8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 149:
Line 149: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 20:16, August 10, 2010
, 20:16, August 10, 2010no edit summary
:::@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.
:::@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.
== Just an Argument ==
#6 "For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. [7] "
First, the source is in essence a review of book reviews. It quotes Richard Dawkins, but provides no real information on why this statement should be considered fact.
I feel that the source should provide some proof that males and females have in fact evolved identically.
Secondly, I don't believe males and females have evolved identically. Males are larger and have different bone structures and muscle mass than females (this is true in humans.) However, there a lot of insects that haven't evolved identically. Many species of spider have evolved male / female counterparts that aren't the exact same and yet are completely capable of mating.
Thirdly, the #6 point of evidence isn't even worded in a way that really contradicts evolution. It merely states what parameters evolution must fulfill in order to be a working theory. It doesn't state that it doesn't fulfill those parameters.
I've just started reading this list, but I'm already getting the feeling that these might not be as well thought out and sourced as can and should be. This website needs to be credible if it's The Trustworthy Encyclopedia.