170
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 257:
Line 257: + + Line 263:
Line 265: + + Line 269:
Line 273: + + Line 275:
Line 281: + + Line 281:
Line 289: + + Line 287:
Line 297: + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 22:10, May 13, 2011
, 22:10, May 13, 2011→Removing Incorrect Information
:You miss the point. All that is necessary is that ''some'' animals flee to higher ground.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
:You miss the point. All that is necessary is that ''some'' animals flee to higher ground.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
Yes, out of a desire for self-preservation. If they can see something that scares them, they're going to run away and it's not always to higher ground. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
"Evolution cannot explain how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if evolution said that beauty were useful then we would all expect to see the same things as beautiful."
"Evolution cannot explain how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if evolution said that beauty were useful then we would all expect to see the same things as beautiful."
:Your non-answer does not require a rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
:Your non-answer does not require a rebuttal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
The original point from the article is atrociously bad logic, it's an example of the poor overall quality of the article. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
"Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case."
"Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case."
:The point is that evolution cannot account for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
:The point is that evolution cannot account for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
Evolution doesnt HAVE to account for something that you cant/wont define --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
"Jellyfish in Hawaii swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full moon, for no apparent evolutionary reason"
"Jellyfish in Hawaii swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full moon, for no apparent evolutionary reason"
:If your explanation were valid, then the swarming would occur during a full moon. It doesn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
:If your explanation were valid, then the swarming would occur during a full moon. It doesn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
The swarming DOES occur during full moons --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
"Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example)."
"Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example)."
:No, there aren't. Instead, evolutionist claims of vestigial organs have been disproved again and again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
:No, there aren't. Instead, evolutionist claims of vestigial organs have been disproved again and again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
Just off the top of my head, the "goosebump" response is a perfect example; goosebumps form on the skin at times of high stress. In animals with more body hair, it serves to regulate temperature as well as make the animal appear larger to an enemy. We dont have enough body hair to do either. The human eye has something called the plica semilunaris, a musculature remnant of the nictitating membrane that many other creatures have (and we do not). There are plenty more examples --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
"Pterosaurs; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?[32]"
"Pterosaurs; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?[32]"
:So maybe you can find a better citation. You haven't rebutted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
:So maybe you can find a better citation. You haven't rebutted it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
I dont need to rebut that specific point, I'm not trying to debate evolution and I'd appreciate it if you stopped attempting to do the same. I am trying to point out that the article is of exceptionally poor quality and I cite the above as an example; poor sourcing.--[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
All this took maybe five minutes to put together. The list is atrociously bad and needs to be either paired down severely by someone with actual knowledge of the biological world or, as I would reccomend, deleted entirely. If you really want, I can find something for every point on the list. If you want that, it'll take a while and I'm not sure there is enough room to upload that all here. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:11, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
All this took maybe five minutes to put together. The list is atrociously bad and needs to be either paired down severely by someone with actual knowledge of the biological world or, as I would reccomend, deleted entirely. If you really want, I can find something for every point on the list. If you want that, it'll take a while and I'm not sure there is enough room to upload that all here. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:11, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
:Responded above. I didn't find any of your rebuttals to be persuasive. I urge you to try our quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
:Responded above. I didn't find any of your rebuttals to be persuasive. I urge you to try our quiz at [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:09, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
It's not a question of being persuasive, what I indicated above and the vast majority of the article are factually and demonstrably incorrect. This is not a subjective issue. The points in the article are poor logic, factually incorrect, or demonstrate a lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution actually says. As such, the article needs to be amended or removed. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 18:10, 13 May 2011 (EDT)