Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution/archive2

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

My plans for this article

I plan on organizing this article into groups, so there would be a group for the statistical counterexamples, and a group for the counterexamples that rely on functions that do not come from the evolutionary mechanisms, or maladaptive characteristics. I am open to suggestions. I also archived the page as it was when I came here. I would also like someone to rewrite the end of the intro paragraph, it doesn't make much sense how it was and only makes a little more how I wrote it. Thanks' --SamF 22:27, 21 January 2010 (EST)

First of all, God bless you for archiving and clearing up this page! It makes the discussion better.
I'm all for better organization of the entry, but without any dilution. So please have at it!--Andy Schlafly 22:35, 21 January 2010 (EST)

I've categorized, and reworded one poorly worded point. I'll look for resources over the weekend and on Monday morning I should be able to life most of the citation needed tags. Some of these seem like they would be impossible to prove to me. Having looked at consciousness as a subject I feel pretty confident in saying that it is a mystery no matter what, and that it should probably be left off of this list, as a for instance. --SamF 18:06, 22 January 2010 (EST)

Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.[Citation Needed]
What do you mean by "it is a mystery no matter what"? It seems to me that what the article's saying is precisely that it is a mystery - so no natural process could have created it; since atheistic evolution allows only natural processes, but consciousness exists, atheistic evolution can't be all there is. --EvanW 18:20, 22 January 2010 (EST)
It is just as unclear how a supernatural power might generate consciousness. It is a whole big can of worms and thousands of people in philosophy and neuroscience are working on it. The Evolutionary psychology people have a pretty neat little story about how something that manifests itself exactly like consciousness is beneficial and might come about, I think that if we ever do crack the consciousness puzzle then they will swoop in and claim to have an answer. I think that the bit in that counterexample about consciousness can be axed just fine and the rest left standing. Consciousness is its own big philosophical question, and I have serious doubts as to how accurately an argument about it can be contained in one paragraph, let alone one line. --SamF 18:28, 22 January 2010 (EST)
Um, a miracle? That's the whole point about miracles: we don't understand how God did them. Of course it's "unclear." If you want to say that naturalistic scientists are trying to figure out how evolution might bring consciousness about, that's fine with me, as long as it's clear they haven't found it yet. --EvanW 18:46, 22 January 2010 (EST)

No animal exhibits religion

Are we really sure that humans are the only organisms with religious beliefs? Is there a scientifc reason why wolves howl to the moon (or perhaps it's actually to God, who created them)? Organization, communication skills, family traditions, common sense, etc are religious traits; religion brings order and meaning to society (which probably explains why idiocy and corruption is invading human society). Sounds like something a liberal would argue: If God exists, why are humans the only ones that believe in him, and my rebuttal is always How do we 'know' that animals don't believe in God? Have you asked one? DMorris 16:01, 17 February 2010 (EST)

Your point reflects open-mindedness and a willingness to rely on logic rather than consensus. But note that in sharp contrast with humans, animals do not engage in any activities suggestive of prayer.--Andy Schlafly 22:00, 17 February 2010 (EST)
I don't know much about animal psychology, but I really like the poetic notion of wolves howling at the moon being prayer. That's just... beautiful. JacobB 23:05, 17 February 2010 (EST)
Well, animals do not speak English, so of course we're not going to witness animal prayer. Also, dogs howl over their owners bodies when they witness the passing of their owners, but rather than argue like a whiny liberal, I'm going to walk away from this one. DMorris 08:04, 18 February 2010 (EST)
The real problem with this point is that it is not, in any way whatsoever, a counterexample to evolution. The fact that humans are the only animals with religion does not contradict any part of evolutionary theory. --CecilQ 18:27, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
I assume that I should remove it if there is no objection? --CecilQ 18:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
There is no plausible evolutionary explanation for religion. If, as atheists think, religion is foolish, than animals less intelligent than humans should display the reverence. They don't.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
Firstly, the reason there is no evolutionary explanation for religion is that evolutionary theory is a biological theory, it doesn't set out to explain the existence of religion at all. It sets out to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Secondly, you appear to equate evolutionary scientists with atheists. Many evolutionary scientists are Christians and they would dispute such a characterisation. Thirdly, people display a whole lot of foolish behaviours that animals do not. People smoke, gamble and watch daytime television. Animals do not. The reason animals do not do those things is that they have not developed cigarettes, slot machines or TV sets. Similarly, they have not developed advanced language sufficient to create religious doctrine and they have not developed building techniques sufficient to build churches, mosques, synagogues or temples of Athena. Accordingly, your point about the lack of animal reverence is a non-point. Can we remove the item now? --CecilQ 17:26, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Cecil, your statement that "many evolutionary scientists are Christian" is bizarre and deluded if you really believe that, and deceitful if you don't and are just using to push your opinions. I suggest you read conservapedia's article and learn what a Christian is. (If you don't want to do this I give you a hint: it is someone who accepts the word of God and not the word of atheists pushing pseudoscience in pathetic attempts to lead people away from the Bible.) Evolutionists do posit that Darwinism can explain all aspects of human behavior, yet as the article points out it cannot explain one of the most significant behaviors that separates us from animals: religion! MikeOxlong 18:44, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Mike, your dispute is not with me. It is with the evolutionary biologists who both believe in evolutionary biology and the Christian God. Otherwise, I await a response to the more substantive points in my post. --CecilQ 19:10, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Such people are not Christians. I hope this is substantive enough for you. MikeOxlong 19:13, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Well put, Mike. I'd add that Jesus mentioned the Flood in his teachings, and his Crucifixion was to redeem the sin of Adam. Evolutionists deny both the Flood and the existence of Adam.--Andy Schlafly 21:00, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
I'd go one step further and suggest strict evolutionists deny that Jesus existed! MaxFletcher 21:42, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Wonderful. Would anyone like to address any other aspect of my post? --CecilQ 22:25, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
What specifically would like addressed? And your sarcastic tone doesn't help your cause. MaxFletcher 22:42, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
There is also no plausible evolutionary explanation for the appearance of ever-higher forms of life, particularly man. To get around this, atheists (and their partners-in-crime, evolutionists) posit the notion that human beings are merely animals. This notion is enforced in Wikipedia's article names. And somebody tried to sneak it by us here with a talk page heading. This smacks of circular reasoning, which scientists generally regard as a fallacy.
If the laws of thermodynamics apply here, then the molecular biology of living creatures should not be getting more complex as time goes on. "As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase." [1] How do evolution's advocates (especially the atheists) explain the increased complexity and organization which we see in the fossil record, when the theory which all scientists accept predicts instead an increase of randomness and chaos? (See also, Entropy) --Ed Poor Talk 23:05, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
Interesting take Ed. The way I was taught is that man is an animal and still the same flesh and bone as an animal but has been blessed with the spirit of the lord. MaxFletcher 23:11, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
I think we may have strayed somewhat from the original point. The item should be removed from the list because it is not in any way a counterexample to evolution. The reasons are as follows: 1. Evolution says nothing at all about the existence of religion in either man or animals. Evolutionary theory is a biological theory aimed at explaining the diversity of life on Earth. The fact that man is also the only species observed to play poker, bungee jump or run for political office are also, likewise, irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of evolutionary theory. 2. As was pointed out above, the obvious reason that animals do not display religious behaviour is that "they have not developed advanced language sufficient to create religious doctrine and they have not developed building techniques sufficient to build churches, mosques, synagogues or temples of Athena". Furthermore, even if animals did posses religious reverence what would that look like exactly? I don't speak squirrel so I can't really say if they are saying prayers or just squeaking randomly. The whole thing is just too silly for words. --CecilQ 01:22, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
I've heard that argument before: that animals might be as high as humans, but that we (silly, ignorant) humans simply don't understand animal language. But except for dolphins (and possibly bees), no species of animals can even communicate mundane things like, "There's food over there." With training, some species of can learn to accept commands from humans, and with years of effort some researchers have taught primates a rudimentary sign language.
You also misunderstand religion itself: it's not a superstition created by human beings. We seek God because He, being higher than us just as a shepherd is higher than sheep, seeks a relationship with us. Religion was created by God.
I submit that evolutionists are trapped in their suppositions, and will never gain a correct understanding of animal life (let alone human life) until they are prepared to identify and reexamine these suppositions. If evolution is to be anything but a pseudoscience, it must compare its theory's hypotheses with reality and jettison those which the evidence contradicts. --Ed Poor Talk 09:47, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
1. I did not make the argument that "animals might be as high as humans" (whatever that means). I was merely asking what it would look like if animals (squirrels in my example) were reverent. Would we even know? 2. I do not misunderstand religion. I am not proposing that religion is man made. I am pointing out the obvious counter argument to Aschlafly's position: Atheists would quite logically say that the reason that we do not see religion displayed in animals is because they have not developed advanced language sufficient to create religious doctrine and they have not invented building processes sufficient to build cathedrals, temples and mosques (nor, I suppose, have they yet invented the pipe organ in order that they might sing hymns on Sundays). 3. Your submission is fascinating but irrelevant to this discussion. Could we please focus on the issue at hand. In what way does the fact that man is the only creature to exhibit religion constitute a counterexample to evolution? Does anyone have a sensible answer? Or should I just remove the item? --CecilQ 17:33, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

Some of these are rather incomplete

For instance 1.6.1

The fact that new discoveries, such as Raptorex, routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.

