Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 161:
Line 161: − − == Awful Logic == − − "Belief in impossibility is a sign of close-mindedness, because it reflects the unwillingness of the subject to be "receptive" to the possibility. " − − --That is the definition of close-mindedness, according to this site. − − --All of following points in the article are designed to imply that if any of these points are not agreed with, that you are not open-minded, regardless of the lack of evidence or logic of the point. If you disagree, they will assume you are an athiest/liberal which means you have no valid argument. − − "When President Ronald Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down? " − --That is one of the most absurd questions ever asked seriously. − − − The word "impossible" is mentioned at least 9 times in the arguments against evolution. − − The article for evolution starts out with one of the worst examples of logic I've ever read: − "If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails. Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[1]), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true becomes very small (only a 4.6% chance that evolution is true with 60 possible counterexamples)." − --You can literally say anything you want about evolution, based on the examples given, and anything could have a 5% chance of being true. If I listed one million stupid statements, there's a 5% chance that one of them is correct. − --Using that argument as basis for truth is one of the scariest things I've read. − --Also note that the citation noted [1] is a blanket quote not from a reputable source, but just some guy who added it to the sources: "Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, − rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%." − --This is an amazingly shocking example of awful logic. − − --Andrew likes to rebuff critics with cheap personal shots while asking people to cite their sources (I don't need to cite this source of information, just read any discussion page). Andrew does not hold that same standard for any of the approved information posted on the site. − − − − --Okay, let's get to each of the points. Note that I do not have to cite my own sources, since the author did not have to cite their own. If you think my counter-arguments are impossible, then you are close-minded. See the site definition of Open-mindedness on the site. − − --I will disclose that I personally do not think that evolution is a completely airtight theory that explains everything on Earth. That is why I'm open-minded. I do, however, find its evidence far more believable and based in actual human scientific study than most of the general mindset and lack of evidence presented on this website to the contrary. − − 1. The annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even more unlikely. − --There is absolutely no basis in reality for this argument. Given that we have no idea exactly how many species there are in the world, and can only estimate the extinction rate, we also cannot − know the number of new species generated. Maybe you're right, but probably not. I'm gonna guess that nature has taken care of itself over the past 4 billion years (which is also scientifically proven as far as the age of the Earth). − --Cite a study, if you can − − 2. Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[2] − --You mean besides skin color, size, shape, genetic illnesses, facial features, etc? If you want more diversity than this, then we'd have different species of humans. − --Aren't all modern domesticated dogs the same species, despite the number of varieties? − --Citing a like-minded biased article with no facts. − − 3. Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to arise repeatedly via − evolution is impossible, as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.[3] − --There's that word impossible again. Ever think that the evolution theory is that animal species came from the same original source, and evolved along side eash other? Of course not. That would be impossible. − --Also, using big words that have nothing to do with the argument is evidence of trying too hard. − --Citing a like-minded biased article with no facts. − − 4. Pleiotropy, the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with − a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.[4] − --Leap of logic that has absolutely no basis in scientific fact. Not all mutations come with a "good" and "bad". Some are good, some are bad, some are both. To blanket the argument with a gerneral statement like this is ignorant at best. − --Citing a like-minded biased article with no facts. − − − 5. The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs[5][6] − --Of course it couldn't, right? That would be impossible... Regardless of the evidence from fossils between dinosaurs and birds that suggest this very thing. − --And really..... one of your cites is citing another completely fabricated cite from the same page? − − − 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] − --Yes... of course they did... Are you suggesting that all females were spawned instantly to adapt to the male? Well, of course you do. − --Once again citing a source that is obviously biased against science and suits your needs for the argument. − − 7. There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of − species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved. − --Yes, there are scientific records of evolution occurring. See your beloved Andrew's ill-fated argument with the scientist who published a paper about bacterial evolution. − − 8. If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, − psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity. − --This is the largest leap of logic here. Modern Human civilization has existed for thousands of years, with hundreds of different cultures developing in their own way. − --You are trying to equate the animal kingdom with human kind in terms of breeding practices. That is absolutely ridiculous. − − − Oh God I could go on with the pure crap that is on this site. I am too angry and tired to continue.
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 04:15, August 20, 2010
, 04:15, August 20, 2010Reverted edits by OpenMinded (Talk) to last revision by Karajou
:::@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.