SkipCaptcha
123
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 186:
Line 186: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 19:14, August 23, 2011
, 19:14, August 23, 2011→The Devil's Advocate
14. Animals like isolated places because they tend to be safe, and lots of them can climb better than we can. Very weak and should be removed.
14. Animals like isolated places because they tend to be safe, and lots of them can climb better than we can. Very weak and should be removed.
Maladaptation
1. This only applies to box jellyfish and the reason they come close to the beach at this time is well understood: that's when they spawn. Fallacious example and should be removed.
2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.
3. Can anyone name any benefits of the prostate surrounding the urethra? The theory of evolution actually states that there are many examples of poor design that natural selection CAN'T eliminate because it can't go back and start again. Dubious and needs discussion.
4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed.
5. Strong example.
6. This assumes that HIV and other pathogens aren't evolving too. Evolutionists say that they are, and it's obvious that they do undergo adaptation. A fairly weak example that should probably be removed.
7. Does schizophrenia make people less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? If not there is no reason why natural selection would eliminate it. Potentially interesting but needs some discussion.
8. Very, very dubious. Male pattern baldness HAS been observed in other species - orangs and chimps - and does it actually make men less likely to find a mate? Does it tend to appear after the reproductive peak has already passed? This should PROBABLY go, but may benefit from more information.
9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.
Wrong predictions
1. A very strong example.
2. Fairly strong.
3. Moderately strong but not concrete.
4. Again, the theory of evolution states that natural selection can't work backwards and therefore often has to make the best of a bad job rather than produce a perfect design. Weak and should be removed.
5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.
6. Possibly false and certainly irrelevant; evolution doesn't necessarily predict human improvement and the short timeline claim assumes very strict uniformitarianism. Weak and should go.
7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.
8. True but irrelevant; evolutionary theory doesn't recognise devolution, just evolution in different directions. They will say that if an organism becomes more adapted by losing genetic information, it's evolved. Pretty weak and should perhaps go.
I'll add the rest as I get to them. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
I'll add the rest as I get to them. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)