Not only is the second half a parodist's dig on creationism "creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries" the first half doesn't really explain why raptorex is supposed to be parodoxiacal. It's an interesting species, but there is nothing apparent (especially not in the sentence) that counters evolution, the adaptations of T. rex and Raptorex are related to balance, specifically how you get the biggest head on the smallest, fastest, body. If no one steps forward to expand this in the next two weeks I'm going to trim it from the list. I think two weeks is a fair timeline. --Brendanw 00:26, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

I cut some more out, I would suggest cutting the statistical argument out, it's hard to do with out making up random numbers. Pulling wheat from chaff is going to take some work, but I suspect you will be pleased in the end. --Brendanw 01:03, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
Do not remove without discussion. Do not censor material from the article. DouglasA 01:55, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
I did not censor anything, I did some editing.
  • 1.2.6 is parody, Jim put it in there to mock Andy after their discussion ended in Andy saying that beauty was intrinsic, I clarified Andy's counterexample per his feelings on the subject
  • 1.3.2 is about ploidy, the last time it was removed there was an edit comment about durum wheat, did anyone ever bother to look it up? Durum wheat is descended from Emmer wheat, Duram wheat is tetraploid and Emmer wheat is diploid. That is conclusive proof that it is not impossible. Hence it is probably parody.
  • 1.3.4 actually misreports the selfish gene
  • 1.2.7 we know how cicadas manage to wait , we know that those cicadas that come out a year early or a year late die with out mating typically. we can move mating windows in lab animal populations. So we have a means a motive and an opportunity, more parody.
  • 1.5.6 You cannot demonstrate a lack of fossils until you dig up all the fossil bearing strata on earth, which is a very big task (digging out the trilobites alone would leave the globe covered in a foot thick layer of fossils) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I'm just trying to clean up this article a bit, it seems to be a place were parody and counterexample alike are piled in together and they are never checked. --Brendanw 14:19, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
You were warned not to touch this article, Brendan, then you did again. JacobB 14:29, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

Lack of mechanism

The first point in this section is:

  • Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.

(There follows a reference which does not state that there is no materialistic explanation - in fact, it suggests one.) But I'm more interested in the consequences of there being no materialistic explanation. Did God personally guide the animals to escape? Were the warned by angels? If God or the angels warned the animals - why didn't they warn the human beings?--British_cons (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

Problems I see with this page

1 Example one is not true, we have many different races and genetic diversity can be ANY difference in genes (Your genes are not the EXACT SAME as your mother/father's, that is genetic diversity)

2 Example number three is pointless. Not all genes affect multiple traits, and thus evolution can happen to some without affecting a lot of traits. Furthermore, a mutation can happen to a gene that controls multiple traits and benefit one trait, but that doesn't mean that it will negatively affect the other traits.

Under Lack of Mechanism:

1 Example two is basically a bunch of buzz words lined up in a row.

2 Example five Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All other animals might think that fall foliage looks terrible, and humans may simply have a mass delusion about it. All in all it feels like a pointless cop-out.

3 Example twelve is a flat out lie. SOME animals do have self awareness. Here is just one example I found after mere seconds of looking. http://earthtrust.org/delbook.html

4 Example sixteen can be explained by slowly getting more and more of this chemical into their blood stream. A better explanation is that a minuscule bit of anti-freeze won't kill you, you grow a little resistance to it, pass it on, get more anti-freeze and more resistance, etc.

Under Maladaption:

1 Example three could be the process of evolution unfinished. You could be looking at something that is not quite complete, but will be someday.

Under Wrong prediction

1 Example one is simple if you know about evolution: There was creature that came after the gorilla, but before the chimp, a small group of these creatures lost these dna blocks, and another group did not. One group evolved into chimps, one into humans.

2 Example three: Much of it has been shown to be useful, but much of it still has no recognized purpose.

3 Example five: Take one second out of your day and google "Wisdom teeth". We no longer need them, thus most people don't have them (a replacement example could be "Why do some people still have wisdom teeth?")

Under Missing Fossils:

1 example one is a lie: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

2 Example four is obvious because single celled organisms are so small that it is VERY difficult to find a fossil of one out in the wild.

Under Irreducible Complexity: (Note that I won't spend much time here as I know I have a HORRIBLE bias against Irreducible Complexity and I feel that I will just try to argue away all points)

1 Example three: Wings can help something jump farther (Even a small bit helps). Also just because there is no perceived benefit does not mean that something is a disadvantage.


And those are the only MAJOR problems I have with it. I see no problem in arguing against evolution (all things should be argued against in my opinion), but we need to stick to the facts, unlike our liberal counterparts...

Explain the seed of a maple tree then. Karajou 22:54, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

While I don't see the relation to my edit and a maple seed... I assume you are talking about how can something so small become so big? Simple: A maple seed contains DNA. A good analogy for what DNA does is this: There is this thing called RNA, and it is like a construction worker. Now RNA "reads" DNA, which are like a buildings blueprints. Then it goes and lays down "Amino Acids" which are like concrete, beams etc. to a construction worker. Where does the body (seed in this case) get these amino acids, you may ask. Simple: It gets them from the nutrients it absorbs while in the soil. These Amino Acids go and make different structures, one example being an "enzyme" which breaks down big molecules into small molecules that the body can use. So just like these blueprints "become" turn into a tree.

Now, obviously it is a whole lot more complicated. But I don't want to spend the hours it would take to explain enough of 9th grade and AP Biology that would fill in all the gaps. But really it isn't that hard to understand, is it? A seed absorbs a whole bunch of water, sunlight, minerals, etc. and then converts them into building blocks that it can use and energy.


Also, the whale's evolutionary ancestor is the indohyus

You have to do better than that. A common evolutionist trick of pushing work on others for them to try to prove evolution wrong doesn't work here. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
Wait...so when a theist asks an atheist for proof of atheism, is that not the exact same fallacy? Unless the atheist states outright that they know there is no God - very few do, most state that they simply do not believe there is convincing evidence for God - it seems strange to have this contradiction. Unless, of course, intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. JacobP 15:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
Andy, To then further your point: Should this page then not have more than an average of 40 words per point to try and accumulate enough information to disprove evolution. I believe that in point 1 of the Missing Fossils Section there needs to be some source and some backup to the point that they say the whale has no ancestor. Who is the one that said there is no ancestor to the whale? Because if it's the editor(s) of this article who claim there is no ancestor, then there should be someone we can hold accountable for such a statement. I worry that people will read this information and take it as fact (which it entirely could be) but not have the tools to back up that fact. They'll point to this encyclopedia and say that's where the information came from, and yet there is no way to keep tracing that claim backwards until you reach some actual research.
All I'm saying is that you proclaim that the person making the claim must put forth the proof, and there is no proof on point 1 of Missing Fossils. Please don't ask me to Google the fact that the fossils are missing, because that is counter to your own point. User: Luex 17:14 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

Additional support

Mr. Schlafly,

As I looked out the window last night, I was struck by the simple, inherent beauty of the moonlight reflecting off the clouds, and in a sudden moment of clarity it occurred to me that this provides further support to your observation that evolution cannot account for objective beauty. Allow me to explain: in science, it is important for some sort of control to be employed when evaluating a claim, be it an independent group or simply a counterbalancing null hypothesis. Applying that reasoning to the current context, if something such as the beauty of autumn leaves had evolved, making it a purely materialistic biological phenomenon (what a revolting concept!), then the null hypothesis would be that such beauty would not be found in non-biological systems. The latter is disproved by the objective beauty of moonlight reflecting upon clouds, which is composed entirely of non-biological objects and is therefore unexplainable by evolution.

