear. Evolution does not say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.
  • "Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically defined as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? Kallium 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Regarding the point on symbiosis. The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view. As such the point relies on evolution not occurring. Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.
Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this. While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures. Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.
Regarding animals and self-sacrifice. Other animals do exhibit altruism. A good example of this is the U. stansburiana, or the Side-blotched lizard.
Regarding intermediate fossils... This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument. Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another. People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils. Hence why I call it a cop out argument. There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.
Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--ScottA 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Self-awareness and clothing have little if anything to do with each other, I agree there.
Whether morality is subjective or not depends on whether or not you believe that it comes from God.
I'm not sure that it's true that tool use is "most often" found in primates, but otherwise I agree with this point.
I agree that animals do exhibit self-sacrifice. Stories of a hen dying whilst protecting her chicks are legion, for example. Admittedly, though, I don't know if any animals exhibit self-sacrifice for anything other than their own offspring.
Sorry, but evolution does say that "man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish". Well, perhaps not "rats" specifically, but it does the rest. True, it doesn't claim that we evolved from the creatures around today, but it does propose a line from the simplest creature to man (as well as lines to other creatures, altogether forming a tree). And any common ancestor to modern humans and apes would be referred to as an ape.
Yes, man is defined as an animal, in the taxonomic classification system(<-- read that), but you can also define man as not an animal by using different criteria (such as the existence of an eternal soul). However, whether or not man is an animal is beside the point for this article.
The symbiosis argument does not rely on both "coming into existence as they are today", but on the requirement that both species became dependent on each other at the same time. In theory, that could be after both came into existence.
Scientists have discovered what they claim to be intermediate fossils, but (a) they are often not indisputably so, and (b) they are often not actually intermediate! That is, New Scientist in March this year had an article on supposed fossil transitional forms, and I'm reasonably sure that Tiktaalik was one of its examples, but it said that it was on a side branch. If it's on a side branch, it's not intermediate! For Ambulocetus, see here.
Just because creationists have rejected all proposals so far doesn't mean that it's pointless asking for them or that there's any that they wouldn't, in theory, accept.
Philip J. Rayment 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Removed "Statistical Approach"

It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truth. Instead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. RodWeathers 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

"The foliage existed before man does"

But only by a few days, right? Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). Human 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Beauty

The argument about the impossibility of evolution creating beauty is a valid one, contrary to Sideways' comment. If beauty objectively exists for no apparent evolutionary reason, then it's fair to ask why it exists, and it's fair to conclude that this argument is one that favours creation. To put it another way, evolution would not predict the existence of beauty, but creation would, so if beauty exists, the creationary prediction has been fulfilled and the evolutionary prediction is falsified.

So does beauty exist? Certainly we humans consider various things to be beautiful or not. Just as certainly, we differ as to what we consider beautiful, which suggests that the whole idea is subjective, not objective. So no, it is most definitely not like 2+2=4. The saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is quite true.

However, it can be framed in a more objective manner, as I almost do in the first paragraph. That is, are there things that are generally considered beautiful for which no apparent evolutionary reason exists?

Autumn leaves are not an example of that. Why are autumn leaves the colours they are? Because in dying, they have lost the chlorophyll that makes them green. There is no need to invoke design to explain their colour. (This does not mean that God didn't deliberately design dead tree leaves to be nice colours, but it does mean that we can't invoke God as the only likely cause.)

However, an example is the one I mentioned higher on this page: the peacock's tail. Darwin considered the peacock's tail to be an example of sexual selection, that is, the peahen prefers the more colourful peacock tails, so evolution favours more colourful tails. For a long time this hypothesis has been accepted, but more recently tests have been done to show that peahens don't favour more colourful tails, so this idea has been put to bed. (See link higher up this page.)

Now it's always possible that some evolutionist will come up with some other evolutionary explanation of the peacock's tail in the future, but at the moment, this evidence favours the creationary view, so is a valid argument. But autumn foilage is not, for reasons I've just explained.

Philip J. Rayment 21:33, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Philip, if you think that beauty is completely subjective and relative, then do you feel the same way about the term "good" as commonly used? E.g., God created such-and-such, and saw that it was "good".--Aschlafly 21:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Exactly. As God created 'goodness,' so too he created 'beauty' on Earth. Psalm 27:4 states "One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple." Likewise, Psalm 50:2: "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." RodWeathers 21:58, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Right. Anyone who claims that beauty is completely subjective and relative is likely to say the same about goodness. God saw that his creation was good, but under this view that is in the eyes of the beholder. It wasn't really good, it just looked that way to God. For there, of course, it's a small step to saying that morality is in the eyes of the beholder. God said something was wrong, but it wasn't really wrong, it just seemed that way to God.
When 100 out of 100 people say something is beautiful (like autumn foliage), it really is beautiful. And those who deny it for the sake of evolution can look forward to the depression that life without beauty inevitably entails.--Aschlafly 22:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
It is not true that 100 out of 100 people say autumn foliage is beautiful. Does that then open the possibility that it is not really beautiful? Crucialwood 00:46, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
So what are we to make of the old saw that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? CescF 22:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
It's meaningless when the beholder is God. What He sees as beauty IS beauty, as he created it. RodWeathers 22:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
We are talking about what appears beautiful to humans. But to take your point, how do you determine (apart from explicit references in Scripture) what God considers beautiful? Philip J. Rayment 22:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
My mother, long passed now, used to hate Autumn - when she saw the leaves turning brown she always used to feel depressed, as to her it signaled the end of summer and the oncoming long dark winter months. I guess not everyone sees the world the same way. CescF 22:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
I experience a similar state - while I enjoy the pretty colors, it also means the end of the gardening season, and the onset of the heating season, hunkering down for winter, and the short, dark days. PS, one word I find interesting in other contexts in this "argument": kaleidoscope. Human 23:00, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm not saying that beauty is completely subjective, nor relative. I believe that it exists, and that God created it (i.e. that's probably why the peacock's tail is like it is). But it doesn't follow from that that everything that we consider beautiful is that way because God intended it to be so. Do you find a landscape beautiful? Most do, but most landscapes are the result not of God's design, but of God's judgment on the world in the form of Noah's Flood. So in such cases, beauty is actually (a) subjective (i.e. it wasn't intended that way) or (b) despite the judgment (i.e. God made the world so beautiful that even in a corrupted form we still find much of it beautiful). I'm quite happy to accept (b), but if (b) is correct, what we have to acknowledge is that it isn't the way God designed it. So are autumn leave beautiful because God designed autumn leaves to be beautiful, or simply because they are part of an overall beautiful creation?

But all that's rather beside the point. The point of the beauty argument is that evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't explain it. But natural processes can explain why autumn leaves are the colour they are. Therefore it's not an evolution-refuting argument.

As for God pronouncing the creation "good", first, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily uses the word "as commonly used" (in the present day). Rather I see "good" as referring to a range of things, such as impeccable and excellent design, faultlessness, fit for purpose, and such. And yes, beauty would be one aspect of that.

Philip J. Rayment 22:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly already explained it to you clearly, Phil. Beauty cannot result from evolution, as it cannot result from chance. As for Bible's use of the word, yes, it necessarily uses the word "as commonly used." Vague definitions is a favorite method of liberal deceit. God's word is inerrant, and thus does not mislead with vagueries. RodWeathers 22:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
That name's "Philip", by the way. And I've explained myself at least as well as Andy's explained it to me, and you've not added anything new to his explanation. Why is the Bible's use of the word necessarily "as commonly used"? Many Bible words have subtly different meanings than how they are commonly used in modern times. And referring to my use as a "vague definition" is incorrect; I gave a definition that was more detailed than Andy's. Inerrancy is different to clarity. I agree that God's word is clear where it needs to be, but it's not always clear (on less-important matters), although always inerrant. Philip J. Rayment 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

The old saw is an atheistic falsehood, which is traced to statements by a young Benjamin Franklin (before he returned to faith) and by David Hume, an early atheistic philosopher. See [3]. Looks like it has misled many who are unaware of its atheistic roots.--Aschlafly 22:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

