57
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 606:
Line 606: + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 19:49, October 8, 2009
, 19:49, October 8, 2009→Several points
* 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>
* "Bad design": While evolutionists argue that there are examples of 'bad design' in the bodies of many organisms, such as 'flaws' in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! " False, for the same reason as in the prostate example. Evolution only suggests that a design will be eliminated if it has negative effects (relative to some other existing design). The 'flaws' in the human spine presumably refer to the high frequency of lower back pain or injury, which rarely if ever would have an effect on reproduction. I do not know what the putative flaw is in the sinuses, so I cannot evaluate this claim. <i>Recommendation: This claim should be clarified or 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>
* 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>
[[User:Reaganetics|Reaganetics]] 11:37, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
[[User:Reaganetics|Reaganetics]] 11:37, 8 October 2009 (EDT)