On the other hand, if the beauty of autumn leaves had not evolved, one would expect to find similar examples in a non-biological context- as indeed we do. What do you think of this insight? Is it significant enough to merit inclusion? If so, I would be happy to put it in (in a more succinct form, of course!). Thank you. AJFrederickson 08:17, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

AJFrederickson, moonlight reflecting off clouds is completely up for interpretation on beauty. Whereas you might find it brilliant, there are some who might be completely indifferent to it. This is the same for biological creatures. You use the words 'inherent beauty' yet if humans weren't here to decide if something were beautiful or not, how could it be considered inherently beautiful.
Leaves changing colour are not for any purpose. They change colour because the chlorophyll cells are dying off during the winter. We see that change in colour and some of us enjoy the sight where others do not. We're the ones who may have evolved to have this capability to decide whether we like this phenomenon. I do not believe that it is indicative of creation. (Luex Aug 10 2010 16:56 (-5:00 GMT)

Missing Fossil #1

Sorry to display liberal talkativeness, but I did some research on the statement that whales have no plausible evolutionary ancestor and found this article. If this is true, then I propose we should remove Missing Fossil Counterexample #1. However, I do not know if Natural Geographic is slanted toward the left. Could I have some of your insight on this? -Jwilhem 12:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

I realize this doesn't concern me too much, but I've had this article on hand for a while. It might shed some light on NG's poly views. Tyler Zoran Talk 12:43, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
I also have the same thing from another source here. I think most mainstream scientific journals lean toward the left though. Jwilhem 12:49, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
I don't know enough about those types of science to really comment on the authenticity or lack thereof. Your comment about NG just reminded me of that article I mentioned and its leanings, so I thought I'd share it with you. Tyler Zoran Talk 12:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
The cited articles are silly. National Geographic, which fell for the dinosaur-bird fossil fraud about a decade ago, states in the first link above, "The land-dwelling Indohyus probably dove into streams to avoid predators, as seen in an artist's conception above." The "Nature" article isn't any more plausible. Darwin himself said that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open. Needless to say, the atheistic attempts to plug this gap raise more questions than they answer.--Andy Schlafly 14:05, 30 July 2010 (EDT)


Explanation for some counterexamples

Half a year ago, I had posted an explanation for one of the counterexamples, giving a possible process of how a case of seemingly irreducible complexity could have grown through evolution. It was removed then without notice, and my account was blocked afterwards by TK. (If you were wondering: TK and I had an email discussion after that in which I explained my good intentions, and he unblocked my account.) What I'm wondering now is whether I could re-post that thing at this moment. My explanation had received no replies, and I do think it is important to only have counterexamples on here that are correct. As you all understand, people of any education (including none) can discuss counterexamples, and sometimes our group of editors lacks the right person to explain why a counterexample could be incorrect. In order to improve this page's quality and accuracy, I'd therefore like to discuss again what I tried to discuss half a year ago - this time, however, I would like to not be blocked for it. So I'll ask upfront: Is it alright if I rewrite my theory, and post it here again?

Thanks a lot in advance. MalP 12:25, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

"I do think it is important to only have counterexamples on here that are correct." Excuse me, but anyone with an education should realise that none of the counterexamples here are correct. But if you try to remove them, or even rationally debate them you'll get blocked, so don't bother. Just saying. --Houshalter 13:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
I think you can only say with absolute certainty that something is correct/incorrect, after you have considered the example and debated about it with other people who are also considering it. I have a feeling that there are indeed quite some incorrect counterexamples in this article, but there many for which I can't come up with an explanation. Right now I'm only talking about a few examples for which I have some possible explanations. -Mal Peeters (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
Houshalter, you're wrong on both of your points. I suggest you try taking an openmindedness test. Please let us know what your test score is.
MalP, please do post your point.--Andy Schlafly 16:12, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
Thank you, Mr Schafly. My point is about the possibility of giraffes being able to develop a long neck despite the seemingly irreducible complexity of it.
Because of the logical laws of natural selection, a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat. Up to that point, I think we all agree. It is also very logical of the article's author to write that a long neck is impossible with the valves present in it.
The point where the author is wrong, though, is that he forgets that the development of this neck went very slowly, and through many generations (and in case evolution is correct, it is likely still developing). The first giraffes which had a slightly longer neck than their smaller fellows, didn't need any special valves for this difference that was, at that time, probably still hard to observe with the eye. They were taller nevertheless, so they had a higher chance of surviving. That way, the neck "grew longer" through generations, up to the point that an even longer neck would be no longer beneficial, because the blood would then not be able to reach the head anymore.
At this point, all it takes is the first valve to develop in the giraffe's neck. Please note that most, if not all, animals (including giraffes. Humans too, by the way) have a rather simple valve system all through their body to improve the flood of blood. So, we have our giraffe with a neck so long that it would need stronger/better valves to continue growing. It is very logical that this animal will have a higher chance to survive if it develops a valve in its neck.
The longer the neck, the more problems there will be for the blood to reach the head. But also; the longer the neck, the more food the giraffe can get. There is obviously a balance between those two, where the neck has the exact length that balances these two things. If this balance point is reached and a valve is added, the giraffe will be able to continue growing its neck, until the next balance point.
If this whole process repeats itself, the giraffe is perfectly able to grow a long neck, albeit (like everything in evolution) very slow. I know this explanation may not be explained very well, but I think it's enough to show that irreducible complexity can perfectly develop through evolution, taking into consideration that all of this is a very gradual process, and two things can perfectly develop simultaneously this way. Please tell me what you think about this. -Mal Peeters (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
For starters, as the entry says, it's simply untrue that "a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat." That concept is easily to believe by students, but demonstrably false. That doesn't stop evolutionists from teaching and relying on the falsehood, as long as some people believe it. Giraffes eat low-lying vegetation.
Moreover, the issue of why a valve would develop remains implausible due to the irreducible complexity.--Andy Schlafly 22:06, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
I have personally seen giraffes eating from trees. They definitely do not feed on low-lying vegetation exclusively.
On your second point: I had expected you to answer that, and that's why I already "countered" it in my first post, though maybe not clear enough: The longer a giraffe's neck is, the higher the chance of it having some blood pressure problems, while it still benefits from its reach (read the balance thing again). A giraffe would definitely benefit from a valve even if the length of the neck hasn't increased as much as it is now -- a valve would not inprove its reach to high branches, but it would decrease the chance that it will suffer from a potential shortage of blood in the brains, which can of course be fatal. Anyway, as I also stated: animals already have these valves, but in a less sophisticated form. All it takes is for these valves to grow stronger and more efficient. Taken all of this in consideration, I think it's safe to say that -- in case evolution is true -- there certainly is a possibility of giraffes growing long necks. -Mal Peeters (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
MalP, evolution is continually stating that the giraffe grew the long neck to reach the higher leaves in the trees, so it isn't a valve thing that matters here. It needs the leaves in the trees to eat and to survive, am I right? Let's set the way-back machine to a dozen or so million years ago, the approximate time that the evo crowd states that giraffes began stretching their dinky necks. Let's say that this year the rainfall was good, and the trees decided they were going to grow another two feet, putting the leaves out of reach of the stubby-necked giraffes. They need to do something johnny-on-the-spot, don't they? Question one: just what are these giraffes going to do? Question two: how many years do evo-supporters state that it took for these stubby-necked giraffes to grow enough neck to reach the leaves? Question three: how long does an animal the size of a stubby-necked giraffe live if it can only eat leaves in a tree, but can't reach them this year? Question four: if the stubby-necked giraffe needs to eat, do you honestly think it's going to wait a thousand years or more to grow the neck that it has got to have right now? Answer: that stubby-necked giraffe will be forced to look for other food sources; if it means it grazes like a cow, it grazes, and there wouldn't be a need for a long neck, anyway. It's either that or it dies of starvation within three weeks. And that is not enough time to rearrange it's genes to play that DNA game that evo's are touting. Karajou 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
Karajou: You are assuming that every giraffe is of the exact same height. Where as when a giraffe is at it's mature adult age, it may not be as tall as another giraffe of the same age. This means that where some giraffes in your example would not be able to reach the trees because they are just 2 more feet out of their range, some of those giraffes could actually reach them. Say that if that those giraffes only survive if they're able to reach those trees (whether they die from starvation or weakness + disease due to shortage of calories and nutrients) then the only giraffes that survive in this situation are the ones with the longer neck. Now in the gene pool there is an abundance of long necked giraffes that were able to suffer the year and they then produce the next years generation of long necked giraffes. If you don't believe that some giraffes could be significantly taller than one another, even though they're so closely related genetically, just look at humans and the fact that some are very easily taller than others by large amounts. Allow me to state that I know that giraffes can in fact graze on grass at their feet, but for the sake of considering a life and death situation where if you can't reach those leaves you die, this situation doesn't disprove evolution. (Not sure how to sign this, so I'll just type it in!) User: Luex 16:36 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)
Luex, you're the one who's doing the assuming, not me. What you're assuming amounts to wishful thinking as to what went on with the origins of the giraffe according to evolution. Where's the proof of this tale? You're not taking into account the time involved here; not the time of millions of years, but the time a giraffe or two or several has left on earth if they cannot get anything to eat. If they ate everything within reach in the trees, they have to find another food source or starve to death; they are not going to wait several months to give birth to a calf that they hope would have an added inch or two to its neck, it's that simple. What you have described above does not have the proof to back it up; it is hearsay evidence, and anyone with common sense just isn't going to accept it. Karajou 23:12, 10 August 2010 (EDT)
@MalP, well every other argument here is basically just irreducible complexity. For one, you should group all of the irreducible complexity examples together for organization. Second, you should at least mention why scientists and "evolutionists" (as you call them) don't take it seriously. Irreducible complexity works two ways. One, that if you remove a part of the system it wouldn't work, therefore it would have to be created in it's present form. This should be noted to be an obvious fallacy. We have observed in simulations and models, irreducibly complex systems evolve on their own many times. The second meaning could be somewhat valid, but is generally ignored because we are well aware that there is large gap in what we can study and observe, mainly the fossil record. It goes that, because we don't know how something could have evolved or what evolutionary pressures would have caused it to evolve, it couldn't have evolved. As I explained, this would only be relevant on a system that we have a complete or close to complete understanding of, like a very thorough fossil record. Most of the examples are from places where the oppisite is true and we have no idea what the ancient conditions were at the time.