That's a rather selective interpretation of the link you provided. It actually says that in the wording we've been using it's attributable to a Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, although the concept appears earlier, including by Hume, and before him Franklin, and before him Shakespeare, and even he was not the first.
Nevertheless, the existence of a saying does not mean that it's true. It may not be, but it appears to have a fair bit of truth simply by the fact that some see beauty where others do not.
Philip J. Rayment 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
No, Philip, Shakespeare did not say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is obviously an atheistic saying that you repeated, as I pointed out. It's time to concede that point.
Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't. The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose. Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty? It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--Aschlafly 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
No, Shakespeare did not say precisely that, but then neither did Hume nor Franklin. Your point?
No, Andy, I did not simply "seem to think" that evolution could explain the beauty in autumn foliage. I explained why your argument was invalid, and you've done nothing to answer that, instead simply stating without any substantiation that "it plainly can't". What was actually wrong with the argument that I put (and which Samd has repeated below)?
And what does "the color arrangement arose before man" have to do with the debate?
Philip J. Rayment 01:46, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
I had been under the impression that leaves change color as a result of their chlorophyll dying due to a lack of water. If this is, in fact, true, I do not think that it is impossible to describe how and why the leaves change using a purely naturalistic viewpoint. (To be honest, I haven't really given this much thought before, and your view on it is very interesting. I'll have to dig out my old Wile biology book and see if it covers this. It's so hard to find science books written from a Christian perspective.)
With regard to whether there is a set-in-stone definition of beauty, this idea intrigued me, so I searched the King James Version of the Bible for various words and phrases meaning "pretty", "beautiful", and the like, using a software concordance. The Hebrew word used is almost always the same one, "יפה". Here is Strong's definition of it:
H3303
יפה
yâpheh
yaw-feh'
From H3302; beautiful (literally of figuratively): - + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.
H3302 is simply a root (and unfortunately, I can't get the Hebrew letters to render correctly. Oh, well...):
H3302
יפה
yâphâh
yaw-faw'
A primitive root; properly to be bright, that is, (by implication) beautiful: - be beautiful, be (make self) fair (-r), deck.
Most of the time, the word "beauty" was used in the phrase "the beauty of his [God's] holiness". "Beautiful" and "comely" generally referred to people or things that looked good, or, pretty. "Fair" was often used to describe various women, such as Sarah and Vashti. ("fairest" and "fair one" were only used in the Song of Solomon). "Goodly", "pleasant", and "well" (when it was used in this sense) likewise were used to describe things, but no definition of the words was offered in the text. In short, I was unable to find any hard-fast definition of what God considers to be beautiful (in a physical sense, at least). Based on this, as well as my own experience, I think that while there are things which practically anyone would agree is beautiful, such as a sunset, beauty is largely subjective. Samd 23:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Sarfati reference

The Safarti reference about the prostate doesn't say anything about how natural selection would have changed the design for the worst. HelpJazz 19:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

See the last line of the article. It doesn't say quite what was in this article, but I've improved it now. Philip J. Rayment 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
It smells of straw to me. Sarfati (thanks for the spelling btw!) simply claims that evolutionists say that the prostate is a bad design, but doesn't (a) give any evidence that evolutionists actualy make this agument, (b) give any reasons why evolutionists think the prostate is a bad design, (c) give any reasons why evolutionists would admit that a bad design would be naturally selected or (d) show that it is necessary to the evolutionist argument for the prostate to have been badly designed. Maybe he has it in his book, but it's certainly not supported by the reference. (In fairness, there is also one line at the beginning of the article, but again this is just an assertion). HelpJazz 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
I guess he does say why evolutionists allegedly think that it is a bad design, but he then spends the whole article arguing that not only is it not a bad design, but evolutionists are using fautlty data to come to the conclusion that it is a bad design. Thus, according to Sarfati, if evolutionists knew about these data, they would have to agree that the prostate is a good design, thus counteracting his own argument! HelpJazz 23:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Chromosome example

The chromosome example, currently #15 on the list, is false. The standard human has 46 chromosomes. A human with Downs Syndrome has has 47. If they were to mate, they would produce viable offspring. However not all instances of having an extra chromosome result is problems such as Downs Syndrome, some have relatively no impact, most are far worse, and some provide benefits. However I cannot recall a situation where it was beneficial in humans, I have read of cases where it has benefited other animals and plants.--ScottA 23:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Random mutations are never beneficial. Please make your point after you have the evidence, not by referring to evidence that you don't have.--Aschlafly 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
They can be, in the right circumstances. Take the SNP responsible for sickle cell anemia. A person homozygous for sickle cell will have a debilitating disease, but a heterozygous person is more resistant to malaria than a non-carrier and is not symptomatic for sickle cell. This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world. Corry 23:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
If we were to assume that I was incorrect on mutations sometimes providing benefits, I was still correct that mates with different numbers of chromosomes can still mate successfully, provided of course that they would have been able to produce viable offspring in the first place. That part alone is enough to disprove the point. As for mutations providing benefits, I am not saying that all mutations are beneficial, in fact most mutations involving extra chromosomes cause serious problems, especially in larger mammals (humans included). However plants tend to make better use of the kinds these kinds of mutations, take the F. chiloensis or the Beach Strawberry, It has 8x the number of chromosomes compared to wild type strawberries. Because of this, it produces larger fruit with more seeds. More seeds and larger fruit being an obvious advantage regarding reproduction. --ScottA 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Corry said "This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world." Just because the sickle-cell mutation happened to produce a beneficial result in one case does not mean it is truly beneficial. Natural selection dictates that anything that is beneficial stays, and anything that does not immediately benefit an organism is thrown out. If there ever was a beneficial mutation, it would very quickly be passed among all members of a species. Since all of humanity does not have the sickle-cell trait, the mutation is, hands down, not beneficial when applied across a broad spectrum (which is what would have to occur in order for a species to evolve). Samd 00:02, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
No- mutations in the genome do not spread like computer viruses. And as above, I said that homozygotes are at a disadvantage, while heterozygotes are at an advantage. If a mutation causes an overall reproductive benefit, in this case by heterozygotes being resistant to malaria and more likely to have children, then that mutation will be spread more than one which does not have a reproductive benefit. Corry 00:12, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

As Corry said, "random mutations" can be beneficial, even though that is (usually?) only in specific circumstances/environments. The claim that they can't be is one that leading creationists specifically say is wrong[4].

Samd is also correct that it is not beneficial overall, but that doesn't make Andy's claim that it is "never" beneficial correct. And by the way, these rare beneficial mutations do not help the argument for evolution, because these beneficial mutations are still information-losing mutations, whereas evolution requires information-gaining mutations.

Philip J. Rayment 01:55, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations. What it requires are information-changing mutations, which are the definition of mutations in the first place. There are massive parts of genetic material in living things that appear to do absolutely nothing. If one of these parts is mutated, there is no loss whatsoever (unless the mutation is worse than what it replaced, as many are). If the mutation makes a creature less likely to reproduce in that environment, that gene will not be passed on to as many offspring, and the gene will become infinitely uncommon. If the mutation does nothing whatsoever, the population of that species is unaffected. If the mutation is beneficial (meaning that it makes that creature more likely to produce more offspring, which is extremely rare, but happens nonetheless), then this gene will be passed onto its offspring, which in turn are more fit to reproduce than competing creatures within that species. Therefore, this beneficial mutation spreads throughout the population as time passes (it does take a while).
This can happen indefinitely until a species no longer in any way resembles its ancestors. --JArneal 20:53, 6 November 2008 (EST)
If a bacteria has no information for hair, eyes, bones, skin, and so on, but it's evolutionary descendants do have this information, then they must have gained this information! And if mutations didn't supply it, then where did it come from? Philip J. Rayment 07:19, 7 November 2008 (EST)
Mutations did supply it. There are examples of information-gaining mutations as well. And genes are not organized according to body parts. Scientists have discovered that genes interact with each other. The system is very complex. --JArneal 10:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)
There are? Care to name one, and rock the scientific world? Your last two sentences say nothing that argues for information-increasing mutations. Infact, gene interaction, expression, polyploidy and generally the complexity of the "system" as you call it are all problems for biological evolution by random changes.LowKey 19:05, 9 November 2008 (EST)
So JArneal, how do you explain these two comments of yours:
  • "Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations":
  • "Mutations did supply it.":
You say that evolution does not require information-gaining mutations, I point out that the information had to come from somewhere, so you respond by saying that it came from mutations!
Yes, please give those examples of information-gaining mutations. Dawkins was asked for examples, and couldn't supply any. Since then, I know of one disputed one that is always trotted out, but even if that one is correct, it's one when there should be many, and you've referred to them in the plural anyway.
And LowKey is quite correct that your comment about the complexity doesn't answer the question about where the information came from. That "genes are not organized according to body parts" doesn't mean that the information for the body parts is not there somewhere.
Philip J. Rayment 00:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry I contradicted myself, Philip. What I meant is that evolution is a theory about the adaptation of life, which does not necessarily require information-gaining mutations. What you are talking about is an argument about the progression of life, which is a consequence of people trying to contradict evolution based on creationist beliefs. To you, Lowkey, the complexity of the system is not the issue, so again I apologize. The fact that it is possible to generate the changes through random mutations is the issue. It is possible, no matter how complicated anyone tries to make it out to be. It's the same thing with the information-gaining mutations. As long as there is one example of an information-gaining mutation, it does not make sense to use this argument. I see an information-gaining mutation. That tells me that information-gaining mutations are possible. --JArneal 23:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Regardless of whether you label my argument as about the "progression of life", the unavoidable point is that evolution requires the addition of enormous amounts of new genetic information. I can't see how evolution going from a "simple" cell with no arms, heart, skin, brain, and so on to humans with all those and much more is not a "progression".
Simply claiming that it's possible to generate the required changes does not make it so. Lowkey specifically asked you for examples, yet you supplied none.
And no, it's not as simple as claiming that one information-gaining mutation is enough, for several reasons:
  • There is no undisputed example.
  • Evolution doesn't require one but very many (probably millions if not billions). Evidence of one is not evidence that evolution is capable of providing sufficient such mutations.
  • What evolution needs is more information-gaining mutations than information-losing ones. If a hamburger seller makes a loss on every sale, but then eventually sells one for a profit, does that mean that his business is viable?
Philip J. Rayment 04:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)
If you are looking for an example of an undisputed information-gaining mutation, I cannot help you. I don't know if anyone can, because evolution will always be disputed on this basis. Do you want me to give that commonly known example? Fine. Down syndrome. I did not want to bring it up because I did not want to argue about this. It is beside the point. The length of the genome does not need to increase to create organs such as eyes or a heart. It must change, however. An amoeba has a far larger genome than a human, yet an amoeba does not have eyes or a heart. The actual size of the genome is not relevant, and therefore information-gaining mutations are not necessary, even from your viewpoint. --JArneal 18:46, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Down syndrome is caused by a genetic defect, a loss of information, not an information-gaining mutation.
The amount of information is not proportional to the length of the genome. See the section on Measuring information in information. You are confusing the size of the genome with the amount of information. That's like comparing chalk and cheese. As I said, the first cell doesn't have the information for things such as hair, skin, and eyes. So this information has to be added. Even if the cell or bacteria loses other information in the process, the information for those other things has to be generated somehow. That is the problem that microbe-to-man evolution has yet to produce evidence for.
Philip J. Rayment 07:32, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I believe I provided an example of a gain of information with HIV developing an ion channel. An ion channel that requires more than just a single mutation to occur. I believe it can be found here with the gain of function examples.--Able806 07:41, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I said I did not want to argue about Down syndrome. But if you really want to, then here: Down syndrome is also scientifically known as "trisomy 21." This is because there is a third copy of chromosome 21 in the cells of a Down syndrome person (there are usually only two.)

