SkipCaptcha
123
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 132:
Line 132: − + Line 211:
Line 211: − + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − 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.+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 19:33, August 23, 2011
, 19:33, August 23, 2011→The Devil's Advocate
== The Devil's Advocate ==
== The Devil's Advocate ==
I'd like to spark some discussion on this article by pointing out which arguments can be easily countered by evolutionists (yes, many of them can, unfortunately) and which ones are definite refutations of evolutionary theory (yes, we have plenty of those too.) What I plan to do is list every example with its evolutionist refutation if applicable and my opinion on what we should do with it. Please contribute as much as you can. Anyway here's the first part of the list:
I'd like to spark some discussion on this article by pointing out which arguments can be easily countered by evolutionists (yes, many of them can, unfortunately) and which ones are definite refutations of evolutionary theory (yes, we have plenty of those too.) What I plan to do is list every example with its evolutionist refutation if applicable and my opinion on what we should do with it. Please contribute as much as you can. Anyway here's the list (apologies for the massive edit):
Logical examples
Logical examples
Wrong predictions
Wrong predictions
1. A very strong example.
1. A very good example.
2. Fairly strong.
2. Fairly strong.
3. Moderately strong but not concrete.
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.
Missing fossils
1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.
2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.
3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and the vast majority of fossils, even claimed transitionals, are NOT frauds. Not especially strong but should probably stay.
4. Pretty strong.
5. Very strong and should be expanded.
6. See 3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. Also this is vergin on being a duplicate. Should be merged with 3.
7. There are lots of hominid fossils that are clearly genuine. Those beings existed. The big question is, were they actually human ancestors or not? Evolutionists say yes; we say no. Potentially strong but needs expansion.
Paradoxical fossils
1. Is Raptorex actually questioning any evolutionary assumptions? It seems like most palaeontologists reject the Raptorex classification and say it's a juvenile tyrannosaurid. Weak and should probably go, unless anyone can add anything.
Irreducible Complexity
1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.
2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.
3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.
4. The flagellum is a solid example.
5. The eye isn't. Even a non-imaging eye has lots of uses and are found in many species. If they didn't help the organism they wouldn't have been designed in. This is another example that evolutionists love.
6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.
7. Ear bones; an excellent example.
8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.
9. Social insects; a very good example but the argument about workers not reproducing should be removed. They share their entire genome with the queen, so by helping her reproduce they ARE reproducing their own DNA.
Uncategorized
1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.
2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?
3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.
4. Without a definition of "kind" this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.
5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.
6. I don't think a 24-hour circadian cycle defies materialistic explanations at all; in fact it makes perfect sense on a planet with a 24-hour rotation. On the other hand if someone can come up with examples of a WEEKLY cycle in non-humans that would be very strong.
7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.
I'll add the rest as I get to them. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
I realise that I'm proposing removing a majority of the examples, but the ones that I think should go are ones that I've seen evolutionists give plausible answers to in a materialist framework (which is, after all, where they're working and therefore where we need to combat them to win over their followers) and I don't think they should be used. In compensation, the remaining examples are all inarguable and many of them can be expanded, so in my opinion the article would be a lot more solid and informative. Anyway, please let me know what you think and contribute any specialist knowledge you have. Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)