Chipmunks on Devil's tower?

Evolutionist fantasies aside, how did chipmunks get to the top of Devil's tower after the flood? --LyleT 20:07, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

By magnetic sensors in their brains??? Chipmunks ended up there the same way that monarch butterflies descend on the same towns every year, and the same way that chickens find their way back to their coops at sundown each night.--Andy Schlafly 20:20, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
Sorry, perhaps I misstated my question. The stated counterexample suggests that chipmunks have no means to reach the top of Devil's tower, and that this is problematic for the evolutionist paradigm. How does science (including the global flood) provide such a means? Were the chipmunks dropped off there from the ark as the waters receded? --LyleT 21:02, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
I have an open mind about possible explanations. But proving that one theory is wrong does not require proving that another theory is right. If a math proof is flawed, then it is flawed regardless of whether a valid proof is available.--Andy Schlafly 21:11, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
This strikes me as more of a "unanswered question in biology" than a "counterexample to evolution". The right answer is out there somewhere, though we may never be able prove what it is. It seems likely to me that whatever that answer is, it will be compatible with both creationist and evolutionist accounts. (Unless, of course, Noah made a world tour dropping off critters in inaccessible spots as the flood receded!) --LyleT 21:41, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
Lyle, you have free will to believe what you like, but your approach is not scientific. A new theory cannot develop until people let go of the disproved theory. It's time to let go of the disproved theory, and start looking in earnest.--Andy Schlafly 21:49, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
My mind is also open about this. In fact, as I am actively seeking counterexamples to evolution, I would like this counterexample to be true. Unfortunately, an open-minded approach to the mystery of animals on the peak of Devils Tower yields what I believe is a plausible explanation. Many birds of prey inhabit the area. They can be seen perched on Devils Tower. These birds (hawks and eagles) can snatch a chipmunk/snake/etc and return to their perch on the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that some of these animals survived the flight and managed to evade their captors. I'm not saying that this is what happened on Devils Tower, I'm just saying that it's plausible.
However, I cannot fathom a evolutionary explanation for animals on remote islands. That's a good counterexample. KyleDD 23:59, 30 August 2010 (EDT)
Your suggestion is a clever one, but seems extremely implausible to me. Rarely does captured prey escape, and probably rarer still for one to be taken to the top of Devils Tower only to escape and not be recaptured there. But I wouldn't rule this out if there is something to support it. With millions of dollars in government funding spent on evolution "research" each year, there should be some observed evidence for it if it were true.--Andy Schlafly 00:13, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
Thanks. I'd like to note that rarity does not negate plausibility, in fact, it implies it! As for something supportive, here is a video of a red-tailed hawk (which is fairly common to the area) carrying off a live snake. It is entirely plausible that a hawk (or any of the large birds of prey found in the area) could carry a snake to the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that, upon landing, the snake bit the hawk and managed to escape. Do you have any evidence that any money was spent trying to figure out how animals got to the peak? We should be glad if they hadn't wasted any money on it, so I don't know how you could then decry the lack of observation. But regardless of whether or not there is direct observation of the event in question, that isn't a requirement of plausibility. KyleDD 18:10, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

Turkish Angoras

I think this might be added. Turkish Angoras are a race of cats, very well known for their beautiful, long fur. If there was any reason for this race to have such long fur, I'd assume that all cats would have such long fur. Yet if shorter fur increases survivability, why do these cats have long fur in the first place? -Mal Peeters (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

Presumably, it's the cause of humans meddling in evolution. Domestic breeds of cats and dogs are the result of humans using selective breeding over many, many generations to create an animal they found more pleasing. Even if that weren't the case, that's hardly a valid example, since evolution is not working towards a "best," merely passing on what doesn't not work. There's no intelligence to the design, if you will. Kamiwashinda 19:20, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Logical Example 8

There has actually been a great deal of research amongst the evolutionists regarding why 'bad' behavior exists. I know his name is taboo, but before Richard Dawkins became the poster child for the New Atheist movement, he was a reputable biologist. One of his greatest books was The Selfish Gene, which describes in great detail how 'nasty' behavior actually could be construed as an evolutionary advantage to the individual. Before some haughty evolution supporter tries to come in here with a lengthy, indignant protest to that specific counterexample, I'd suggest we remove it. There are plenty of other logical counterexamples. Alphanumeric1 20:34, 30 November 2010 (EST)

Example 8 entails highly self-destructive behavior. I don't think that's what Dawkins meant.--Andy Schlafly 21:48, 30 November 2010 (EST)
If indeed Example 8 refers to self-destructive behavior, then it does make sense as an example. However, it should be clearly stated that we're referring to behavior that is damaging to the person doing the action. Right now the example suggests that lying and murdering could not have evolutionary benefits; they could - such is the mindset of a Darwinist, but it's the truth. Both of them are mentioned by Dawkins in his book directly. I can give quotes if you'd like. Perhaps we should switch out liars, murderers, and psycopaths with examples like...oh, say, drug addicts, people who purposefully injure themselves, and suicidal people. These self-destructive tendencies are not accounted for by evolution.Alphanumeric1 18:10, 4 December 2010 (EST)
Not just "could." Darwinists claim that murder isn't immoral because it's common for cuckoo chicks to push other birds' eggs out of nests, and have whole schemes for when lying is "useful." DouglasA 13:00, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a rational human being who'd say murder isn't immoral. You may be thinking of Social Darwinists, who are completely different from evolutionists in that social darwinism is only very loosely related to actual evolution. Societies are stronger when their members work together and don't kill each other - that's why we don't kill each other. It's more beneficial to pretend we like each other than to just stab each other, because working together means more security and more food. Kamiwashinda 19:33, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Linguistics

Evolution does not require that all languages have a common ancestor. Kamiwashinda 19:33, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Sure it does, unless implausible and imaginary scenarios are resorted to.--Andy Schlafly 19:42, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
The more I think about it, the more I realize that you're probably right: all languages likely descended from the same small group of languages. However, the fact that we've never found it proves nothing, since you can't exactly discover a dead language that had no written form. We have found cave paintings and the like. Kamiwashinda 12:55, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

Ants and other social insects

We have two entries for ants and other social insects. Should they be merged? DavidE 10:51, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Observation and Chickens

It is literally impossible for someone to observe a species changing into another species without a microscope, and those aren't exactly widely available in the periods in which historical records were written. I suggest removing the bit about no one observing evolution in a historical record. I'd also like some explanation as to why the protein in chickens being required to produce a chicken egg disproves the existence of a proto-chicken when the proto-chicken could easily have evolved this protein and then passed it on. Kamiwashinda 17:53, 19 April 2011 (EDT)


Objection

Is there a specific procedure regarding removing large parts of an article of an article of this size? There are a great many points that are demonstrably incorrect and as such should be removed from the article. --HarabecW 19:23, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

I guess there isnt. I'll give it a bit longer then I'll go through and trim as needed --HarabecW 12:41, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Which specifically do you object to? Let's start with your best argument against any of the counterexamples.--Andy Schlafly 13:27, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

I'll pick out a few choice ones.

"Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation"

Animals do not always flee to higher ground before a tsunami hits, plenty of animals were killed in the recent disasters. Many also have far better senses than we do.

You miss the point. All that is necessary is that some animals flee to higher ground.--Andy Schlafly 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Yes, out of a desire for self-preservation. If they can see something that scares them, they're going to run away and it's not always to higher ground. --HarabecW 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

"Evolution cannot explain how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if evolution said that beauty were useful then we would all expect to see the same things as beautiful."

This is absolutely asinine, not to mention subjective.

Your non-answer does not require a rebuttal.--Andy Schlafly 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

The original point from the article is atrociously bad logic, it's an example of the poor overall quality of the article. --HarabecW 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

"Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case."

"Information" is not defined as having any scientific meaning. Furthermore, it doesn't HAVE to be God in the Judeo-Christian sense or even one single god. It could just as easily be any other god or collection of gods.

The point is that evolution cannot account for it.--Andy Schlafly 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Evolution doesnt HAVE to account for something that you cant/wont define --HarabecW 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

"Jellyfish in Hawaii swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full moon, for no apparent evolutionary reason"

They swarm around the time of a full moon. A full moon means more light and usually blooms of phytoplankton that the jellyfish's(in this case box jellyfish) prey feed on. There is a perfectly plausible explanation.

If your explanation were valid, then the swarming would occur during a full moon. It doesn't.--Andy Schlafly 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

The swarming DOES occur during full moons --HarabecW 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

"Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example)."