The example in the information article does not have anything to do with our argument. It is pure coincidence that the english word for "vehicle" is longer than the english word for "car." The longer the genome, the more base pairs there are. The more base pairs there are, the more information is present in the genome.

If a creature exists that has, lets say, 10000 base pairs(very simplified example) and only about 5000 actually code for proteins that carry out functions(there are long strands of genomes in animals that have no purpose), then there are still another 5000 that do nothing. If a part of this section of 5000 base pairs is mutated and "turned on" to code proteins as is possible, and this part codes for proteins that create arms, then according to the gene, you have lost information to gain the exact same amount of information (no information gain or loss.) But according to our observation of what the creature actually looks like, it looks exactly the same except it has arms.

I'm sorry if I'm not making any sense right now, but I'm not sure if I understand your argument, either. --JArneal 18:43, 13 November 2008 (EST)

3 copies of something instead of 2 is no increase in information. I have 3 copies of a couple of books (I lend a lot), but I have no more information than if I only had 1 copy of them. Switching existing information on or off is not gaining or losing information. LowKey 23:25, 13 November 2008 (EST)
Hmm. What is your metric for 'information'? Can you represent it formally (i.e. mathematically)? I ask because every well-defined metric for quantity of 'information' (such as used in signal processing), seems require more to encode three copies of a gene than two or one (at a minimum it requires at least an extra bit or two). It's very important to settle on specific definitions for quantification of 'information' before proceeding with assessments of relative changes. Shifting between specific definitions and metrics cause many problems. That was precisely the trouble that damaged many of Lee Spenter's claims about there being no increase in information from mutations (from his book _Not By Chance_) American Scientific Association discussion -- Follow links from this post (an organization of Christian professional scientists and engineers) and Discussion from Ian Musgrave.--Argon 12:05, 3 December 2008 (EST)
I agree completely. But imagine instead that those books were created the old-fashioned way (copied by hand, this is similar to the way DNA is copied) and there were some errors made in the copying (mutations) in your third copy of the book. What has happened? No information was lost, because you have already stated that the third copy is useless information-wise if it was the exact same as the others. The amount of information did not stay the same, because you now have a book that contains a different bit of information in it, and the information it would have had without copying errors is already in the other 2 books. If information was not lost and information did not stay the same, it must have increased!
What I said might be a little confusing, but the above scenario is far more similar to that of DNA. Mutations cause changes in the information, which in this case is an increase in information.--JArneal 18:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
That is a false analogy, because in the example you gave the mutation is the 3rd copy. You are now talking about 2 mutations, the over-copying and then the copying error - but you still have not provided an example of the copying error in which the "copy" has a greater information content than the original. LowKey 23:09, 14 November 2008 (EST)
JArneal, the word "vehicle" is not longer than the word "car" due to "pure coincidence". Rather, the example was intelligently selected to make the point that the amount of information is not the same as the number of letters, bits, or base pairs. When you randomly change a letter or bit, you say that information is not lost, it didn't stay the same, so it must have increased. But why do you say it was not lost? The point is that information is data that has meaning. You've not shown that the meaning was not lost. Rather, you are continuing to falsely equate the number of bit, letters, or base pairs with information.
In your example of the creature gaining the information for arms, what information was lost? According to you, nothing! That is, it has gained the information for arms, but the genes previously did nothing, which means that they had no information for anything, so no information was lost! Similarly, if bits or base pairs that already have meaning are mutated, then that meaning will be lost.
Philip J. Rayment 03:49, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Lowkey, you are right about the fact that my analogy did not use just one mutation. It uses two. But the fact that it uses two does not make it a false analogy. Two mutations can easily happen in the same replication. Therefore, the analogy stands because it still represents what can happen in a replication.
And to your charge that I "have not provided an example of the copying error in which the 'copy' has a greater information content than the original," you are completely right. But I don't have to provide an example of this, because my analogy still works, and it is an example of how an information-gaining mutation could happen because of a combination of mutations.
Philip, that's not what I meant when I said the word "vehicle" was longer than "car" due to coincidence. But I don't know how to say what I did mean. I'll leave it. And your comment that it was intelligently selected...are you implying that because you intelligently selected an example, intelligent selection happens in nature? I don't know what to say to this.
To your comment that I haven't been properly arguing because I have been equating data to information, you may be right. But hopefully this analogy (analogies are going to be the death of me) will work:
You have three copies of the same book. You want another three of the same, because your copies are getting old, and you want to get rid of them. So you go to a man who will copy the contents of the books for you. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that each book you gave him says only one thing: "The old man walks." Now in the copying, the man you hired makes an error in the third copy, instead making it read: "The old man talks."
What did you know about the old man in your books before the copying? All you knew about him was that he walked. But after the copying, you have 3 new books, two of which say the same, and one that gives you a new piece of information about the old man, that he talks. You now know, after the copying, that the old man walks and that he talks. You have new information about the old man.
And about my creature example, the genes that were mutated did not have "meaning" because they did not code for proteins that carry out functions, so according to you, those genes had no information:"The point is that information is data that has meaning." The genes did have data before the mutation, however, so when it gets a mutation that causes it to have "meaning" (code proteins), information is created out of the meaningless data.
To your statement that "if bits or base pairs that already have meaning are mutated, then that meaning will be lost," you are absolutely right. The meaning will be lost, which brings me back to the very first post I had in this section: If the loss of the previous meaning causes a creature to function improperly, that creature will not reproduce and the mutation will cease to exist. But if it causes the creature to function even better in its environment, its gene will be passed on, and the creature will never miss its previous gene, because it got something even better in exchange. --JArneal 13:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Thank you

Now I see the light. Beautiful autumn foliage is a clear, decisive evidence against Evolution. I am sure that most of my fellow colleagues, scientists, will see the light as well. A few militant atheists will stay on their positions no matter what evidence is presented them, but I'm sure the majority will understand. Now, let's spread the news! Answersingenesis, Creationontheweb, but also scientific papers: here we come! --JulianAdderley 09:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Poor sarcasm if a favourite tool of liberals who have nothing to contribute and no facts to back up their objections. RodWeathers 21:15, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Right. After a while, the liberal nonsense is so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it. Watch that user and I bet you never see an insightful edit by him.--Aschlafly 21:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
If the nonsense is "so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it," why are you commenting on it? --JArneal 21:37, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Typical liberal deceit. Next time, focus on the facts and follow the logic of the Bible. Svincent 22:52, 12 December 2009 (EST)

'Chain of being'

RodWeathers reinstated the 'consciousness' entry with the edit comment "Evolution requires a 'chain of being,' including varying consciousness". I would like to know what this means and how it addresses the concerns with this entry already explained earlier on this page. Philip J. Rayment 01:27, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Recent Revisions

I'm back, taking a much-needed break from research, and I've started out with some relatively minor edits. As promised, here are some explanations.

1) I removed the example of the giraffe's neck because it is very easily explained by the naturalistic theory of evolution. And that's not just from me and the rest of evolutionary biology, that's from Dr. Behe.

2) I removed the example of the whale because it deals with common descent, which is (again citing Behe) accepted by scientific critics of evolutionary theory.

3) I added some clarification to the opening paragraph so that readers can better understand the premise of the article and the limitations of the counter-example argument. It is relatively technical compared to other entries, but as this is a technical subject, this article must unfortunately reflect that. I am not trying to say that the re-wording makes the arguments less legitimate, only that they focus the reader's attention on what exactly is at stake (the power of random mutation, which is the only thing questioned within the scientific field [and as an aside, that's being generous with "scientific", but I digress...]).

4) Finally, some of the examples needed rewording to actually reflect the argument. If anyone wants the technical explanations, I'll be more than happy to provide them, but suffice it to say for now that these arguments have to be worded very specifically to be true.

