57
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 592:
Line 592: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 02:44, October 8, 2009
, 02:44, October 8, 2009no edit summary
: Evolutionists claim that their theory explains all of life. If they want to reduce their sweeping claims, then we could reduce the list accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
: Evolutionists claim that their theory explains all of life. If they want to reduce their sweeping claims, then we could reduce the list accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
==Several points==
I have been trying to decide whether to list all my comments here or to distribute them throughout the page. Since my goal is, in part, to summarize and comment on several debates, I have decided to list them in one place; I hope this does not cause confusion or offense. The comments below are not intended to be comprehensive--there are more issues I would like to discuss when I have more time to do the proper research. These are merely the ones that I (as a clinician and scientist) can address readily. I hope my discussion is not too technical, and I will do my best to answer any relevant questions that arise.
* Immune system: "the immune system is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection." False. Plenty of humans are born with immune systems that are partially defective and thus not thoroughly developed, yet they are able to resist some infections. For example, people with selective immunoglobulin A deficiency have a somewhat greater susceptibility to respiratory and urinary infections, but they can resist other infections normally. Much the same is true of some complement deficiencies. Similarly, invertebrates have only some of the immune defenses that vertebrates have, yet invertebrates manage to resist some infections: specifically [[invertebrates]] and [[vertebrates]] both have [[defensins]], but the [[adaptive immune system]] only seems to exist in vertebrates. Ref. 2 in the original page (which I didn't add) provides other examples. Thus, the immune system can be reduced into component parts, and organisms possessing only some of those component parts can resist infection. <i>Recommendation: This claim should be deleted.</i>
* Fossils: "the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the fossil record." Not a single reference is provided to support or explain this claim. I am aware that creationists often make this point, so perhaps someone more knowledgeable could post a link to a relevant discussion. <i>Recommendation: This claim should be defended or removed.</i>
* Ploidy: "Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4." This is simply false. The example of [[Down syndrome]] is sufficient to refute this point, since individuals with trisomy 21 can indeed mate with euploid individuals. So can those with XYY syndrome (note: NOT XXY (Klinefelter's) syndrome, which is a different matter entirely). Polyploidy is reasonably common in plants: for discussion, see the recent paper by Wood et al. (2009) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Moreover, the second sentence does not follow from the first. Remember that mating is not necessary for reproduction or speciation in some species, and thus is not necessary for evolution; species can reproduce parthenogenically or via vegetative propagation. That said, the above discussion gives me the impression that the statement in the article does not accurately reflect the views of [[Aschlafly]] and others. <i>Recommendation: This claim should be revised or removed.</i>
* Prostate: "Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design." No. According to evolutionary theory, natural selection will only eliminate a design if it has a negative effect on reproduction. Prostate problems (which are very common, hence the claim about "poor design") tend to occur after a man has passed his prime reproductive years (for just one reference on prevalence rates, see http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/449623-overview). Heck, sometimes these problems don't start until *his children* have passed their peak reproductive years! The impact on reproductive fitness is thus negligible, and evolutionary theory would not require that the prostate (or prostate problems) be eliminated. <i>Recommendation: This claim should be removed.</i>
* Teeth: "We have the perfect number of teeth to fit in our mouths." False--consider wisdom teeth, which are regularly impacted and require surgery (see http://www.hkmj.org/article_pdfs/hkm0306p158.pdf or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11220165 for a review of prevalence rates of wisdom tooth impaction). <i>Recommendation: This claim should be removed.</i>