There are dozens of examples of vestigial traits and organs in the human body.

No, there aren't. Instead, evolutionist claims of vestigial organs have been disproved again and again.--Andy Schlafly 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Just off the top of my head, the "goosebump" response is a perfect example; goosebumps form on the skin at times of high stress. In animals with more body hair, it serves to regulate temperature as well as make the animal appear larger to an enemy. We dont have enough body hair to do either. The human eye has something called the plica semilunaris, a musculature remnant of the nictitating membrane that many other creatures have (and we do not). There are plenty more examples --HarabecW 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

"Pterosaurs; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?[32]"

The citation for this is an un-sourced one paragraph entry on a website.

So maybe you can find a better citation. You haven't rebutted it.--Andy Schlafly 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

I dont need to rebut that specific point, I'm not trying to debate evolution and I'd appreciate it if you stopped attempting to do the same. I am trying to point out that the article is of exceptionally poor quality and I cite the above as an example; poor sourcing.--HarabecW 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

All this took maybe five minutes to put together. The list is atrociously bad and needs to be either paired down severely by someone with actual knowledge of the biological world or, as I would reccomend, deleted entirely. If you really want, I can find something for every point on the list. If you want that, it'll take a while and I'm not sure there is enough room to upload that all here. --HarabecW 14:11, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Responded above. I didn't find any of your rebuttals to be persuasive. I urge you to try our quiz at Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness.--Andy Schlafly 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

It's not a question of being persuasive, what I indicated above and the vast majority of the article are factually and demonstrably incorrect. This is not a subjective issue. The points in the article are poor logic, factually incorrect, or demonstrate a lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution actually says. As such, the article needs to be amended or removed. --HarabecW 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Please take our quiz on openmindedness. If the counterexamples were so "demonstrably incorrect," as you claim, then you could easily do so.--Andy Schlafly 18:50, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Alright, then answer me yes or no, do you want me to post here a point-by-point series of problems with the article? If so, will you remove or otherwise alter the article if the majority of the points in the article are shown to be faulty?

If you want me to write it up, I can do that, just give me some time to put everything together. --HarabecW 19:07, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Pick your very best arguments against what you think are the weakest counterexamples, and let's discuss them. If those arguments fail, then we won't have to waste time addressing the weaker arguments.--Andy Schlafly 22:44, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
To save space, I’ve assigned a letter to each category so that it can be matched with a specific numeric point within each category. “Logical Examples” is A, “Lack of Mechanism” B, and so on. I’ve tried to skip ones that have an extremely long explanation or require several paragraphs of background. None the less, these are some of the best examples.

A1- We have to consider that we are causing the extinction of many species by our own actions. This point also neglects the fact that many more species are flourishing with our influence.

A2- Humans have incredible genetic diversity within our own species. This point denotes a lack of understanding of genetics. For instance, certain parts of the European population have a mutation in the CCR-5 receptor gene as a result of their exposure to diseases like the Black Death that renders them extremely resistant to HIV. This mutation is found where populations had a high rate of exposure to the Black Death and nowhere else.

A4- Patently false, see the aforementioned CCR-5 receptor gene mutation.

And your proof rendering it false is..?

A6- This misses a big part of evolutionary biology; gender does not equal species. The two genders of the same species will not evolve apart from each other unless they are part of two separate groups of the same species that are not allowed to genetically mix for several hundred generations.

A7- Yes, there are. Mules are the infertile off-spring of a male donkey and a female horse. Donkeys and horses are both members of the Equidae family, both species having evolved from a common ancestor, the Hyracotherium, which lived during the early Eocene period. Horses and donkeys can no longer produce viable offspring and thus the process of separate lines of evolution have rendered these animals too genetically dissimilar to have viable offspring. This is the process of speciation.

No, there are no records of this happening. You did not see the horse evolve from Hyracotherium, nor from Pliohippus, nor from Mesohippus, nor from the Banana Splits. If this was the case, then you should be able to recreate the domestic dog from the wolf right now.

A8- Such egocentric behaviors benefit the INDIVIDUAL human life; lying and stealing gain more for the individual and increase the chances it will survive. Additionally, psychopathy is an aberration in psychological development, not a trait.

Lying and stealing is a benefit? What kind of nonsense is that?

A9- The listed organisms haven’t changed greatly because they have had little to no evolutionary pressure to do so. They are well adapted to their environment and thus natural selection is not doing much to push the species. The process of speciation happens fastest in a high-stress environment where a species has to react or face extinction.

Then recreate a domestic dog in the lab directly from the wolf.

B2- “Information” is not a scientific term nor is it defined on this website (in a scientific context).

So?

B5 and 6- This is entirely subjective and as such does not have a place in an objective theory or critique of a theory. Additionally, the theory of evolution does not have to nor does it purport to explain aesthetics. Evolution explains the diversity of life. This point demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding evolutionary theory.

So we all should accept the scientist's word that evolution is a fact, regardless of the lack of facts supporting the theory beyond the scientist's word?

B7- This shows absolutely nothing. If it’s like clockwork, then why is it 13 years for some parts of the world and 17 for other parts?

No, it shows that there are two species of insect that lie dormant for nearly two decades doing absolutely nothing. What is the evolutionary explanation for that?

B9- “Information” is not a scientific term nor is it defined on this website (in a scientific context).

B11- Symbiotic relationships increase the chances that a pair or group of organisms will survive because of cooperative effort. Such set-ups are more resistant to natural selection and as such are favored when natural selection applies pressure to the populations

B12- Complete speculation, we have no way of determining if other animals lack consciousness. We infer this from our lack of ability to communicate, but we cannot objectively demonstrate that we are the only creatures with a consciousness.

If it's not speculation, then we would be observing animals doing the things that humans do, much like they would in a Far Side cartoon.

B13- Speculation again, additionally evolution does not predict nor explain the presence of higher intellectual functions in humans.

Evolution is speculation.

B14- The processes that such parasites go through are well understood and documented http://knol.google.com/k/the-aspidogastrea-a-parasitological-model-i#

B16- The temperature of the ambient water drops as you approach the poles, as such, a fish who gradually developed the genes for enduring in colder water could progress further north or south until they could withstand very cold temperatures. This process is well known and documented http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11181960

But did they see this evolving take place? No.

B18- In many cases, we can look to the natural world for causes. Darwin’s famous finches are an example, many different subspecies of the same parent species evolved when several populations were established on the islands by birds blown onto the island by storms.

And the proof of the evolving happening...?

C1- Evolution does not nor does it purport to explain the behavior of jellyfish.

Because it cannot.

C3- The subjective human idea of what is “good” and “bad” are not factors in evolution.

Then we would all behave like animals.

C4- I cannot speak for Dawkins, but the occurrence of things like altruism in animals is fairly well understood. Altruistic behavior is a way for social groups to reinforce their bonds and improve the cohesion of the group itself. This behavior has been well documented among apes who will often give gifts to other apes in the same group for future favors. The behavior is never (to my knowledge) displayed in non-social species.

And the Australian bower bird?

C5- A mutation is not necessarily bad. A person’s genome has something like 10,000 mutations in it before that person is even born and most of us do pretty well.

And still, we're not evolving; the X-Men are still relegated to the comics.

C6- Some of us do have an immunity (or nearly so) to the HIV due to our exposure to the Black Death in our genetic past. HIV is not virulent enough to clear large sections of our population who aren’t immune. With a disease like the Black Death, it left enough people with immunity alive to reproduce and successfully repopulate, creating a population that was resistant or immune to the disease that caused the Black Death. At least until it returned after mutating.

Or the rats could have died, leaving a large number of infected fleas with no where to go except in the bellies of various species of birds.

C7- Traits are only selected out of a population if there is evolutionary pressure to do so. There has been little to no pressure on the human population to eradicate schizophrenia. If we were to start executing all schizophrenic people, then we’d see our instances of people developing the disorder drop after several dozen successive generations because the genes that make us susceptible to schizophrenia would not be passed on. And we do have a fairly good idea that genetics plays a big role in determining the manifesting of schizophrenia.

They tried that before and it didn't work; the place was Nazi Germany. Today, a bunch of liberals here are demanding similar programs.

C8- I only decreases the likelihood of finding a mate because we make a conscious choice to find it un-attractive. It hasn’t been selected out of our population because most men go bald AFTER they reproduce and the genes have already been passed on.

D1- This quote is un-sourced and the link that goes to support it does not function.

D1- The human body has dozens of vestigial traits that have no current use. We do know what they are used for in other creatures and in apes and we don’t/cant use them in that way. The goosebump response is a prime example, goosebumps form on our skin when scared to make us look bigger, but no human has enough body hair to make this happen anymore. We also don’t have enough body hair for it to provide insulation. There are several muscles and muscle groups that serve no function in the human body, The human eye has something called the plica semilunaris, a musculature remnant of the nictitating membrane that many other creatures have (and we do not).

And of course all of our hair evolved away, with some scientist or two writing out convenient excuses as to why...without anything other than their word to back it up.