I think that covers all of them. If any of them are in question, please post here and I'll explain my actions. Please don't blindly revert them without a reason. That's unscientific. --Thinker 13:46, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I've reinstated the whale and giraffe examples. It is nonsense to claim that common descent is not in dispute. And I've explained at the top of this page why evolution can't explain the giraffe. Philip J. Rayment 04:25, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Common descent is not scientifically in dispute. The only attacks to common descent come from without the scientific realm. That doesn't invalidate those attacks, per se, but in order for this article to use scientific reasons for the "rejection" of evolution, it has to be subject to scientific reasoning. And the fact of the matter is that no reputable scientist who has looked at the evidence rejects common descent.
The neck of the giraffe is a result of what we would call "runaway sexual selection". If you observe giraffes in their natural environment, you might notice that the neck is far, far longer than any shrubs or trees which they eat. So, the neck is obviously not adaptive in that way, because natural selection dis-favors anything that expends energy without need. However, the ancestral giraffe (which is conjectured to look somthing like the Okapi) had a much shorter neck. Although we cannot quite be sure what the environment looked like millions of years ago when these selections took place, it is not much of a stretch to assume that giraffes with longer necks (and we're not talking about a significant difference here) had a higher fitness, so natural selection favored longer necks. At the same time, however, males were competing for access to receptive females. It should be obvious that better competitors were able to reproduce more, and that they would pass on whatever heritable trait allowed them to compete better. In the case of giraffes (anc yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution. Most importantly, the length comes from increasing the length of individual neck bones, rathering than gaining new structures. It's a perfect example of evolutionary homology!
Now the next part becomes a little more complicated, and I expect a number of people might not be able to follow it (I'm drawing on some relatively high-level biology). The neck valves of the giraffe do pose a bit more of an obstacle. The explanation requires accepting common descent, but since I'm sticking to science, I'll go ahead and make that jump. If you know your evolutionary history, you know that all terrestrial chordates are derived from an ancestral fish-like organism. This organism had valves in its ventral aorta for just the same reason as giraffes (prevent back-flow). That's information bit number one. Information bit number two is that the vast majority of our genetic code is inert. It must be "turned on" to work. As the last information bit, remember that natural selection acts against anything which expends unneccessary energy. As the circulatory system of chordates evolved, the original requirement for aortic valves diminished, so natural selection favored those organisms which lost the structure. But wait! Losing a structure is not the same as losing the genes for that structure! Indeed, the genes were there the whole time: they are part of the hox complex that controls body plans, and this complex is very heavily conserved. Thus when the need arose for pressure control in the aorta again, it was but a small step to reactivate those genes in the giraffe.
I can see how that becomes a "chicken or the egg" problem, and I think I may change the point to reflect that. Evolution does a great job of explaining how the neck became long, but people might take issue with the potentiation argument for the valves. I guess it's sort of an irreducible complexity argument.
Reinstating the whale example shouldn't have been done. The question posed by this article is "can these phenomena be explained in the framework of Darwinian evolution?" The resounding answer for the case of the whale is YES! That's because one of the main tenets of evolution is common descent, and it's also one very, very strongly supported by evidence. So, scientifically, there is no basis for the inclusion of the whale as a counter-example to evolutionary theory. And please note, when we apply the type of scrutiny we're applying, we must first "pretend," if you will, to accept the theory as a whole and see if it does not provide explanations. That's how speculative science works.
So with that in mind, I will once again remove the whale example. There's simply no scientific reason to include it. To do so would require attacking common descent first, which has been attempted numerous times and has yet to succeed in empirically-based scientific study.
If we want to throw out the requirement of scientific scrutiny for a scientific article, that's the perogative of the admins. But we should be honest about the worldview lens through which we're viewing reality. That would save everyone a lot of time, because then we could focus on the source of discord itself.--Thinker 11:24, 15 November 2008 (EST)
You said above "In the case of giraffes (and yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution". Before you remove anything, I want you to prove to all of us the test. Karajou 11:29, 15 November 2008 (EST)
The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher.
My other revisions also need explanation. I removed the peacock's tail as an example from the beauty argument because it is even more easily explained than the neck of the giraffe. It doesn't change the argument itself, it's just an example that doesn't fit there. The variety of marine fish is a more consistent example.
I also changed the wording of the opening paragraph because the idea that mutations only destory information is a bogus "sound bite." There are reams of examples of informatio-producing mutations: gene duplication, inversions, and insertions all give rise to radically new coding in simpler life. Genetic recombination and meitoic crossing-over account for even more increases in information (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, to name just one source). The argument of irreducible complexity (which is the idea that this article is largely based on) merely states that even these mutations cannot account for complexity (and as another aside, I obviously don't agree with that point, but the last time I refuted it, it took up 30 pages...not so keen to repeat that;)).--Thinker 11:43, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Did those scientists who made that observation actualy see the giraffe's neck grow? Karajou 11:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Huh? That question doesn't make sense (well it does, but not in a relevant way), and I think you may have misunderstood how we test for fitness correlations and natural selection in general. I was a little brief in my explanation considering that there are entire books on the subject, so let's try something a little more detailed and beginning at the basics.
Ok natural selection works on the idea that traits which increase fitness (the number of surviving offspring) will be passed on to the offspring of those parents (assuming it is heritable...no Lamarckian evolution). As long as the conditions remain steady, those offspring will then be able to have more offspring themselves until they make up a significant part of the population. Assuming (as Darwin and Malthus did) that there are more organisms than can be supported, only those who are best able to create offspring in this environment will be successful. "Survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification that spreads more misconceptions than anything else, which is why I hate the phrase.
So now we have the idea that natural selection favors adaptations which increase fitness. Therefore, if we want to test whether or not a trait is adaptive, we can observe the number of offspring an organism has (who is in possession of that trait). This works best on traits which exist across a spectrum of phenotypes (say, the neck of a giraffe). The independent variable is the length of the giraffe's neck, and the dependent one is their reproductive success (gauged by number of matings and number of offspring). Such studies have shown a positive correlation between neck length and fitness (remember, "fitness" is just short-hand for "number of viable offspring). Also note that the specific test is one we use to judge the effects of sexual selection (in this case by intrasexual competition, based on qualitative observations of males fighting). To judge the adaptiveness of a trait from a natural selection standpoint, we simply look at the number of offspring produced (without taking into account mating success). If something is an adaptive trait using these tests, Darwinian evolution can explain it using its framework. If not, then the problem requires further investigation.
I hope that explains how we test the adaptive value of a trait. I don't know where the idea of "needing to see it grow" came from, but perhaps my initial explanation was too brief (I am used to teaching science majors at the college level and forget how much I've specialized, at times).--Thinker 12:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)

The question was "did a scientist see a giraffe's neck grow?" What you said was this: "The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher." There are all sorts of little words in your explanations (and many, many others) which suggest that scientists just don't know, words like "assuming"; "conjectured"; "plausable"; "scientists believe"; and so forth. Scientists are people, and people anywhere can "assume" that the moon is a lump of cheese, but that of course doesn't change the facts.

With all due respect, the implication of your argument relative to Cameleopardus sp. has very much to do with scientists stating that mating rituals were responsible for the lengthening of the neck vertebrae, and these scientists implied such as if it were absolute fact. To make such an implication, I'm "assuming" they used the Scientific Method; the first step of that method demands that a scientist observe the phenomena in question; i.e. he has to see the neck actually grow, and then provide a reasonable explanation for such growth in step two. In step three, the scientist has to do an experiment to see if his hypothesis is correct, and you did say above that "we can test this".

Here is my explanation for the giraffe's neck, which is supported by facts:

  • At no time did a scientist of any kind observe a giraffe's neck grow, either in a single animal, or passed down to offspring through successive generations, in accordance with step one of the Scientific Method.
  • At no time was testing done pertaining to the hypothesis related to mating; if such was done the results were at best inconclusive, or plain wrong. If the observation instruction of step one cannot be accomplished, then steps two and three could not be done as well.
  • At no time in the history of paleontology was the remains of an animal found which could have been declared by science to be the links between the "okapi-like" animal and a giraffe.

That means science is left with two other explantions of the giraffe's neck, of which the familiar one is that it grew in relation to the growing height of the trees. That explantion falls apart for the simple reason that if the animal in question needs to eat and cannot reach the leaves, it either grows the neck immediately, looks for another food source, or starves to death within a few weeks. Two of those facts, by the way, can be observed and tested on any animal.

