Changes

* 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>   

* 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>

* 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>