D2- Junk DNA is a well-documented phenomenon in the human genome and is detailed in even the most elementary book on the subject of genetics.

And it's the opposite of evolution's basic trend of "things getting better over time."

D3- This point demonstrates a lack of understanding about how evolution works. Evolution does not “design”. It merely allows natural selection to remove organisms that are less suited for their environment such that their genetic information is not passed on. The human spine and sinus system are not fatal in their current configuration and as such there is no evolutionary pressure to stop people from passing on the genes for the setup of these systems.

So the point is "hit or miss"? That leaves out natural selection entirely.

D4- Very often our teeth ARE over-crowded and often some must be manually removed.

And what is the evolutionary advantage to having teeth that must be manually-removed? And what is the evolutionary advantage of a mayfly to evolve with no way to eat, or of a woman to have a painful childbirth?

D5- This point does not take into account the mountain of environmental factors that contribute towards this trend.

Mankind can live anywhere, regardless of the "mountain of environmental factors"...and just where is this mountain?

D7- Drug-resistant pathogens are a perfect example of natural selection. In the case of MRSA, some of the Staphylococcus aureus bacteria have developed with a structure that renders them immune or resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics. The bacteria that are not resistant to the antibiotics die when antibiotics are introduced into their environment and there is suddenly a gap left that the resistant strain quickly multiplies to fill.

Some humans have gained immunity from snake venom over time, but we've never seen fangs on any of their kids.

E1- Both toothed and baleen whales can trace their ancestral divergence to the Aetiocetus, the precursor to modern whales and dolphins. Interestingly enough, the Aetiocetus is an example of a transitional fossil.

Again, you're making a statement based on assumption. Where's the proof?

E2- Incorrect, we can trace the lineage of horses back to the Family Palaeotheriidae, which gave rise to modern horses, tapirs, and rhinoceros. Additionally, simply because a specific fossil has not been found yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We have basal forms of horses and we have fossilized horse ancestors, so logically there IS an intermediary fossil.

Again, you're making a statement based on assumption. Where's the proof?

E3- Literally thousands of transitional fossils have been found. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Did the scientist prove they are transitionals? Did the scientists see these transitionals change from one animal into another, or do we have to take their word that it happened?

E4- The process is well documented http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/

Only if you're a cell.

E7- Right here http://www.evolution-textbook.org/content/free/figures/25_EVOW_Art/01_EVOW_CH25.jpg

Not good enough. You have to quit assuming that evolution is true and demand that the scientist prove it. Saying Ardipithicus is an ancestor is far different that proving it.

F1- Raptorex’s validity has been called into question by the scientific community and (last I was aware) there were questions being raised if Raptorex wasn’t simply a baby Tyrannosaurs.

G4- There are several examples of animals with wings that are also flightless but none the less are able to use their wings for other purposes.

Again, there is no provable example of this happening beyond the scientist's word that it happened.

G5- This staple argument of irreducible complexity has been thoroughly demolished http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4

Ken Miller talks about the bacterial flagellum as if that's a good thing. Did he create a dog from a wolf, as his fellow scientists stated has happened? No. Miller's explanation did not demolish anything.

H1- Citing yourself is very VERY poor form.

The page has links off-site; you never bothered to check.

H2- This is speculation and as such does not belong in an objective article.

How is it speculation?

H3- The link for this is extremely poor, no names are provided to check the source and the scientist who allegedly announced this is un-named. It is a poorly sourced statement and should be removed.

You have not provided sources for nearly everything you put here.

H4- Speculation again. We have no way of determining if other animals do or do not have religion.

That statement is a cop-out; we know what higher animals exist on the planet, and so far none have built schools, written books, or produced their genealogical heritage, let alone went to church and prayed. But we do have a lot of liberals who think they have "rights".

H5- “Kind” is not a scientific term

"Kind" is a Biblical term for species. What's the problem?

H6- Evolution does not purport to explain the aesthetic nature of kidneys.

H7- Our bodies require regular rest and it makes the most sense for an organism built the way we are to rest when it is least able to defend itself; at night. Humans that rested during the day and hunted at night would have been selected against and the genomes that did not contain the genes for a circadian rhythm cycle would have died out.

H8- Advancing evolution does not require one to be anti-religious. The theory of evolution does not deal with religion whatsoever

It is anti-religious, because it throws out God. How many evolutionary scientists have no problem with teaching creation in our schools? None.

This article is extremely poorly written and doesn’t stand up to even the most elementary understanding of the topics involved. It’s evident that the author(s) did not understand evolutionary theory and had a poor understanding of genetics as well as biology and other associated sciences. This article has no place on an objective website and should be removed or severely modified. --HarabecW 13:49, 14 May 2011 (EDT)


Since there are no responses and no one seems to have any other suggestions, I'm going to wait a day or so and if no one has anything, I'm going to assume no one has an issue with the article being edited to conform to known and demonstrable science. --HarabecW 21:57, 17 May 2011 (EDT)


Alright, I've removed all sections that dont belong in the article. Since there really isnt anything left that is sound, should we consider deleting the article wholesale? If you want verification of almost all points, I posted it previously. I also gave plenty of time for response and discussion but no one seems to have taken my offer. --HarabecW 13:55, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

My answers to the above are posted in italics. All I have seen is hearsay talk here. Hearsay, the kind of statement that would be thrown out of the average courtroom. But I'll eat my words here provided I see a scientist go into the forest, grab hold of Mr. and Missus Big Bad Wolf, drag them to a lab (or kennel), and recreate the very first animal that we all could name Rover. After all, it's exactly what scientists SAID had happened. Karajou 03:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

A4- Patently false, see the aforementioned CCR-5 receptor gene mutation. And your proof rendering it false is..?

A4 original stated that any beneficial mutation was coupled with lethal results. The CCR-5 receptor gene mutation is beneficial and has no known negative side effect.
You did not provide the proof.
Here http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/CCR5

A7- Yes, there are. Mules are the infertile off-spring of a male donkey and a female horse. Donkeys and horses are both members of the Equidae family, both species having evolved from a common ancestor, the Hyracotherium, which lived during the early Eocene period. Horses and donkeys can no longer produce viable offspring and thus the process of separate lines of evolution have rendered these animals too genetically dissimilar to have viable offspring. This is the process of speciation. No, there are no records of this happening. You did not see the horse evolve from Hyracotherium, nor from Pliohippus, nor from Mesohippus, nor from the Banana Splits. If this was the case, then you should be able to recreate the domestic dog from the wolf right now.

The records are in the fossils.
Your so-called "proof" is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Until it is demonstrated in the lab that a fish changed into a frog, a monkey into an ape, or even a wolf into a dog, then you cannot prove to anyone your theory is correct.
That isn't what the theory of evolution contends, you are misunderstanding the theory.

A8- Such egocentric behaviors benefit the INDIVIDUAL human life; lying and stealing gain more for the individual and increase the chances it will survive. Additionally, psychopathy is an aberration in psychological development, not a trait. Lying and stealing is a benefit? What kind of nonsense is that?

From a biological perspective, lying allows an organism to increase its standing in a social group and stealing means the organism can gather resources without expending great amounts of energy. It also means that it can acquire food when food is scarce. That increases its chances of survival.
So, lying is an inherent part of evolution now. That's explains the theory perfectly.
Knock off the word games.

A9- The listed organisms haven’t changed greatly because they have had little to no evolutionary pressure to do so. They are well adapted to their environment and thus natural selection is not doing much to push the species. The process of speciation happens fastest in a high-stress environment where a species has to react or face extinction. Then recreate a domestic dog in the lab directly from the wolf.

What? That…makes absolutely no sense at all. That doesn’t even relate to the point I made
You've been given an easy task to recreate the domestic dog from the wolf, exactly as your evolutionary scientists said it happened. It's must be so easy, a caveman could do it!
It's a process that takes tens of thousands of years and is still ongoing, it takes time for the gene pools to become sufficiently diverse as to not be able to interbreed.

B2- “Information” is not a scientific term nor is it defined on this website (in a scientific context). So?

It has no meaning.
Information has no meaning? Well, if our information on evolution has no meaning, than what are you doing here trying to refute it?
Look, knock off the word games. If you aren't in this seriously, then tell me so I dont waste more time.

B5 and 6- This is entirely subjective and as such does not have a place in an objective theory or critique of a theory. Additionally, the theory of evolution does not have to nor does it purport to explain aesthetics. Evolution explains the diversity of life. This point demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding evolutionary theory. So we all should accept the scientist's word that evolution is a fact, regardless of the lack of facts supporting the theory beyond the scientist's word?

What? That…makes absolutely no sense at all. That doesn’t even relate to the point I made
It does make perfect sense. Too much of evolution, up to and including your statements here, are based on nothing more than the word of the scientist, and we have to take that word as fact. It's not going to happen here.
The "word of the scientist" is based off of research and currently established knowledge. What's yours based off of?