The third explanation is what I believe in, and there's no testing at all which can refute it: giraffes and their necks were created on the sixth day by an act of God. Karajou 02:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Wow...I'm not sure where to start here. I guess I can start by saying that the above is a very, very twisted version of the scientific method. In fifteen years of intense science, I've never experienced anything like what you described, nor have a I related anything like that to my many students. I would try to explain it for any observers, but I have the feeling that what I say is going to be squelched, anyway.
First off, science does not require direct observation. If it did, then we wouldn't have chemistry or phsyics (aside from applied chemistry and Newtonian physics, which are just a small part of those respective branches). It depends on inference based on observed phenomena, followed by predictions based on those inferences. The scientific method would never require direct observation of the neck growing, it would require observation of a long neck and a scientist asking why it's long.
Second, my "little words" are there for a reason: scientists do not know. We assume, we test our assumptions, we change them when things don't go as planned. I just finished up a research project in which the results completely refuted the initial hypothesis, and this eventually led to some radical insights into muscle development. Only the most arrogant and mis-informed (or rhetorical) scientists say things like "we know this beyond a doubt." If we knew all the answers there would be no need for science.
Third, your explanation for the neck of the giraffe is based on incomplete facts. Moreover, its line of logic is based on an incorrect assumption about the scientific method. Science simply does not work the way you described. I don't know who is relaying the sort of information about the scientific method upon which you base your argument, but shame on them. They have either lied or were dead wrong.
Finally, "belief" in an explanation has absolutely no place in science, because it precludes the possibility of doubt. Without doubt, again, there is no science. I believe nothing in the scientific field...I accept explanations, and I hold mutable opinions...I even make assumptions when doing is so is needed for forward progress. But I never "believe" anything (ever wondered why so many scientists are atheists? There's your answer). That would be a grave threat to scientific thought.
I simply cannot continue. My arguments and logic rely on an understanding of science and "proof" which is simply not present here. I will return my focus to my students who are willing to learn. Good day. --Thinker 11:38, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Typical evolutionist weaseling. What Karajou has described is fully in line with the scientific method, and naturally you plug your ears and fail to actually answer the objections, since they undermine your entire worldview. RodWeathers 11:48, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Now, now, this is a debate page, and not a page where we can say "typical evolutionist weasaling". The point I made is simple. Science, as stated above in this example, says that the neck of a giraffe got longer as a result of mating choices, and Thinker indicated that testing has in fact been done on that subject. But to contradict what he said, belief is everything in science. In this example, science believes that the neck of a giraffe got longer over time via the mating of certain individuals. They believe it so much that they are willing to test their beliefs (hypothesis) to see if it is a fact. Thinker indicated above that it was tested; I said it never happened. Both statements could be considered beliefs, but the end result states one is a fact and the other is not. In short, show me a successive line of directly-related individuals who had larger and larger neck vertebrae over time exactly as described, and show me that this occurred through mating. It either happened, or it didn't. Karajou 14:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)
I think that the conflict here is in what Thinker and Karajou are trying to explain - Thinker is assuming that the ancestors of the giraffe did not have long necks, and therefore simple oberving that giraffes now do have long necks is enough to satisfy step 1 of the Scientific Method and he can then continue to propose a hypothesis to explain it. Karajou, on the other hand, believes that giraffes were created in their current form, in which case a net change in neck length over time would have to be observed before a hypothesis would be needed. However, for this change to be observed, the timescale needed would be far greater than the length of time since the ToE was proposed.

PBowler 14:17, 2 October 2009 (GMT + 1)

I haven't read the lengthy thread above, but resorting to "more time" to explain things actually raises more questions than it answers. One can add the all the time imaginable and heat will still not flow to a hotter place, water will still not flow uphill, and disorder still will not become more orderly.--Andy Schlafly 10:37, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

Some Items to Consider

I believe it is important to point out a few misunderstandings of this article in relation to scientific thought. First off, subjective statements are not scientific. The term beautiful is subjective and can not be quantified. As such number one is not something that pure science can validate, “Beautiful by what standard?” Number two has been shown it be false as well. During the Dover trial M. Behe was shown a stack of research dealing specifically with the evolution of the immune system. I know personally that in most college level evolution classes immunology is not a common topic, however in graduate level immunology classes the evolution of the immune systems of different species is covered quite extensively. Number 6 is also another area that has been studied substantially. Simmons, R. & Scheepers, L. (1996). Winning By A Neck: Sexual Selection In The Evolution Of Giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148, 772-786. is an excellent paper explaining how sexual selection played the most plausible role in the evolution of the giraffe’s neck. Number 7 is one of those on going arguments; many transitional fossils have been shown however there are transitions between transitions. The best explanation for this is that soft tissue is very rare to find in a fossil and changes from evolution occur at the biochemical level. So it is a matter of morphology which leaves gaps. Number 8 was shown to be false, either last year or the year before, with the finding of Dilong paradoxus. This fossil showed feather precursors and featherlike projectiles with a scaled skin. Number 9 needs a citation, I know of no biologists that make a claim that Pterosaurs did not fly. Number 10, most thoughts on this issue is that wings were selected through sexual pressures and gained functionality at a later state. Number 11 has been recently debunked as well, there has been an established cascade leading to the formation of flagellum. Number 12 was shown to be false on this talk page already. Number 13 is misleading due to the limited understanding of symbiosis. Symbiosis is caused through mutual beneficial partnership. The species involved could survive on their own but over time were able to survive better through the partnership and eventually became dependent on each other. Number 13 does not address this. Number 15 runs into the issue of the soft tissue that was listed above. Another point to make is that there are cases where unicellular organisms do work together to survive, but do not have systems. I am not sure if this would qualify since the difference between unicellular and multicellular organisms is based on the development of specialized function of the cells. Number 16 is misleading. The prostate would only be eliminated through natural selection if it did not influence reproduction, considering the purpose of the prostate this is false. Number 17 is also false. There are many cases of animals using tools to achieve an effect, as well as self-sacrifice for the betterment of their young. Case for the tools would be primates and some marine mammals using rocks and other shaped objects to crack and open objects that they would not normally be accessible to them. Self-sacrifice happens in all kinds of environments from birds to mammals protecting their young to the point of sacrificing themselves. I would say that this mindset that is unique in humans is not a single mutation as much as a buildup of mutations and experiences thus allowing for some to be able to self-sacrifice while others do not. I am unsure how to proceed on fixing these issues in the article so a little advice might help. (Unsure being if I must present a well documented research case disproving the claim or show through logic why it is false then be able to do the deletion) Moreover, I am fine with having some items in this but please let those items be scientific examples.--Able806 14:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Oh sorry, I should have read your comments before adding my 2c below. You've added more detail than me, and seem to be more of an expert in the topic, so I'll let you discuss it with the others. MattS 11:22, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Discredited Examples

Although I agree with a lot of the examples here, you should probably consider removing the two examples for irreducable complexity (immune system and bacteria flagellum) as both of these examples have strong counter-arguments, and including them in your list will serve only to discredit the page. Considering the immune system, the original arguments based on antibodies not working by themselves and the compliment cascade: 1) Antibodies do function by themselves. Opsonisation is only a small part of their function 2) Various mammals have been found which lack portions of the compliment cascade, showing it is possible for the cascade to have 'evolved'. As far as flagellum is concerned, the actual motor is very close in structure to the bacterial poison pump, which 'squiges' a protein (poison) through itself. This could have 'evolved' into the flagellum by the poison protein becoming affixed, and thereby facilitating movement to a less hostile environment, potentially promoting survival.

As I said, I'm not trying to attack your arguments, I'm just worried that you are flogging a dead horse with these examples which will discredit an otherwise excellent page. There must be tons of other arguments you can use instead. What do you think? MattS 17:53, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Typical liberalism. You are attempting to discredit counterexamples under the guise that you are improving the article. Next time, read the Bible and learn what it says about those who do such things.Svincent 20:46, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Pterosaurs

Where did the writer get the idea that they couldn't fly? I have many books that say they could. NikD 19:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

I've seen pictures of them pulling Santa's sleigh through the air, so you must be right!--Aschlafly 19:52, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, with all due respect, could you please not insult other people's conceptions?-- JArneal 20:04, 1 December 2008 (EST)

As the person who originally added the statement, I shall take all questions. Here is a cite, I will put it in the article presently. --PhilipV 14:03, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks PhilipV for the site. I would point out that it is only one researcher who makes this claim, and the comment section on the site even explains why it was flawed. To state that biologists do not believe that Pterosaurs could not fly is a mischaracterization of a single article. Now if there were several papers supporting the researcher's claim then that would be different. Perhaps saying "That a researcher made a recent claim" since the article is from this year there has not been much time for others to test the claim. Just to point out, there are physicians who still claim that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, there will always be fringe interpretations of data.--Able806 14:45, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Phillip, next time remember to site your reference. NikD 03:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)

OK no problemo ----PhilipVSupport our Troops! 22:26, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Unicellular to Multicellular Organisms

What would constitute a clear transitional form? A group of unicellular organisms that work together to accomplish a function to sustain their life, like digestion of an energy source through shared enzymes? If this is the case bacteria order myxobacteria is a prime example of this. These bacteria work together often to achieve results that are not just based on physical manipulation but chemical. They often will converge on food and increase the concentration of their digestive enzymes to digest the food. They have to do this in close proximately of each other due to the enzymes being unstable; being close together allows the bacteria to produce a stabilizing chemical environment to stabilize the enzymes. In other words, by working together they share chemicals to aid in their ability to digest their food source. So would this be considered an example or social behavior by unicellular organisms (which can only be chemically driven)? I will wait for a few days for responses before editing the article.--Able806 11:23, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Altruism

Actually Rod, I am afraid you are incorrect. Altruism favors evolution because selfless acts that ensure the survivability of the population allow for the continuation of the genes of the population. Evolution is not based on the individual it is based on the population. For example, a father organism gives his life to protect his offspring, a purely altruistic act, thus allows for the genes of the father to be carried on by the offspring. You have to look at genetic shift on the evidence that once the organism reproduces its evolutionary role is not as important as its offspring therefore allowing for the parent organism to function as a protector of its offspring. If a parent performs the act, it does support evolution because it allows the offspring (or population) a better chance of survival.--Able806 09:10, 18 December 2008 (EST)