B7- This shows absolutely nothing. If it’s like clockwork, then why is it 13 years for some parts of the world and 17 for other parts? No, it shows that there are two species of insect that lie dormant for nearly two decades doing absolutely nothing. What is the evolutionary explanation for that?

Evolution does not explain why cicadas lay dormant. Evolution explains the diversity of life. Period.
Again, that's a cop-out statement. Evolutionists want to explain away everything.
It is not a cop-out statement, it's a statement of fact; evolution does not explain why cicadas go dormant. Why not ask an entymologist?

B12- Complete speculation, we have no way of determining if other animals lack consciousness. We infer this from our lack of ability to communicate, but we cannot objectively demonstrate that we are the only creatures with a consciousness. If it's not speculation, then we would be observing animals doing the things that humans do, much like they would in a Far Side cartoon.

You are assigning anthropomorphic qualities to animals without any basis for doing so. We have no indication animals are sentient.
That's right. Animals are not human, they never were, nor will they ever be.
Well, no one actually said animals are humans. Humans are actually animals, like it or not.

B13- Speculation again, additionally evolution does not predict nor explain the presence of higher intellectual functions in humans. Evolution is speculation.

And that is not an argument.
Well, you do have a problem with our arguments against it, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
Yes, they're poor arguments that are demonstrably faulty.

B16- The temperature of the ambient water drops as you approach the poles, as such, a fish who gradually developed the genes for enduring in colder water could progress further north or south until they could withstand very cold temperatures. This process is well known and documented http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11181960 But did they see this evolving take place? No.

We didn’t have to
Yes you do have to. It's called observation, the first step of the scientific method.
No, we dont have to. We can observe the process in it's entirety with the use of the fossil record. If physical observation was REQUIRED to make any sort of scientific statement, half of science would be invalid because it isnt possible to physically observe it.

B18- In many cases, we can look to the natural world for causes. Darwin’s famous finches are an example, many different subspecies of the same parent species evolved when several populations were established on the islands by birds blown onto the island by storms. And the proof of the evolving happening...?

The proof is you have different species of finch on different islands with beak configurations that have evolved to take advantage of the island’s most abundant and accessible food source for the finches. These finches are too genetically different to breed with other finch species, thus we have speciation.
You have not provided the proof here. Where is the direct evidence of change? Did you or any other scientist SEE IT HAPPEN?
You dont have to see it happen for reasons I stated previously.

C1- Evolution does not nor does it purport to explain the behavior of jellyfish. Because it cannot.

It isn’t supposed to
Evolution has an included philosophy of being "right", no matter what.
Show me

C3- The subjective human idea of what is “good” and “bad” are not factors in evolution. Then we would all behave like animals.

We do behave like animals.
Only the anarchists, thugs, murderers, rioters, and those who support them.
Ranting is not an argument.

C4- I cannot speak for Dawkins, but the occurrence of things like altruism in animals is fairly well understood. Altruistic behavior is a way for social groups to reinforce their bonds and improve the cohesion of the group itself. This behavior has been well documented among apes who will often give gifts to other apes in the same group for future favors. The behavior is never (to my knowledge) displayed in non-social species. And the Australian bower bird?

What aspect of the bird specifically are you focusing on?
Your aspect above
That doesnt answer my question.

C5- A mutation is not necessarily bad. A person’s genome has something like 10,000 mutations in it before that person is even born and most of us do pretty well. And still, we're not evolving; the X-Men are still relegated to the comics.

Yes, we are still evolving. We have a library of hominid fossils that indicate that humans once looked quite different then than we do today.
"That indicate" is words specifying opinion.
Now you sound like Bill Clinton, you know perfectly well what I mean.

C6- Some of us do have an immunity (or nearly so) to the HIV due to our exposure to the Black Death in our genetic past. HIV is not virulent enough to clear large sections of our population who aren’t immune. With a disease like the Black Death, it left enough people with immunity alive to reproduce and successfully repopulate, creating a population that was resistant or immune to the disease that caused the Black Death. At least until it returned after mutating. Or the rats could have died, leaving a large number of infected fleas with no where to go except in the bellies of various species of birds.

Except there were no records of mass rat die-offs from the time of the Black Death. Additionally, the Y. pestis bacteria (other pathogens have been suggested as the cause of the Black Death but Y. pestis is still the prevailing theory) responsible for the Black Death would not have survived digestion. Even if it did, there is a very slim chance of transmission from the belly of a bird to a human being.
You think people have to leave a record of a rat's death?
If its a mass die-off, yes. They have previously.

C7- Traits are only selected out of a population if there is evolutionary pressure to do so. There has been little to no pressure on the human population to eradicate schizophrenia. If we were to start executing all schizophrenic people, then we’d see our instances of people developing the disorder drop after several dozen successive generations because the genes that make us susceptible to schizophrenia would not be passed on. And we do have a fairly good idea that genetics plays a big role in determining the manifesting of schizophrenia. They tried that before and it didn't work; the place was Nazi Germany.

They didn’t try it on a wide enough scale to be effective. To eradicate a particular gene from the human gene pool, ALL carriers of the gene need to be removed from the gene pool.
We're not going to try it at all.
I'm not advocating that we should and neither is anyone else. I'm simply responding to your objection.

D1- The human body has dozens of vestigial traits that have no current use. We do know what they are used for in other creatures and in apes and we don’t/cant use them in that way. The goosebump response is a prime example, goosebumps form on our skin when scared to make us look bigger, but no human has enough body hair to make this happen anymore. We also don’t have enough body hair for it to provide insulation. There are several muscles and muscle groups that serve no function in the human body, The human eye has something called the plica semilunaris, a musculature remnant of the nictitating membrane that many other creatures have (and we do not). And of course all of our hair evolved away, with some scientist or two writing out convenient excuses as to why...without anything other than their word to back it up.

I suggest you review the work (or better yet, link it) again and you’ll find ample backing. Additionally, you ignored several other important points.
Where's your evidence?
Rub your arms, feel the hair? Our goosebump response is still present even though we dont have enough hair to make it function the way it's supposed to.

D2- Junk DNA is a well-documented phenomenon in the human genome and is detailed in even the most elementary book on the subject of genetics. And it's the opposite of evolution's basic trend of "things getting better over time."

Evolution is not “things getting better over time.” Evolution is “things adapting to their environment better over time.” Big difference.
You included the word "better". My point exactly.
Except you completely missed my point.

D3- This point demonstrates a lack of understanding about how evolution works. Evolution does not “design”. It merely allows natural selection to remove organisms that are less suited for their environment such that their genetic information is not passed on. The human spine and sinus system are not fatal in their current configuration and as such there is no evolutionary pressure to stop people from passing on the genes for the setup of these systems. So the point is "hit or miss"? That leaves out natural selection entirely.

Not hit or miss at all. If you have a population of animals, let’s take a gazelle. If you have a single animal born with the gene that gives him slightly stronger leg muscles, he will be better able to escape from predators and thus is more likely to survive and pass on his genes to successive generations. Being predated upon is the evolutionary pressure that kills off other gazelles that don’t run as fast and thus allows the faster gazelles to breed and populate.
And we still have those same gazelles, of which any one of them is dinner for the nearest lion, hyena, leopard, wild dog, or Masai tribesman. The observations just don't match your theories.
Because the population that make up modern gazelles continued along it's evolutionary path while other groups were separated and speciated.

D4- Very often our teeth ARE over-crowded and often some must be manually removed. And what is the evolutionary advantage to having teeth that must be manually-removed? And what is the evolutionary advantage of a mayfly to evolve with no way to eat, or of a woman to have a painful childbirth?

Having teeth removed has nothing to do with evolution and neither does pain in child birth. And I am not aware of ANY organism that has evolved with no way to eat.
You've never heard of a mayfly?
A mayfly does, I assure you, have the capability to eat.

D5- This point does not take into account the mountain of environmental factors that contribute towards this trend. Mankind can live anywhere, regardless of the "mountain of environmental factors"...and just where is this mountain?

Wide-scale consumption of artificial chemicals in our food, poor diet, decreasing social pressure to procreate, over-population. Just to name a few.
And they were caused by people with no higher authority other then themselves when the rules were made. They rejected God. And evolution just fits right in.
Evolution does not have anything to say one way or the other about religion, nor does science. Individual scientists may have their own opinions, but science itself does not speak on what it cannot test.

D7- Drug-resistant pathogens are a perfect example of natural selection. In the case of MRSA, some of the Staphylococcus aureus bacteria have developed with a structure that renders them immune or resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics. The bacteria that are not resistant to the antibiotics die when antibiotics are introduced into their environment and there is suddenly a gap left that the resistant strain quickly multiplies to fill. Some humans have gained immunity from snake venom over time, but we've never seen fangs on any of their kids.

Immunity from snake venom does not mean a person will grow fangs, one has NOTHING to do with the other. And I am un-aware of any person being immune to snake venom. Both types of snake venom act on key components of human anatomy and thus are hard to negate.