You really have bought into evolutionism hook, line, and sinker. Altruism is not limited to parents caring for their young. Animals adopt orphaned young of other species. Primates share food with unrelated animals in their group, help the injured, etc. None of these things improve individual survivability, and are thus counter-evolutionary. - Rod Weathers 09:20, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Actually they do provide for evolution. It does not really matter what the act is, just as long as it does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread. You have to think about altruism in terms of gene dispersion, what helps it spread and what helps it survive, thus favoring evolution. If organisms share among each other then the genes will survive and spread at an increased rate than organisms that do not. Another piece of evidence that shows that altruistic behavior falls in line with evolution is the evidence that parallel and convergent evolution are functions of altruistic behavior between two populations (part of the environmental selective pressures). I believe the point you are missing is that a single mutation in an organism is not enough to cause an evolutionary shift, that mutation must spread; therefore evolutionary shift is based on population and not the individual thus supporting altruistic behaviors due to their impact on the population's survivability over the individual. Perhaps you can counter this argument with some explanation as to why altruism can not be beneficial to evolutionary theory. I would agree that if the organism sacrifices itself before producing offspring then the behavior would counter evolution, however when one removes learned social constructs, you will see that the time an organism develops altruistic behaviors is often after the organism is able to reproduce. As for the comment about buying in, I am a biochemist, if I did not understand evolutionary theory then most of what I study would make no sense, such as seeing the similar metabolic pathways in different species with only slight, and progressive, modifications to differentiate them.--Able806 09:40, 18 December 2008 (EST)
All unnecessary action reduces the chance of the population having genetic spread, through wasting of energy. And to suggest that evolution is inherently population based undermines your argument. Any genetic change which improves altruism reduce the altruistic individual's survivability, thus the altruistic changes are lost. Thus altruism should not be seen in nature, as it destroys its own propagation. - Rod Weathers 09:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Rod, all I can say is that you are mistaken. I provided you with several instances where altruistic behavior would allow for genetic dispersion (father giving up life for child), provided you with a hypothetical situation where two populations could benefit from altruistic behavior as compared to populations that do not show similar behaviors and explained in detail why you are mistaken due to your understanding of evolution being based on the individual instead of being based on the population. So to answer your point about wasted energy, populations are not closed systems and evolution is not based on the conservation of energy. So when an organism invests energy in an act where no defined outcome will occur it is not against evolutionary theory, nor is it for due to it being based on the individual once again. However if the energy used did happen to encourage a response from the environment that would improve the gene dispersion and chances of the population's survivability then it truly supports evolution. "All" unnecessary action does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread, for example reciprocal altruism: Sharing food is a good example. Suppose an animal captures a food source which is so plentiful that it cannot consume it all alone before it goes off. Sharing it with others may entail getting slightly less food now, for the possibility of more food later (when it might be sorely needed) if the recipients reciprocate the altruistic action. Kin Selection: When adult animals risk their life to distract potential predators away from their offspring they are exhibiting this form of altruism. Such behavior is evolutionarily stable since although it decreases an animal's chances of survival, it increases the chances for its offspring. Multilevel selection theory: Consider, for example, an animal population made up of warring groups. This would entail two levels of selection - between groups and within groups. Within any one group, altruistic behavior would be deselected by the dominance of selfish behavior. However, if altruistic behavior increased the overall fitness of the group, then the groups with the highest proportion of altruists would outperform the more selfish ones. Under appropriate conditions, this alternative selection pressure could dominate the disadvantage of altruism for the individual. Multi-level selection doesn't only occur on these two levels, since animals may be a part of various groups - close family group, extended family, tribe etc. We can consider evolutionary selection to happen on each level simultaneously. This explanation of altruism finds more evidence from anthropological studies which support viewing of groups of humans as adaptive units. According to Sober and Wilson, "the concept of human groups as adaptive units may be supported not only by evolutionary theory but by the bulk of empirical information on human social groups in all cultures around the world." More reading [5][6] As you can see your example supports evolution more than it counters it.--Able806 10:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)
Able806, I don't have time to read through evolutionist propaganda. You have yet to explain intra-species altruism, which is the key point. Parents dying for their children is obvious in its advantage, but an animal nursing one of another species invariably reduces its ability to propagate its own genes. Dolphins assisting injured humans and animals do so at risk to themselves, with no possible genetic propagation or benefit. So long as any examples cannot be explained by evolution, it must be discarded; this is the nature of science. Altruism is endowed by God, not Darwin. - Rod Weathers 10:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Rod, if you would have read my post you would have seen I gave you and example of intra-species altruism, or reciprocal altruism, and the science behind it as well as multi-level theory. As for propaganda, I really do not wish to participate in ad homium attacks against researchers, especially when one refuses to read the information provided. Evidence is evidence, take it as you will, however you claim has been shown to be false and contrary to the purpose of the article. Your trailing statement “Altruism is endowed by God, not Darwin” means nothing in this argument, and is a hook, which I shall not bite. I believe an administrator should settle this issue. Now if you will excuse me, I have articles to write.--Able806 10:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I don't pretend to understand all of this, but I don't think the existence of altruism either proves or disproves the Theory of Evolution. Certainly a species whose individuals "do nice things for each other" without getting an immediate reward will survive better than species who are more individualistic. But God might have set it up that way for a reason.

It's fun to speculate on how traits like cooperation may have "evolved", but until we can read behavior in the fossil record it's all academic. The only scientific question about evolution is whether it was directed by an intelligent designer or its was merely due to the "creative" force of natural selection. --Ed Poor Talk 10:41, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Ed, I agree with your statement. Being that Altruism is a behavior, it is not something that can be detected in fossils of organisms that never used tools. As such, using altruism as a counterexample is grasping when there are other examples that have more "meat" if you will. Hence the reason why it should not be a part of this article due to it subtracting from the areas that hold more testable and provable potential.--Able806 10:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe an example would help. A form of altruism has been observed among certain species of vampire bats, where one bat that found a meal (the "lucky bat") would share part of it with another bat (the "unlucky bat"} that didn't find a meal that night. The lucky bat can afford to give up some of its food, while the unlucky bat has to have something, or it will starve; so the exchange helps the unlucky bat more than it hurts the lucky bat. And the next night, the lucky bat might be the unlucky one, and have to depend on a handout. Since he showed himself to be generous the previous night, the other bats know that he's good for a meal for any of them if they need it, so they help him out this night. I heard of this back in college, so I forget all the details, and it's only anecdotal evidence, but it does seem to show how altruism can be a good evolutionary strategy, under certain circumstances.--Frey 14:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Hair

Rod, once again another area which you might rethink. Hair is dependent on the rs-3 locus which encodes for the ectodysplasin-A receptor (EDAR), which is required for the initiation of hair development in mammals. This locus is also essential for scale development in fish and reptiles. This locus is the developmental precursor which follows a path similar to the Pax6 in eye development. As for hair being well fossilized, it is in amber but in other types of fossils it fossilizes poorly. Most fossils found in amber are of insects (due to the bugs eating or landing on the plant) not many higher animals are found in amber fossils, was one of the rare instances that it occurred. I know you are getting your information from AIG or ICR but follow up with it by searching pubmed. You will see articles that have been researched and reviewed that sometimes conflict with AIG or ICR's claims.--Able806 09:01, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Vestigiality

Now I am begining to wonder about your purpose Rod, you have added yet again another false claim. In humans, the coccyx, the plica semilunaris, the pseudogene L-gulonolactone oxidase among many other muscles that serve no current purpose but had purpose in the past are all considered vestigial structures. To claim there are none in a human is false and further not supported by fact. So back to the orginal purpose of this article, perhaps we could stick to the valid counterexamples to evolution, instead of those that have been shown to be false.--Able806 18:59, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Every claim of "vestigiality" (an absurdity, I might add) has been proven false about humans, as far as I am aware. The claim about tonsils resulted in the needless death of thousands in improperly subjecting them to anesthesia and removing their tonsils. Are you willing at least to admit that? Please improve your spelling and also spell out your far-fetched claim that something else is vestigial in humans. Godspeed and Merry Christmas.--aschlafly 19:08, 25 December 2008 (EST)
I find it curious that you see it necessary to attack sourced, well-established problems with evolutionary theory, with nothing more than your own propagandist assertions, no doubt ingrained by an evolutionist education. Please, either back up your claims or leave these facts alone and contribute elsewhere in the encyclopedia. If you do some reading with an open mind, you just might find the natural world is far different than you were taught. - Rod Weathers 15:03, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly, to start, not every claim of vestigiality has been proven false about humans. The three items I listed above are examples that have withstood testing for now. I do not disagree that there is a possibility that they may be reclassified as more information is gathered, just like tonsils, however it is unlikely. Here are some published references for the items I listed: Coccyx [1][2][3][4], Plica[5] L-gul[6][7]. I have no problem admitting the deaths of people placed under anesthesia however to claim that the removal of the tonsils caused the death, well that is something that would have to be looked at on a case by case basis, which considering the millions that have their tonsils removed does not seem to be the cause. I believe the key is the definition of vestige: the remnant of a structure that functioned in a previous stage of species or individual development. Vestigiality can be proven by morphology and sequence testing, pretty clear if you ask me. As for my spelling I apologize, English is not my first or primary language and I wrote the comment while traveling for the holiday, failing to spell check before I posted as I normally do. Rod, as for your comment, I agree with many of the items posted on this article as shown in one of my previous posts, however what you have posted recently is easily shown to be incorrect thus allowing for the question to be raised what are your intentions for this article? You keep trying to label my assertions as propaganda; however you provide no published evidence contrary to my statements. As I have said before I am a Biochemist, a field which relies heavily on the ToE so it is only reasonable for me to have a favorable view of evolution. I am a scientist which also means I question everything, including ToE. Aschlafly’s comment of the fall colors actually intrigues me. I know the biochemical pathways that lead to the chemical reaction in the leaves but I only understand that the difference in color is caused by the concentrations of the chemicals in the leaves. Not being a neurobiologist, I do not know what wavelengths of light stimulate what parts of the brain which would be needed to scientifically understand Aschlafly’s statement. I have supported my claim in the links above, perhaps you should open your mind to the understanding that perhaps not everything is as it first seems. As for being taught, well consider that I actually perform research so my friend I use experience more often than not.--Able806 09:38, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Reversion Explained

We don't allow ideological censorship here. Try Wikipedia if you want to insist on censoring criticism of evolution, though I oppose censorship by Wikipedia also.--Andy Schlafly 21:51, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Jellyfish fact

The article appears to lapse into the faulty "god of the gaps" way of thinking here. If the article is willing to state that the phenomenon is only "apparently" unrelated to 'evolution'. I've always felt the integrity of a conservative argument is based on the percentage of unimpeachable truths within (as opposed to the liberal priorities placed on 1. quotes from famous peoples and 2. quotes from liars) so if you don't mind, I would like to trim down the list to only those statements which are ironclad. MICasey 09:24, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

You make valid points, but a complete failure of evolution to explain a basic undeniable fact (such as the jellyfish behavior), and a lack of any imaginable evolutionary explanation, is a valid counterexample to the theory.
Evolutionists claim that their theory explains all of life. If they want to reduce their sweeping claims, then we could reduce the list accordingly.--Andy Schlafly 11:02, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Several points

I have been trying to decide whether to list all my comments here or to distribute them throughout the page. Since my goal is, in part, to summarize and comment on several debates, I have decided to list them in one place; I hope this does not cause confusion or offense. The comments below are not intended to be comprehensive--there are more issues I would like to discuss when I have more time to do the proper research. These are merely the ones that I (as a clinician and scientist) can address readily. I hope my discussion is not too technical, and I will do my best to answer any relevant questions that arise.

  • Immune system: "the immune system is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection." False. Plenty of humans are born with immune systems that are partially defective and thus not thoroughly developed, yet they are able to resist some infections. For example, people with selective immunoglobulin A deficiency have a somewhat greater susceptibility to respiratory and urinary infections, but they can resist other infections normally. Much the same is true of some complement deficiencies. Similarly, invertebrates have only some of the immune defenses that vertebrates have, yet invertebrates manage to resist some infections: specifically invertebrates and vertebrates both have defensins, but the adaptive immune system only seems to exist in vertebrates. Ref. 2 in the original page (which I didn't add) provides other examples. Thus, the immune system can be reduced into component parts, and organisms possessing only some of those component parts can resist infection. Recommendation: This claim should be deleted.
  • Fossils: "the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the fossil record." Not a single reference is provided to support or explain this claim. I am aware that creationists often make this point, so perhaps someone more knowledgeable could post a link to a relevant discussion. Recommendation: This claim should be defended or removed.
  • Ploidy: "Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4." This is simply false. The example of Down syndrome is sufficient to refute this point, since individuals with trisomy 21 can indeed mate with euploid individuals. So can those with XYY syndrome (note: NOT XXY (Klinefelter's) syndrome, which is a different matter entirely). Polyploidy is reasonably common in plants: for discussion, see the recent paper by Wood et al. (2009) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Moreover, the second sentence does not follow from the first. Remember that mating is not necessary for reproduction or speciation in some species, and thus is not necessary for evolution; species can reproduce parthenogenically or via vegetative propagation. That said, the above discussion gives me the impression that the statement in the article does not accurately reflect the views of Aschlafly and others. Recommendation: This claim should be revised or removed.
  • Bats and sonar: There are several problems with this argument. I'll confine myself to the two most glaring issues. First: "An animal that can't fly doesn't need [sonar.]" False. Dolphins and whales have sonar and can't fly; as discussed above, the same is true of shrews and Madagascarian tenrecs. Second: "The bats can't fly without sonar." False; even bats that *can* use echolocation don't *have* to use it (see http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/08/22/0804408105.abstract for evidence; those who cannot access scientific papers may want to look at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080826-bat-sonar.html instead). I fear that I'm missing something critical here, as the first issue was reinstated even though the ample evidence against it was never discussed. Perhaps someone can explain why this happened, but failing that: Recommendation: This claim should be removed.
  • Prostate: "Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design." No. According to evolutionary theory, natural selection will only eliminate a design if it has a negative effect on reproduction. Prostate problems (which are very common, hence the claim about "poor design") tend to occur after a man has passed his prime reproductive years (for just one reference on prevalence rates, see http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/449623-overview). Heck, sometimes these problems don't start until *his children* have passed their peak reproductive years! The impact on reproductive fitness is thus negligible, and evolutionary theory would not require that the prostate (or prostate problems) be eliminated. Recommendation: This claim should be removed.
  • Bad design: "While evolutionists argue that there are examples of 'bad design' in the bodies of many organisms, such as 'flaws' in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things!" False, for the same reason as in the prostate example. Evolution only suggests that a design will be eliminated if it has negative effects (relative to some other existing design). The 'flaws' in the human spine presumably refer to the high frequency of lower back pain or injury, which rarely if ever would have an effect on reproduction. I do not know what the putative flaw is in the sinuses, so I cannot evaluate this claim. Recommendation: This claim should be clarified or removed.

Reaganetics 11:37, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

Reaganetics, you've nitpicked about a half-dozen minor examples from nearly 40 counterexamples. An open mind is a prerequisite to intelligent discussion; we're not here to reassure your preconceptions. If you can open your mind and admit that evolution may well be false, then let's discuss as long as you like. But if you're an atheist or someone who bought into the theory of evolution as a student and who refuses to accept that you could have been duped, then I'll spend my time on translating the Bible here instead. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 18:53, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
I am certainly interested in discussing these issues, and, as I repeatedly noted, I'm perfectly open to the possibility that I might be wrong. That is why I repeatedly suggested that I was open to clarifications or corrections, and that is why I suggested that certain counterexamples be *strengthened* by adding references.
To be frank, that is also why I find your comment to be a disappointment. It presents no evidence to counter any of my arguments. It characterizes my arguments as nitpicking (how is it nitpicking to point out declarative statements that appear to be false?) and characterizes the points I criticized as minor (if the points are too minor to merit criticism, why are they presented at all? If truth is important, shouldn't we be interested in ensuring the accuracy of all of our statements, minor or major?)
Perhaps someone else can provide a more substantive response. JasonS 22:24, 8 October 2009 (EDT) (formerly Reaganetics)
JasonS, you say only that you "might be wrong." You apparently won't concede that the theory of evolution might be wrong. Atheists, for example, insist that the theory of evolution must be true regardless of how many counterexamples are shown to them. They are not open to the possibility that the theory of evolution might be false.
If you're not open-minded about the issue, then it's not an intelligent discussion. It's a fool's errand. There are nearly 40 counterexamples listed and your objections above to a mere half-dozen are plainly deficient. If you demonstrate an open mind then I'd be happy to discuss further; otherwise my time is obviously better spent elsewhere. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 23:42, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
Hmm. I thought I had been clearer. I am willing to accept that evolution might be true, false, or true in some regards and false in other regards. (Which of these possibilities are you open to?) I want to know what the best arguments on both sides are. I saw problems with some of the arguments here, so I pointed those problems out.
I'm therefore sorry to see that you continue to be unresponsive. You claim that my objections are "plainly deficient," but you don't explain why. It's noteworthy, I think, that I provided evidence to support my claims, but you seem unwilling or unable to support yours. I'm also not sure why it's relevant that I only criticized six out of 40 examples (is there a minimum number I should criticize to qualify for serious debate? As I said in my original comment, I will criticize more when I have time to do the proper research). Finally, I'm a bit puzzled by your approach to this topic. I find it peculiar for someone to show up and post a comment only to declare (repeatedly) that he thinks it's best that he spend his time elsewhere. Why not just spend your time elsewhere?
As before, perhaps there is someone else who can discuss these issues on a more substantive level. Just to be clear what I mean by that, let me give the example I give to my students. A substantive discussion involves more than mere rhetoric; it involves the presentation of facts and evidence (supported by reliable sources) and the discussion of the logical consequences of those facts and that evidence. Anything else is not terribly useful, at least in science. JasonS 10:47, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

If you are HONESTLY open minded about this, then it won't be a waste of time to answer your questions.

  • Immune system: Even though various animals have different immune systems with different methods, the HUMAN immune system is irreducibly complex because it requires both identifying and mounting specific responses. If T cell receptors did not exist, then an adaptive response would be impossible, but an adaptive response is necessary for T cell receptors to have any use at all.
  • Ploidy: The point of the statement is that these multiple chromosomes are detrimental and unlikely, so that one species cannot evolve additional chromosomes.
  • Bats and sonar: First, swimming is basically flying in water. The point is that animals which can walk (like the supposed ancestor of the bat) wouldn't use sonar. Second: I looked at your source, and it said that when not using sonar, "In the wild they could rely on spatial memory in familiar surroundings, and they could also use vision in moonlight that would aid them in locating obstacles." Well, there you go. If ever they don't use sonar, it's because they've used it so often in a spot that they remember it well. Even though I can walk around in my apartment at 2 AM without turning on the lights, I would still be right in saying that in general, I need lights to get around.
  • Prostate: You would need to dispute this for EVERY prostate-having species to have any validity to this. Additionally, men are capable of having children into very old age.
  • Bad design: Actually, evolution is repeatedly claimed to be responsible for tons of things that don't have reproductive value. Evolutionists claim, for example, that people live to such long age to help raise grandchildren.
  • Teeth: Really? Because people had teeth for thousands of years before that surgery was developed and they all fit into our mouths.