E1- Both toothed and baleen whales can trace their ancestral divergence to the Aetiocetus, the precursor to modern whales and dolphins. Interestingly enough, the Aetiocetus is an example of a transitional fossil. Again, you're making a statement based on assumption. Where's the proof?

The proof is in the fossil record
Your so-called "proof" is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Until it is demonstrated in the lab that a fish changed into a frog, a monkey into an ape, or even a wolf into a dog, then you cannot prove to anyone your theory is correct.
Yet again, you do not understand the theory.

E2- Incorrect, we can trace the lineage of horses back to the Family Palaeotheriidae, which gave rise to modern horses, tapirs, and rhinoceros. Additionally, simply because a specific fossil has not been found yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We have basal forms of horses and we have fossilized horse ancestors, so logically there IS an intermediary fossil. Again, you're making a statement based on assumption. Where's the proof?

The proof is in the fossil record
Your so-called "proof" is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Until it is demonstrated in the lab that a fish changed into a frog, a monkey into an ape, or even a wolf into a dog, then you cannot prove to anyone your theory is correct.
Yet again, you do not understand the theory.

E3- Literally thousands of transitional fossils have been found. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html Did the scientist prove they are transitionals? Did the scientists see these transitionals change from one animal into another, or do we have to take their word that it happened?

How exactly does one prove a transitional fossil?
You claimed proof above with your original statement, and only by your word alone. Did you see these animals change? Were these animals dug up with labels, testimonials, affidavits, or signs?
Yet again, you do not understand the theory.

E4- The process is well documented http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/ Only if you're a cell.

Well…yeah that was kinda the point. That’s what the original point in the article was talking about…

E7- Right here http://www.evolution-textbook.org/content/free/figures/25_EVOW_Art/01_EVOW_CH25.jpg Not good enough. You have to quit assuming that evolution is true and demand that the scientist prove it. Saying Ardipithicus is an ancestor is far different that proving it.

We can trace the line of fossils back to show ancestry.
If you say so...and you are saying it instead of proving it.
We HAVE proved it

G4- There are several examples of animals with wings that are also flightless but none the less are able to use their wings for other purposes. Again, there is no provable example of this happening beyond the scientist's word that it happened.

Be careful, I hear ostriches and penguins get upset when you insult them
You did not refute my statement beyond a silly retort.
Honestly, what am I supposed to say to someone who is claiming that no animals currently have wings but dont use them for flight?

G5- This staple argument of irreducible complexity has been thoroughly demolished http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4 Ken Miller talks about the bacterial flagellum as if that's a good thing. Did he create a dog from a wolf, as his fellow scientists stated has happened? No. Miller's explanation did not demolish anything.

No scientist has stated anyone created a dog from a wolf. Ken Miller has deconstructed the argument of irreducible complexity. If you’d watch the video, you’d see that.
And what exactly was his proof? You explain it here.
The basic argument for irreducible complexity is that some systems cannot be made simpler or they wont function thus could not have arisen out of multiple gradual changes. The favored example is the bacterial flagellum. It contains roughly 50 "parts" that need to be there in order to make it work. However, you can remove 40 of those 50 parts and still have a functioning biological machine; the Type III Secretory system. This is basically a molecular syringe that is most notably used by disease bacteria to inject toxic proteins into human cells during infection. Irreducible complexity is false.

H1- Citing yourself is very VERY poor form. The page has links off-site; you never bothered to check.

Then link them on THIS page, don’t bounce the reader through two or three other Conservapedia pages.
We don't have to.
So dont, remove the link

H2- This is speculation and as such does not belong in an objective article. How is it speculation?

Because there is no indication whatsoever that there would be one ancestral language.
And who says?
It's not a who, but a lack of indicators that there would be one ancestral language.

H3- The link for this is extremely poor, no names are provided to check the source and the scientist who allegedly announced this is un-named. It is a poorly sourced statement and should be removed. You have not provided sources for nearly everything you put here.

The source I draw on is rudimentary knowledge of what I’m talking about, as should be obvious to anyone who has something similar.
No excuses. I want sources that PROVE it to be true.
How do you prove a negative?

H4- Speculation again. We have no way of determining if other animals do or do not have religion. That statement is a cop-out; we know what higher animals exist on the planet, and so far none have built schools, written books, or produced their genealogical heritage.

Again, you are assigning anthropomorphic qualities to animals without any basis for doing so. It is speculation and speculation does not belong on an allegedly factual website.
Does that include the speculation that evolution is true?
It SHOULD include factual information, the page currently does not.

H5- “Kind” is not a scientific term "Kind" is a Biblical term for species. What's the problem?

If you’re going to attempt to refute a scientific theory, you need to use the accepted language so we have a common ground of understanding. “Kind” is also extremely poorly defined; are donkeys a different “kind” than horses or mules? If so, then creating a new species isn’t that hard because horses and mules seem to be able to do it no problem.
We are not only refuting a scientific theory, we're falsifying it. And if I'm not using the "accepted language" of the arrogant, so be it.
Erm...you need to look up "falsifying" because I dont think it means what you think it means. If you're going to try to disprove a scientific theory, you need to abide by the rules of the scientific community if you want to be taken seriously.

H8- Advancing evolution does not require one to be anti-religious. The theory of evolution does not deal with religion whatsoever It is anti-religious, because it throws out God. How many evolutionary scientists have no problem with teaching creation in our schools? None.

There are plenty of scientists who subscribe to the theory of evolution who are devoutly religious. Evolution and religion are not incompatible unless you make them so.
It was the evolutionists that made their theory incompatible with religion.
This has already been addressed previously.

It should be noted that you skipped many of my points. Why, I'm not sure. Just wanted to mention it. --HarabecW 15:12, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

What should be noted here is the fact that you still have not provided decisive proof that evolution is a fact, beyond your word. If is true, then take a pair of wolves and create a dog. Come on, do that. Create a dog. If a caveman could do it, a scientist can. And doesn't the average scientist have a battery of degrees on his wall and peer-reviewed papers in his library? What does a caveman have by comparison? Wall art and insurance commercials? There's my public challenge, for any evolutionary scientist to carry out, with no money involved. It's so easy a caveman could do it. Karajou 16:55, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
Because you've ignored 90% of what I've said and turned the rest into word games --HarabecW 14:09, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Picture of PZ Myers

I would like to suggest removing that PZ Myers picture. From reading the article, I can surmise that it has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, the caption does not increase the reader's understanding of the topic and looks like an infantile cheap-shot/parody that only hurts/designed to hurt Conservapedia's credibility as a serious source of information. -MejiaS 20:17, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

I agree. This is not a website for cheap-shots. --HarabecW 20:27, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Are you suggesting that humor be censored here? How would you communicate the important point that atheism is correlated with poor diet and inadequate exercise?--Andy Schlafly 22:56, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
While that may be true, with the text given, it was unrelated to the article at hand. It started out mentioning the humans and dinosuar thing, then suddenly goes into something about how some guy had trouble getting on and off a fake dinosuar. And I would state it with "atheism and poor health have many demonstrated links" possibly followed by references to them. We aren't (Atleast I was not) trying to censor anything, just... confused is a good word, over the picture and the point it was making. --SeanS 23:02, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
Of course not. But I believe, everything should have its proper place. I noticed that there are dedicated pages for atheist-related humor. Why not put it there? An article that aims to be taken seriously should present itself as such. -MejiaS 00:03, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
Humor and satire have a variety of forms, and do not lend themselves to copy-editing.--Andy Schlafly 23:41, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
What about copy editing? and yah, they do. But the point of the asking for it;s removal (and my subsequent removal) was that it was out of place with only a vague and flimsy reasoning for it to be aat that spot. I'm just curious about the justification is all ^_^--SeanS 23:44, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
Often non sequiturs are the essence of humor. Perhaps it's the humor itself that some object to?
At a Hollywood-type gathering earlier this year, where mocking people who are more conservative than the performers has long been customary, the emcee mocked the performers themselves instead, and they were furious about it. Double standard?--Andy Schlafly 00:06, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
Most humor assumes a certain shared perspective, and it is only funny if one shares that perspective. Others who are starting from a different perspective won't find the joke funny. This is true whether one is a conservative, a liberal, a whatever. Humor is a very in-group thing. Maratrean 00:10, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
I wasn't denying there was any humor involved. I simply can't see what it has to do with THAT part of the article. There might be links to athiesm and obesity (which i don't believe given most of my athiest friends are skinny, and i know plenty of overweight biblical, fundamentalist Christians). The probolem i have here, as do many of us apparently, is that we are randomly pointing out PZ is fat in the article, with no real reason to be doing so in that part of the article.--SeanS 08:19, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
It allows readers to see that atheists and evolutionists largely do not believe that dinosaurs and man coexisted. It also lets readers know that God still uses the weak things of the world to confound and shame the wise. In this case, it was a triceratops model for kids at the Creation Museum in KY and the assorted blubber on atheist and evolutionist PZ Myers. :) conservative 10:05, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
Personal tools