I hope this can answer your questions and put an end to this silly debate. JacobB 11:51, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Kidneys

The phrase "The existence of two kidneys, which is unnecessary in most people..." seems to be a bit of a stretch. Most people can live a normal, healthy life with only one kidney, but have to take many precautions to ensure that the kidney is not damaged or over-worked. High blood pressure, proteinuria, and poor glomerular filtration are all relatively common ailments for those with only one kidney. I really don't view this as an argument for or against evolution (or creationism for that matter). --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 13:40, 2 November 2009 (EST) For the time being, I'm going to remove this claim. I wanted to wait to see what was said about it, but feel free to revert if you'd like to keep it in. --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 20:43, 2 November 2009 (EST)

No, I don't think you're right. "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."[9] Of course, many people have high blood pressure and other problems, and having only one rather two kidneys would not give someone an advantage. But the second kidney is superfluous for most people and has no evolutionary justification.--Andy Schlafly 21:58, 2 November 2009 (EST)
I think the quality of life has a lot to do with the rigorous screening of the patients prior to donation, as cited in the article. They can have no trace of diabetes, high blood pressure, or any sort of renal disease. As I said, one can live with only one kidney, and many go on to lead a normal, healthy life—as the article says. I think this falls in somewhat of a gray area in evolution/creation debate. Perhaps the function of the other kidney is to "pick up the slack" (?) if the other one fails, as is known to happen—the prevalence of renal disease is steadily increasing. This could be beneficial from both a design standpoint and an evolutionary standpoint. That's the main reason I took it out. I'm not trying to overstep any bounds, though, and just hope to keep the credibility of all arguments on this site sound. --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 22:11, 2 November 2009 (EST)
I have an open mind about this. But it's obvious from the Scienceline article that people exaggerate their need for a second kidney. All evidence is that the second kidney is superfluous in most people. So why do people exaggerate the need for a second kidney? Because evolution teaches that everything has a utilitarian purpose, and it misleads people into this false perception. The result is made clear by the article: 75,000 people need a donation of that extra kidney that most people don't need, but don't donate it due to being misled by the theory of evolution into thinking they do need it. That's a heavy cost caused by a politically motivated falsehood.
Design explains the extra kidney: symmetry, or even to have an extra one to give another person in need. It could even be there as a test for us. That's a challenging thought.
Evolution cannot plausibly explain the superfluous kidney, and hence its inclusion in this list. The theory claims that populations evolve, but there is no reason for an entire organ to develop which most of the population does not need. Pre-obesity, when evolution supposedly occurred, at most a tiny percentage of people would have had a need for a second kidney, far too few to just an entire population developing it.--Andy Schlafly 23:07, 2 November 2009 (EST)
Following your logic, why didn't God give humans two hearts as well? I agree with you in your belief of creationism, and I respect your opinion, but I disagree with your belief that just because you say it, it becomes a fact.Ssmith12 17:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Typical liberal response. The reason God didn't make humans with two hearts because humans don't need two hearts. Also, your liberal dissent and vandalism is very obvious. Next time, be more logical and read the Bible, the most logical book in the world.Biblekid17:56, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Andy Schlafly already admitted that the extra kidney is, well, extra, and that a human doesn't need two kidneys. I don't want to appear as a vandal on this site, I just wanted to make sure Mr. Schlafly shows a bit of humility, and perhaps quote a bible verse rather than just go on with his musing.Ssmith12 18:44, 12 December 2009 (EST)
There's no logic in your objection. An intelligent designer is not constrained by an idiotic straight-jacket of consistency.--Andy Schlafly 18:56, 12 December 2009 (EST)

The Greatest show on earth

I am not sure if this should go here, but I had no answer on the Richard Dawkins talk page, and this may develop into a counter-example. This is a copy of my post: I have just finished reading Dawkins' latest book. Once you remove the usual authoritative evolutionist arguments, there is surprisingly (or not that surprisingly, actually) little information in there. I am quite impressed by one argument though: the comparative DNA 'evidence' described on page 153. If is my personal feeling that the results have most certainly been fabricated. In this case, a big blow could be dealt to the evolutionists by exposing the fraud. It is also possible that the results are correct, but the interpretation is wrong, or biased. Unfortunately, I am afraid I can not see, by myself, how the argument goes wrong. Could someone explain to me how to refute this particular statement from the evolutionists? Thanks in advance, --TSpencer 11:20, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I wouldn't be surprised if they had been fabricated, since that's the norm for evolutionist "science." Their interpretation is biased in any case, as comparative DNA evidence shows the single hand of the creator. Leave it to evolutionists to twist anything to deny God, though. DouglasA 11:25, 13 December 2009 (EST)
I don't really understand your point. The evidence could be fabricated, yes. Are you saying that even if it were not, it would actually be in favor of creationism? That would be truly wonderful, and a very good argument in a debate. Do you know where I can find more information on this? --TSpencer 12:28, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Well, I'm not about to buy Dawkins' book, so I don't know the "details" of the evidence he's presenting, but you might want to look at baraminology, look up the distinctions between micro- and macro- evolution, etc. Various sets of animals have extremely similar DNA because they're descended from the same baramins, or types that were on the Ark. Corruption of genetic information produces microevolution - speciation within those types, leaving a genetic footprint in the form of similarities which can be found through the study of comparative DNA. Genesis establishes that God spoke all beings into existence, with distinctly one creation event and one common language. This prediction is proven as all beings share DNA, protein chirality, etc. And as God's creation is parsimonious, we see great efficiency throughout creation in the reuse of ingenious parts. DouglasA 12:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)
And this genetic similarity, this "reuse", is exactly the opposite of what we'd see if evolution were possible. If life could come from nothing, you wouldn't expect the same thing to keep coming up the same way every time. DanielPulido 12:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Yes, that is one of the great contradictions of evolution. On one hand, evolutionists claim that if you ran evolutionary history again, it would be totally different, and on the other, they claim that the same things (like eyes) will keep popping up, even though this is statistically impossible. Then they fabricate things like the evolutionary history of the eye, which is entirely speculation, as none of them have any actual primitive eyes to look at. DouglasA 12:51, 13 December 2009 (EST)
The eye is a great example of my point, but you and I both know Dawkins will never acknowledge that. DanielPulido 12:54, 13 December 2009 (EST)

The gene-based arguments for evolution have been a complete failure. I'm surprised Dawkins makes another run at it. For example, gene sequences appear, disappear, and then reappear in the alleged evolutionary path, which suggests a common designer rather than an evolutionary process. I'll add this to our accompanying list.--Andy Schlafly 13:06, 13 December 2009 (EST)

My in-law lent me his copy (he's an evolutionist) so I did not have to give money to further Dawkins' agenda. Thanks for your suggestions, I have been introduced to these subjects by our wonderful pastor and I find them fascinating. I still have a problem though (if we suppose the evidence hasn't been fabricated, for the sake of the discussion). I will try to expose briefly what Dawkins says in his book, because it is different than what I have seen so far. From what I understand, some scientists took eleven species (from different baramins) and studied five genes that can be found in these species. For each of the genes, they compared the eleven versions (one for each of the species) and they extracted the handful of family trees which would require the least modifications. The argument is that the five gene concur on which trees are the most parsimonious, something which should presumably not happen if God had created the species in their present form. My problem is that I have to admit that the argument makes sense, and I have to resort to arguing that the evidence must have been fabricated. I personally think that the evidence is correct, and that there is a perfectly sensible creationist explanation that eludes me. Would you have any ideas on what that explanation is, or know someone who has? --TSpencer 13:09, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Please elaborate on (and correct?) your statement that "The argument is that the five gene concur on which trees are the most parsimonious, something which should presumably not happen if God had created the species in their present form."--Andy Schlafly 13:15, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Well, this is the final form of Dawkins' argument. His line of reasoning goes like this: " If God created these eleven species and they have no common ancestor, we should not expect consensus on the most parsimonious trees." According to him, for example, the version of gene A in the pig could be similar to the version of gene A in the rabbit, while the version of gene B would be similar to the one in the kangaroo. Thus, each gene would have its own 'family tree' and there would be no consensus. What he finds is that all five genes vote for a few family trees, and he argues that this proves evolution. What he is saying is that he can think of no other reason why absolutely no gene should be more similar between the kangaroo and the pig than between the rabbit and the pig. As for myself, I can not think of a reason either, so I have to surmise that the results are incorrect. I hope I can find an explanation here, since it seems to be one of the best on-line resource for Creationism. --TSpencer 13:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)
The logic of this argument seems convoluted because it is based on a faulty premise: what do we think God would have done? That's an absurd question. No line of reasoning can depend on it. It is reasonable to infer design from something that is statistically implausible or impossible (e.g., finding a gold watch on a beach), but trying to reason in the opposite direction is illogical (e.g., drawing conclusions from the lack of a gold watch on a beach).--Andy Schlafly 15:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)
If I understand correctly, that means that no argument can be based on our preconceptions on how God should act. I like this, because it has the additional effect of removing the evolutionists' "argument from poor design". Who are we to judge God's acts? Solving several problems at once is the hallmark of elegant explanations. Thank you very much. --TSpencer 15:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools