Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 Archive 2

Cavemen and wolves

"If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false" Cavemen did NOT create a new species; dogs and wolves are the same species, as they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Recently, scientists have domesticated foxes, and they have developed dog-like characteristics, like changes in colouration and an increased affection and trust towards humans. --Samsonnn 12:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --FergusE 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --HarabecW 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --FergusE 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of microevolution, not "true" macroevolution. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. NickP 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

That is because macroevolution takes a lot longer, within the magnitude of at least millions of years. Evolution does not imply that it would be possible to directly observe one species changing to another. That is why fossil records are used. These clearly show that microevolution gradually builds up to macroevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution follow exactly the same principle. If you say that microevolution has been observed, then the only thing that would stop macroevolution from occuring would be a very young earth (which several areas of science have independently disproven)--Samsonnn 12:18, 13 November 2011 (EST)

If dogs and wolves are the same species, then the domestic dog had to have come from the gray wolf, exactly as scientists have been stating for years. Before the edit gets reverted again, someone here is going to provide proof of a scientific experiment in which a dog has been bred from a pair of wolves. Karajou 22:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Please define "Dog", you definition is far to vague for any scientific purpose.FCapra 22:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Basic logic?

"Species are groups of animals that can freely interbreed. A group of animals that can freely interbreed are C. lupus (dogs and wolves). Thus, dogs and wolves are same species. Basic logic." Fine, FCapra. Now you show me a male and a female wolf that mated together and produced a basset hound. Karajou 22:46, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Explain to me how two wolves can breed together and produce a wolf genetically identical to a third, unrelated wolf. When you can do this, I will see your point.FCapra 22:53, 13 November 2011 (EST)
You're missing the point here, FCapra. Evolutionists have stated for years that the domestic dog was created by the breeding of wolves, and done by cavemen. You're stating that both animals are the same species. Yet, if I breed wolves, all I'm going to get are wolf pups. If I breed German shepherds, I'm not going to get St. Bernards, I'm not going to get Boston terriers, and I'm not going to get chihuahuas. Strange as it may seem I'm going to go out on a scientific limb here and hypothesize that if I breed German shepherds, I'm going to end up with a litter of German shepherd pups. That is called logic.
And it's also proven that dogs can interbreed with coyotes (Canis latrans), the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis), and the golden jackal (Canis aureus), as well as several other members of Canis. Does that mean that those other Canids must be regarded as the same species? Or did a lawyer representing the big bad wolf file a copyright-infringement lawsuit? Karajou 23:16, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Coyotes/wolf hybrids show a marked decrease in offspring viability after several generations, and jackal hybrids don't occur in the wild and also suffer reduced fertility and genetic abnormailties. Wolfdogs have no decrease in viability or fertility, and occur (relatively)commonly where feral dog and wolf populations overlap. FCapra 23:26, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Then start breeding wolves. Show me the dogs that come out of it. If it's so easy a caveman can do it, then so can you. Karajou 23:31, 13 November 2011 (EST)
I can't breed wolf A and wolf B together to get wolf C, I get wolf AB. Sometimes, I might get a mutant wolf AB+, but it will never be wolf C. Eventually, I could get a domestic pack canine, but it wouldn't be a dog.FCapra 23:52, 13 November 2011 (EST)
And if you get those mutants, and eventually kept breeding to a hoped-for critter you can call "Rover", you would have proved beyond all doubt the fact of intelligent design. Karajou 23:54, 13 November 2011 (EST)
"Beyond all doubt" is extremely strong language. In fact, it's more like "have done absolutely nothing to prove or disprove intelligent design", because I am still working with natural mechanisms. Intelligent design relies on non-materialistic explanations to natural phenomena. Also, 1 singular case does not constitute enough evidence to support something "beyond all doubt". I would however, provide evidence that mutations can produce meaningful changes in organisms which help them survive in certain circumstances, such as a symbiotic relationship with a human. And just FYI, wild wolf puppies can be domesticated by humans.[1] FCapra 12:26, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Also, while wolves haven't been bred into dogs yet, it only took 40 years of selective breeding to produce domesticated, dog-like foxes[2]. It's logical that the same would apply to wolves.
Thor Heyerdahl proved it was possible for South American natives to sail to south Pacific islands; he did not prove that this had in fact happened. Current scientific consensus is that domestic dogs are descended from wolves, and as you and many others have said, they should belong to the same species - Canis lupus. I don't see a fox's bushy tail in those two Latin words. Karajou 13:11, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Do you have any evidence that it didn't and couldn't happen? Then you have a reasonable counterexample. All the mechanisms for domestication exist in wolves and foxes, wolves can be trained by humans, foxes have been domesticated, and foxes and wolves are similar genetically (both are in the Canidae family). There is no evidence that domestication of wolves is impossible, but in theory, it is entirely possible over the course of a few thousand years. Is there any evidence that human domestication of wolves is literally impossible, and not just unlikely? If not, than human domestication of wolves is a possibility, and can't really be used as a counterexample against evolution. FCapra 13:23, 14 November 2011 (EST)

PZ Meyers Photo

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --MRellek 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --MRellek 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Improving article

Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --SamCoulter 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --JMairs 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. Jcw 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --JMairs 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. Jcw 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --JMairs 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --JMairs 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. Jcw 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
OK, I took it out. I think we achieved a concensus on it, even if it was only a concensus of two. Nobody else seems to object so far. --JMairs 20:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

(unindent) This article seems to have been pretty lively over the last few days, for all sorts of wrong reasons. I'm new here, but I have to say something pretty blunt: it's not a good article. There seems to be an emphasis on quantity over quality. A lot of the arguments presented are so weak that I have to suspect they're strawmen or parodies inserted by evolutionists. We have about ten really good arguments that are more than enough to refute evolutionism, but we have hardly any detail on them: irreducible complexity only has a few sentences, for example. On the other hand there are a lot of EXTREMELY poor arguments, such as the old chestnut about males and females of a species having to coincidentally evolve together. I'm sorry, but present that argument to any evolutionist and he's going to laugh in your face then take you to pieces. Their theory CAN explain that, and within the naturalist framework they restrict science to they can explain it extremely well. Evolution is a scientific theory and it stands or falls on the evidence. We HAVE the evidence to defeat it, so why do we need to expose ourselves to ridicule by talking unscientific rubbish about the order in which chickens return to their coops? Sorry for the rant, but the latest troll really annoyed me. Not because what he said was wrong, but because so much of it wasn't. Why do we have this compulsion to make ourselves easy targets? --SamCoulter 02:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Does anybody have a problem if I return this article to SamCoulter's last edit? I've done some reading and I think he's on the right track as far as improving it goes, even if he's sadly not able to be with us right now. --JMairs 21:20, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Perfect number of teeth?

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth do get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. MaxFletcher 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --JMairs 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. Jcw 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. MaxFletcher 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. Jcw 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --JMairs 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. Jcw 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. MaxFletcher 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Seems like science has proven that we most certainly do not have the perfect number of teeth for a civilized lifestyle, as changes in our diet have lead to jaw shortening and crooked teeth as a result[3]. FCapra 00:38, 22 November 2011 (EST)

I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --JMairs 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. MaxFletcher 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. Jcw 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth. when in the majority of people the the teeth are over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. MaxFletcher 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. Jcw 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --JMairs 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
If we take what you have said above as read then the entry still needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. MaxFletcher 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the jaw that is too small for the number of teeth. MaxFletcher 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --JMairs 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better. As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--Andy Schlafly 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --JMairs 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. MaxFletcher 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. KarenWu 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)


I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --JMairs 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes, it's pretty much rejected. It does seem to be a juvenile tyrannosaurid rather than a separate species. I think this one should come out. --SamCoulter 11:03, 12 September 2011 (EDT)


I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --JMairs 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --JMairs 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. FCapra 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --JMairs 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. MaxFletcher 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
OK thanks, will do! --JMairs 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --SamCoulter 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits.

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. Conservative 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --SamCoulter 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out "Broken arrow" yesterday. :) Conservative 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Artistic beauty argument

Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --SamCoulter 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm sorry, "death didn't exist before the fall"?
So in the days, months or years before the fall not a single leaf from a single tree ever worked it's way loose from its parent and fell to the ground?
If "death didn't exist" for plants (of all things) then all the "green things" G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook?
You may want to re-examine your logic here. AsherL 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined "life." Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that "life" is usually equated to "having the breath of life.") Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no "death" as conceptualized at the time. --Benp 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was "no death before the fall" hence no autumnal foliage. If trees weren't things that were alive to the writer(s) of the Creation texts then how could the effects have been wrought by things (G-d created things, no less) such as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (or the Tree of Life, for that matter)?
Nice try, Benp, but we know that we once had much more knowledge than we currently do...the writers of the Creation history knew better than us that trees are "alive".
No. Better that we should re-examine our dogmas than to succumb to metaphysical gymnastic logics to prop them up. AsherL 19:19, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
But were there seasons in the garden of Eden? From what I understand before the fall it was a constant, perfect temperature and climate. MaxFletcher 17:04, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
That's always been my understanding too, so I wouldn't have expected leaves to fall. The definition of life is a tricky one though. Perhaps the animals only ate enough of the plant that it could keep growing, so didn't die? I know that when cows graze they don't eat the roots of the grass, so it can grow again. Of course that argument would also apply to falling leaves, wouldn't it? The leaves die but the tree itself doesn't. OK, I'll have to rethink that one! --SamCoulter 19:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Regardless, evolution cannot explain artistic beauty in nature, whether it existed before man or not. Indeed, most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature, which is one reason why it becomes such a dreary, negative belief system.--Andy Schlafly 19:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
As an aside though, were there seasons in the Garden of Eden? If not there would never have been autumn leaves which means there artistic beauty comes not from Gods perfect handy work but from the flaws in the post -fall world. An interesting idea and I am sure there is much discussion to be had. MaxFletcher 19:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
"most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature" Andy, I can't believe you get away with bald assertions like that. It's pretty solid rhetoric, though. Just keep challenging dissenters with assumptions and dismiss counter-examples as outliers. I'm positive the statement could not be disproved to your satisfaction. Never mind that you never proved it. That's why most people have trouble taking Conservapedia seriously. BradB 19:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Brad, the existence of artistic beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of functional evolution. If you know of any evolutionists who accept the existence of artistic beauty in nature, then please do post some examples.--Andy Schlafly 22:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Atheists like Stephen Hawking, David Attenborough and, more recently, Brian Cox go to great pains to extol the beauty and rhythm of the universe and nature. MaxFletcher 22:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
I disagree that the existence of beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionists have written about the role of beautiful plumage in birds and how evolution could produce this beauty. I think some have even proposed that we evolved to find the world beautiful because those who thought it ugly were more prone to depression and less likely to survive. We all know they're wrong, but their argument is valid if you only allow naturalistic explanations, which is what their whole model is based on. --SamCoulter 22:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
"Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature." Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: "After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life." - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" his enthusiasm for the beauty of nature is very obvious; it's debatable whether Sagan was an atheist or not, but he was most certainly an evolutionist. Exactly the same can be said for Brian Cox's recent productions. My personal experience is that most evolutionists DO see beauty in nature; they just don't believe it was designed. --JMairs 20:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
Your quote does not say the world is beautiful. Evolution is a theory based on functionality. How would an evolutionist explain how beauty arose?--Andy Schlafly 23:47, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
Dawkins doesn't actually use the word "beautiful" in that quote, but he uses it several times in an interview with Der Spiegel, at,1518,748673,00.html. Evolutionists also argue that the universe wasn't made to be beautiful so much as we evolved to find it beautiful, simply because we live in it. I don't believe that's true, but within the evolutionary framework it's a valid argument and they can ue it as an effective counter. --JMairs 09:50, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee

SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer this information and this information and this information before I let you work out matters with other editors.

Also this:

"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[4] Conservative 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --SamCoulter 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

It's funny you should bring up Richard Dawkins. Are you interested in creating a Elevatorgate article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.

Here are some sources: Conservative 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Ha ha, I hadn't heard about that! I've read some other stuff on it as well now, including PZ Myers' comments, and it seems they're all at each other's throats. That could make a pretty good article, and I might have a shot at it as soon as I work out how. --SamCoulter 19:28, 17 August 2011 (EDT)


I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book "The selfish gene" from the argument on altruism, because in fact Dawkins doesn't deny altruism in animals and the book has a whole chapter discussing it. Dawkins regularly makes a fool of himself talking about evolution and religion, and the reason is that he's not qualified in either subject. What he actually is, is an ethologist (studies animal behaviour) and I have to grudgingly admit that he's quite good at that, so he's not really in a position to deny altruism because it obviously exists. --SamCoulter 19:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

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 list (apologies for the massive edit):

Logical examples

1. This example assumes that the rate of extinctions has remained constant. While the theory of evolution doesn't make any statements on this, it incorporates data from other sciences such as paleontology that claim there have been massive spikes in extinction rates, including one that's happening now. Weak argument - should be removed.

2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed.

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

4. Evolution can explain this and would point out that the eyes found in species they claim to be closely related tend to be similar while those found in species they claim to be distantly related are much less similar, e.g. vertebrates and cephalopods have different eye structures. They also claim that eyes have clear survival benefits and are likely to evolve. This is a dubious argument and needs discussion.

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

9. Based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (and, to some extent, on arguments between evolutionists.) What LEVEL are traits benefitting? Lying might not benefit the human race as a whole but it can certainly benefit the liar. Dubious and needs more discussion.

10. Based on a factual error. The dog is NOT a separate species; it's Canis lupus familiaris, a sub-species of the wolf. Dubious and needs discussed.

Lack of mechanism

1. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and many animals have a demonstrated ability to sense imminent earthquakes. A bit dubious and needs to be expanded.

2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of "information" you use, for a start. Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with disorder; it refers to energy available for work. Ice is much more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. This is a common misunderstanding and one that evolutionists like to jump all over. The information part needs to be expanded; the entropy bit needs to go.

3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?

4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.

Evolution can explain why animals migrate but not how they are able to navigate by instinct. They can give a believable explanation for how an animal might evolve a mechanism capable of finding its way over long distances, but not how information is already loaded into that system when the animal is born. I agree it's not the strongest example in the world, but I don't think it's as weak as you seem to. --SamCoulter 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps?

8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.

9. Should be merged with 8 and not emphasised so much. Evolutionists can put forward MANY explanations for why these things would be favoured, but what they can't explain is how we're able to do them in the first place.

10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.

11. This is factually inaccurate. Birds don't even HAVE X and Y chromosomes (they have Z and W) and the evolutionary argument would be that if two groups evolved sexual reproduction separately there's no reason why their chromosomes should follow the same pattern. This needs to be cleaned up and focused on the fact that the alleged common ancestor of birds and mammals was ALREADY reproducing sexually, which evolutionists can't explain.

12. This one is easily answered. An evolutionist would say that the fish gradually colonised colder water as they evolved resistance to low temperatures. Weak and should be removed.

13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?

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.


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 good 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.

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.

Evolutionists have lots of examples for intermediate wings in mammals, such as sugar gliders, but not in birds. It looks to me like they can give an evolutionary explanation for bats but not birds. I think this example should stay if that's clarified. --SamCoulter 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
Ostriches use their wings for balance when running at high speed. Obviously that's not proof of evolution, but it's a demonstrable use of wings that aren't capable of flight. I still think this one just leaves us open to attack and should be removed. --JMairs 21:48, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

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.


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 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. --JMairs 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I plan to study each of your points carefully, and will respond to the first ten now (the logical counterexamples):
  1. It seems implausible that the rate of extinction would vary enormously, but even if it did, it would still exceed the rate of the generation of new species.
  2. Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.
  3. Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
  4. But the eye is remarkably similar across species that have no direct evolutionary connection, such as humans and cats and eagles. The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!
  5. Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
  6. Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
  7. This is a valid point. Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary manner. It's like lightening striking twice at the same place, at the same time of day, etc. Doesn't happen, and certainly not repeatedly so (for many species).
  8. Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
  9. Evolution does have a problem explaining why so many self-destructive people and personalities exist. A liar typically ends up hurting himself as well as others. An addict is even worse. They should not exist under evolution.
  10. You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.
Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--Andy Schlafly 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:
4. According to evolutionary theory humans, cats and eagles actually have a very close connection: they're all vertebrates, and all vertebrates have the same basic design of eye right down to the same features that evolutionists describe as flaws, such as the inverted retina. On the other hand no NON-vertebrate has the same basic design; cephalopods have a very similar eye in almost every respect, but the retina isn't inverted. Within the naturalistic model, they can explain this very well.
7. Evolutionists would argue that males and females aren't evolving separately, because they're all part of the same population. Changes between generations would be very small, so it's unlikely that incompatibility would emerge with such a small change. Honestly, they LIKE it when people use this as a counter-argument because they're all over it. It would be better to focus on how sexual reproduction evolved in the first place, because they can't answer that. They can explain WHY it would evolve, because it has all sorts of advantages, but not HOW. The question of males and females of a species evolving together, though, is something they see as trivial and often amusing, and anyone reading it here and using it in a debate is likely to emerge feeling quite battered.
9. Game theory has a lot of explanations of how lying can be a benefit. Addiction is an interesting one: it's been argued that addiction to certain things - fat and sugar, mostly - was a survival benefit for early man, because these were scarce high-value foods and people who went to the effort of finding them were more likely to survive. Current obesity epidemics have been blamed on humans retaining a low-level addiction to them now that they're widely available. Addiction to things that are simply harmful is probably more difficult for them to explain though. Anyway I'll revise my position on this one and say that it's not as clear as I initially thought.
10. Dogs are classified as a sub-species of wolf (Canis lupus,) not as a separate species. They're often referred to as Canis familiaris, but the correct names are C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo, with the species remaining C. lupus.
My experience is that of a creationist who grew up in the UK and spent most of my adult life in the British Army, which is a pretty aggressively secular environment. Evolution is much more widely believed and there are very few creationists (I don't know where the BBC got their poll figures from; every other poll puts belief in evolution at about 80% and "don't knows" as half the rest) and evolution is taught in a lot of detail in schools. I've had some fairly bruising experiences when I've used what I thought were good arguments and then promptly been beaten down. As a result I've studied evolutionary theory quite a bit, just to find out what it says; lots of creationists sadly have a pretty shallow knowledge of it, which makes it easy for them to allege straw man tactics on our part. Even Michael Behe fell victim to this at the Dover trial; he's done a lot of excellent work on something that really is irreducibly complex (the flagellum) but when he concluded that the immune system was also irreducibly complex he didn't read deeply enough, and he fell down quite badly; the evolutionists stacked up a huge pile of research showing that it isn't, and this terminally damaged his credibility with the judge. There really ARE fatal flaws in the theory of evolution, but a lot of them aren't quite what we think they are. I'm very wary of putting forward arguments that can be countered, because it may make them question the reliability of the site where they found those arguments - which is us. --JMairs 10:31, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' "explanations" are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.
As to the specific points:
4 - the point is that a very broad and diverse range of species have virtually identical eyes that could only have evolved long after the existence of their supposedly common ancestor. That's simply implausible for the same thing of enormous complexity to evolve independently in very different species.
7 - yes, evolutionists try to answer tough questions by saying that populations, not individuals, evolve, but that does not solve the dilemma. It reminds me of how evolutionists will inject the passage of more time to try to fix the implausibility of some of their arguments, when more time often does not help. Moreover, once evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve did not originate as individuals, but only as some type of population, then the theory directly conflicts with Christianity and is even forbidden by the Catholic Church. So evolutionists typically avoid admitting that their theory denies the existence of Adam and Eve.
9 - again, this is an issue of plausibility. Let evolutionists claim implausibly that addiction is part of survival of the fittest, with addicts surviving, and watch them lose any persuasive effect they had.
10 - I'll check with an expert on dogs and wolves. I think there may be disagreement about their classification. If so, then this could be omitted from the list.--Andy Schlafly 01:37, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
I REALLY have to disagree with you on that one! Most evolutionists don't avoid mentioning that their theory says Adam and Eve didn't exist, and the rest even use it as a joke, such as "Mitochondrial Eve." I'm not sure what the USA is like but in the UK it's quite routine to deny that Adam and Eve existed, even among most christians. --JMairs 12:52, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
The "joke" may be a way of avoiding the issue. Can you link to clear statements by evolutionists that Adam and Eve could not have existed as first humans under the theory of evolution? You might have a hard time finding such statements by leading evolutionists, because it conflicts directly with Christianity.--Andy Schlafly 20:54, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
"Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all." - Richard Dawkins, "The root of all evil?" "There was no Adam. There was no Eve." - PZ Myers, "Pharyngula," 22 Jun 10. The fact is that no published scientific paper is even going to mention them because they're outside the naturalistic framework, but in public statements most evolutionists are quite happy to deny the existence of Adam and Eve and couldn't care less that it contradicts the bible. This even applies to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago and evolutionists claim that modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, so the idea that they were real people and the ancestors of us all is ruled out from the start. --JMairs 21:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--Andy Schlafly 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
I can't find a direct quote from Miller denying the existence of Adam and Eve (although I didn't have much time to search last night) but there MAY be one in his book "Finding Darwin's God." That (as well as many of his public speeches) certainly contains several denials of the literal truth of Genesis and numerous statements of his belief that humans evolved. I'll try to have another look later. --JMairs 01:14, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

This is like boxing against dough. JMairs seems to have put a lot of work in here, along the lines I was planning to do before the Fun Police stamped on me. What's the response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It seems like nobody cares about this article until somebody has the temerity to try to improve it, at which point they'll be immediately blocked and forced to grovel and ritually humiliate themselves just to be allowed the privilege of RESTRICTED editing rights again. You know what? I'm PROUD to be a Conservative! Yes, PROUD! I actually kissed Margaret Thatcher's hand once. But trying to contribute to this site is like slamming my fists pointlessly into a sack full of wet, yeast-impregnated wet flour. It's like kicking sandbags. It's like headbutting a dead walrus. Whatever I do, I step on someone's toes and get blocked for it. Andy Schlafly has responded positively to my ideas, even if we don't agree about everything, but what do the sysadmins do? Block, revert, revert, block. Trying to achieve anything here is like suffocating inside a giant squid. --SamCoulter 23:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Sam, I responded in detail to JMairs' first ten points, and discussed them further. I plan to get to the remaining points once we're through discussing the first ten.
No offence, but you didn't go into very much detail on any of his points and you were pretty dismissive on a couple of them where there is real grounds for debate. Separate evolution of males and females for example. Any evolutionary biologist WILL stamp all over that argument. Their theory doesn't require separate evolution at all, and insisting that it does just makes us slow fat ducks. I KNOW the theory - I studied it for four excrutiating years - and they really do not see an issue with this. --SamCoulter 00:24, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
JMairs, Christianity is based on one Adam and Eve. So I wouldn't be surprised if Miller lacks an express, public denial of their existence, because it's virtually impossible to make sense of the Gospels and the Crucifixion without the original sin by Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids teaching that Adam and Eve somehow did not exist.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Vestigial organs

I'd like to make a small edit to the example on vestigial organs. While it is true that every organ in the human body serves a purpose, the evolutionist meaning of "vestigial" is NOT useless; it merely means no longer used for its original purpose. For example the appendix is part of the immune system in human infants; most evolutionists acknowledge this, but claim that it's still vestigial because in their opinion it used to be a caecum, used for digesting cellulose. Clearly there is no evidence for this, but the inclusion of an incorrect statement (i.e. Vestigial = Useless) in this counterexample leaves it open to attack on the grounds of creating a strawman. Unfortunately the Fun Police have told me that I'm not allowed to edit this article but I hereby ask for permission to make this change. --SamCoulter 18:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Don't bother, this page is so hopelessly divorced from scientific reasoning, it really can't be salvaged. Most the the examples are either completely false or hopelessly divorced from actual evolution theory. The "Fun Police" know that if they actually let people correct the counter-examples, there would be about 3 examples left. Just for example, male nipples are completely vestigial, as are your ear muscles and the plica semilunaris (third eyelid). And even though the appendix is not completely useless, it still fits within the theory of evolution. FCapra 20:21, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
This is my concern. I'm guessing that you're probably an evolutionist. Well I'm not, but I do have a BSc in evolutionary biology from Glasgow University, and I'm not so demented as to think evolution is a liberal plot aimed at turning Christians into homosexual CNN presenters. Most evolutionists are good, honest scientists who sincerely believe that their theory is correct, and within the naturalist worldview they follow they have flawed but coherent arguments. Similarly most atheists aren't maniacs who want to convert children into drug-addicted Satanist male prostitutes. Sure they want to turn people away from Jesus and his offer of salvation, but they think they're doing the right thing. I disagree with evolutionists and atheists (and yes, I know the two aren't equivalent) but I've learned to respect their sincerity. I want Conservapedia to be a resource that will convince them that we DO have a valid worldview. This article should be reduced to about a dozen good, solid examples that Neo-Darwinism really can't explain, and it should present them in depth. 80% of the examples on here now just make us look like window lickers on the Sunshine Bus. --SamCoulter 20:36, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
Vestigial does mean useless supposedly due to evolution. Look it up in a good dictionary. Of course evolutionists try to change the meaning of words to avoid admitting they're wrong. That doesn't change the fact they are wrong.
Nobody claims that most atheists are "maniacs", but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--Andy Schlafly 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
No, "vestigial" does NOT mean useless according to evolutionary theory. Yes, they have an agenda: they have a worldview that they honestly believe is correct, and they want everyone to accept what they see as the truth. To that extent, they are exactly the same as us and they are JUST AS SINCERE as we are. The way to reach them is not by calling them Neo-Stalinist queer-promoting loons who're too stupid to accept Ray Comfort's banana argument; that just provokes them into a violent defence that is winning the argument in my country and, "Question Evolution!" campaign and all, is at least holding its own in yours. We need to engage them on the level of real scientific arguments that they can't answer, of which we have a good supply. --SamCoulter 00:36, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
No, it's not symmetric. Some atheists are opposed to free speech by Christians, and even claim offense at Christian speech as a way to censor it. The converse is virtually never true.--Andy Schlafly 00:40, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Isn't it? I hate to hear blasphemy, but how can we prevent it without censoring the free speech of atheists? There's a Commandment against blasphemy, but can we realistically demand that they follow that Commandment? --SamCoulter 02:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Vanadium and tunicates

While the blood of tunicates MAY contain high levels of vanadium (the only research indicating this dates back to 1911 and nobody has been able to replicate the results since) it does not replace iron as an oxygen carrier; haemovanadin does not appear to carry any oxygen at all, and it is likely (though not confirmed) that tunicate blood also contains haemoglobin and haemocyanin. Therefore this example is at best unsubstantiated and at worst wrong. --SamCoulter 12:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

Waste of time, Sam. You SHOULD be writing hard-hitting articles on atheism and machismo, illustrated with pictures of rabbits. You're good at science: you should get out of here and start editing at Email me at --JMairs 16:52, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

HIV and Evolution

The HIV example is terrible evidence against evolution, as HIV is a relatively new disease in humans and the genetic mutation that provides immunity is rare. Additionally, HIV affects a relatively small proportion of the population. There is no way for universal immunity to HIV to develop in a few generations. This counterexample is extremely weak, and undermines the integrity of the article.FCapra 01:52, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Rate of extinction

"The current 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 less likely."
This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.
Evolutionists say that there was period of history when extinction rate was far higher than speciation (generation of species) rate and other period when it was the opposite. We are just currently in one of those times when extinction rate is higher (mostly because of human activity).
I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--ARamis 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--Andy Schlafly 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --DrDean 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--ARamis 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
It seems that to you, Mr Schlafly, the rates of processes are either fixed for all eternity (e.g. extinction) or are variable (e.g. rate of C-14 decay) depending upon which best supports your pre-formed conclusion. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that extinction rates vary over time (the asteroid and the dinosaurs being perhaps the most blindingly obvious example of a huge spike in the rate of extinction). DavidZa 17:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
There is evidence of the meteor impact too, in the form of a rock layer with an relatively massive amount of iridium, the enormous crater in Mexico, and the fact that there isn't a single true dinosaur fossil found above this rock layer. FCapra 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --DrDean 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Birds are the only exception, although whether they are true dinosaurs is a hotly debated topic of taxonomy.FCapra 20:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Well we're moving off topic slightly, but the point about birds is that if they did evolve from dinosaurs, as is the favoured theory among scientists, then by the time of the asteroid impact they had evolved physiological or behavioural features that enabled most of them to survive. DavidZa 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Trilobites and Evolution

Saying that the lack of arthropods prior to trilobites disproves evolution forces one to make the assumption that all arthropods had chitinous exoskeletons. It is quite possible that early arthropods lacked an exoskeleton, explaining their absence in the fossil record. The development of this exoskeleton led to the explosive success of the trilobite and made it much easier for them to be fossilized compared to earlier, soft bodied arthropods, who were much less abundant. FCapra 13:26, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Isn't the DEFINITION of an arthropod an invertebrate with a segmented body, jointed legs and an exoskeleton? --SamCoulter 13:44, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
Nope, it is just the definition of modern arthropods. It is entirely possible that the ancestor of the trilobite had a much softer exoskeleton, limiting its ecological success. Whether or not it was an arthropod is literally a matter of semantics, not a matter of biology.FCapra 18:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
Proto-arthropods do exist. They're called "lobopods". They are reasonably well-documented in the fossil record and can still be found today if you know how to look (e.g. digging through sponges with dissecting probes). --JHunter 12:47, 21 January 2012 (EST)

Chimpanzees and Gorillas

The article currently states, without a reference, that there is greater genetic similarity between gorillas and humans than between chimpanzees and humans. This is false. (see page 6) DavidZa 15:58, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

You're right; there is NOT greater similarity between humans and gorillas than humans and chimps, and the article isn't intended to say that; the point is that there are SOME SEQUENCES that are more similar, which contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis that we have a mmore recent LCA with chimps than with gorillas. The confusion is my fault and I'll fix it. --SamCoulter 16:05, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
It still doesn't contradict evolution at all. Say we start with 4 genes, A, B, C, D. The gorilla branches off earliest and takes with it A, B but has evolved two new ones, W, X. The chimpanzee branches off from the original line later on, but takes with it A, C, D and evolves Y. Humans on the other hand branch off last taking B, C, D and evolving a new one, Z. Now, humans share only one gene with gorillas but two with chimpanzees. However, it so happens that the one they share with gorillas is not also shared with chimpanzees.
Obviously this is a ridiculously simplistic analogy, but it demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for one species to be more closely related to humans, with a more distantly related species still sharing DNA sequences only with humans. Even if you don't accept the concept of evolution, there is no contradiction with its internal logic. DavidZa 16:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Declining human fertility

While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context "fertility" is a measure of birthrate, and the decline is due to social factors and increased life expectancy. There is an issue of a decline in male sperm count, but this appears to be linked to water pollution and is recent; there was no evidence of a decline before 1960. The most likely culprit is residual DDT breakdown products, which have also been linked to feminisation in freshwater fish. This is not evidence for a young Earth. --SamCoulter 20:24, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

The key point here is that to be valid the counterexample presumes that the rate of the process has been consistent throughout history. However, as with this case, for all counterexamples resting upon this assumption there is no reason to believe that this is true; indeed for some it is perfectly obvious that it is not so. As such, I propose that all counterexamples that are dependent on this assumption be removed. DavidZa 21:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and "old Earth" geology, and CP shouldn't (and doesn't need to) use it. If you're interested I have a couple of articles (peer-reviewed, not from AiG or any Hovindite loons) questioning this assumption; email me if you want them. My address is on my user page. --SamCoulter 21:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
When using the term uniformitarianism it is extremely important to specify the definition being used. The idea of uniform rates of processes is one such specific definition, but one that has long since been rejected by mainstream science, including evolutionists and geologists. Take the theory of punctuated equilibrium for example, which basically argues that evolution occurred via long periods of very gradual change, punctuated by shorter periods of relatively rapid change. DavidZa 21:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --SamCoulter 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Vestigial organs

There is a great deal of debate over whether certain features/organs are vestigial in certain species or whether they still retain a useful function. However, while it may be true that in the past scientists have believed certain features to be vestigial, only for it later to be discovered to have a function still, this does not provide a counterexample to evolution. Evolution merely argues that vestigial features are theoretically possible, not that they must exist for evolution to be true. To point out that incorrect predictions have been made is merely to point out that science progresses by making predictions which are then tested. This is therefore not a counterexample and I therefore believe I was justified in deleting it. DavidZa 21:56, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. FCapra 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
Ear muscles in humans have many important functions, such as providing the ability to close the ears when presented with an argument you don't like. --SamCoulter 22:01, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
This is a very controversial article and the feeling in the CP community is that editors shouldn't delete information from it without adding other information to compensate. If you would just email me I can explain this to you. --SamCoulter 21:59, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. DavidZa 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
If a statement is untrue it should be removed irrespective of how many counterexamples are wanted. Perhaps we could mark any refuted counterexamples with the appropriate explanation? DavidZa 22:02, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps you could. Perhaps somebody would even listen. Are you going to listen to me or not? If you want to keep editing at CP it would be in your interests to do so. I can give you some advice on what provokes the sysops to use their favourite surgical implement, the banhammer. --SamCoulter 22:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)


In response to the undoing of FCapra's edit, I believe FCapra is right. The article is about 'counterexamples'. The example in question merely argues that there is a lack of evidence; a counterexample must be actual evidence that contradicts the proposition, not simply a lack of evidence for it. DavidZa 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Trichinella spiralis

According to Dickson Despommier who made, the referenced website, the immune response is driven up in the animal after the animal is infected and that this is probably to reduce competition and increase the probability that the host will meet its end in a predation situation, thus enabling Trichinella spiralis to be transferred to a new host. DavidZa 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Deletions will be restored

The repeated deletions will be restored unless there are well-supported, fully explained, and justified reasons for the deletions.--Andy Schlafly 23:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

The "teeth in mouth" example: Many if not most adults need to have their wisdom teeth removed. The balding example: Baldness is not necessarily undesirable. Some women--like my wife, find it attractive. Moreover, it often manifests long after a man has reproduced, passed on the trait, and is out of the mating pool. The schizophrenia example: Schizophrenics can reproduce before they demonstrate any symptoms and become undesirable mates, thus allowing the condition to perpetuate even if it is undesirable. BrentH 23:42, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
To shed further light on the removal of the balding example; studies have shown that bald men are perceived as being older and thus more senior, giving them an advantage within social groups. Therefore it is deemed to be somewhat advantageous. The fact that historically humans have had much shorter life-spans also means that most men died before experiencing it, meaning that it never even became a significant factor in terms of evolution, either as an advantage or disadvantage. DavidZa 23:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Lifespan for healthy people has not changed much, and it's absurd to claim that balding is desirable. An implausible argument such as claiming that balding is a desirable trait does not warrant deletion of a counterexample.--Andy Schlafly 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the last 50 years alone! Go back further and the increase is even more remarkable. (Indeed, you should welcome this point, for if we apply your argument about the rate of extinction and assume that this rate of increase is constant, then we soon find that human life expectancy was 0 sometime in the 16th century. A possible addition for 'counterexamples to and old earth' perhaps?)
You are mistaking 'aesthetically desirable' (which is subjective, and obviously different people with have different views), with desirable in terms of evolution. Studies have shown that whether or not people 'like' the appearance of bald men, they nonetheless perceive them to be older and thus more senior than men of the same age with a full head of hair[5]. It has been shown that MPB is equated with seniority within social hierarchies of other primates. Whether you deem it implausible or not, the evidence is there. DavidZa 00:13, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
As an older woman, I don't find bald men any less attractive then men with a full head of hair. My friends would agree with me. I believe we know more about male attractiveness than you, Mr. Schlafly. FCapra 13:20, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Evolution of whales

The theoretical phylogeny of whales is well documented, [6], so the "counterexample" about whales should be removed.

That article hardly justifies deleting the counterexample. The counterexample is being restored.--Andy Schlafly 13:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
If you could explain to me what parts of the counterexample it fails to address, I'd be more than happy to find an alternate article. I dont see what points about whale evolution are not addressed within the article, however. Perhaps you missed one of the charts? FCapra 13:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Based on its abstract, I don't think the article even comes close to addressing the many unique attributes of a whale that defy any evolutionary explanation. If you'd like to explain here what you find so persuasive about the article, then feel free to do so. But the counterexample is not going to be deleted unless and until a much more persuasive showing of an evolutionary path is made.--Andy Schlafly 00:05, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
Based on the title, "Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and Character Evolution", the article does indeed address many of the "unique attributes" of Ceteca. The section titled "Selected Character Optimizations for Cetancodonta", in particular, explains how whales are expected to have evolved within a clade filled with terrestrial herbavores. Whether you accept the research or not, scientists have mapped out and have an explanation for the evolution of whales, and everything they have concluded fits within the theory of evolution.FCapra 19:28, 9 October 2011 (EDT)


I have honestly never heard the following arguments used as counter-examples for evolution and I'm not sure I follow:

Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.

Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying atheistic explanations

How do these prove evolution doesn't exist? GiveMeLiberty 18:51, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

The theory of evolution is based exclusively on materialism. Those observations confound the theory, because there is no materialistic explanation. If materialism does not drive animal behavior, then evolution falls apart.--Andy Schlafly 13:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

Reasons why the Artistic Beauty Argument Fails as a Counterexample

Artistic Beauty is subjective, and any objective means of describing beauty are usually based on patterns such as symmetry or the Fibonacci sequence, which have many evolutionary advantages. Within the framework established by science, beauty has no inherent meaning, it is up to individual organisms to interpret a meaning from the stimuli they are presented with. In addition, organisms that seem impractically beautiful, such as the peacock, evolved that way to attract mates, as the increased mating attractiveness was more useful than any disadvantages brought about by the peacocks impressive plumage. Trees seem beautiful because they often branch in the Fibonacci sequence, as it results in the most efficient absorption of light. The bright colors are a result of secondary pigments which allowed for a wider spectrum of light to be absorbed. In nature, the most beautiful trees are the most successful, so they have an evolutionary advantage over uglier trees with poor light absorption and awful branch layout. FCapra 00:22, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Kidney donor

I'm not arguing whether this should be in the article, but someone needs to re-read one of the quotes included in this section "...mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" - as far as I know, most deceased donors don't need either kidney. Most often, the patient wasn't healthy enough at the time of death to use their organs, or the family refused to allow the procedure.

Also, getting listed for kidney transplantation is rather complex - a lot of dialysis patients don't qualify for a transplant because of health or financial reasons. They can miss out on an available kidney because they have a cold, and die before another one is available. They could have had health insurance when placed on the transplant list, but not have it when the kidney becomes available and can't afford the medication needed afterward, thus losing the kidney.

Most people don't donate kidneys because they're scared - of the surgery, of the cost, or of the chance they will suffer kidney failure themselves. The US population is not well-educated about the subject. For instance, most people don't know that if a donor does suffer from kidney failure later on (and I have actually met several), they are automatically placed at the top of the transplant list. One man I met waited a whole 2 days for his kidney. Another one waited a week.

A patient who isn't on dialysis yet tends to be transplanted ahead of a person who has already reached ESKD and is on dialysis because it is healthier for the patient to receive a transplant before undergoing dialysis. Thus, the sicker patients often have to wait longer, and most of them have additional conditions that worsen their situation. Dialysis is extremely hard on the heart, and the average life expectancy of a 40-45 year old patient is around 6 years.

I really think this section needs rewording, because the situation is a lot more complex than merely misinformation about evolution. --SharonW 19:29, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

You make good points, Sharon, and I did remove the quote (although the quote was accurate, but tended to be confusing). Still, the bottom line for how the "US population is not well-educated about the subject" is simply this: Americans are taught to believe in evolution, and makes them think both kidneys are needed. It's a false belief resulting from a false teaching, and the consequences are tragic for those who need kidney donors.--Andy Schlafly 22:23, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
The evolutionary explanation of having multiple kidneys was that the resource cost of possessing two fully developed, equally functional kidneys was slightly less than the risks of only having one kidney in case of injury or disease. Additionally, all vertebrates posses two kidneys, as all vertebrates posses bilateral symmetry, an ancient animal characteristic that is only broken in extremely rare instances[7], such as in flatfish (which are symmetrical as larva). Indeed, it is almost impossible to violate bilateral symmetry, which is why humans still posses two kidneys. Our ancient animals ancestors needed two kidneys, but now that we don't need both our kidneys anymore, it will take a lot more than a few million years of evolution to get rid of them.
Also, if evolutionary belief is having an impact on kidney donor-ship, the numbers certainly don't show it. In the past 20 years, kidney donations have almost tripled and the ratio of living donations to deceased donations has rapidly diminished [8]. Evolutionary teachings certainly haven't become less common in America, so unless there is concrete evidence that an education in comprehensive, evolutionary biology actually has a negative impact on donations, your statement on donor-ship can't really be justified. FCapra 14:07, 16 November 2011 (EST)
We do actually need both kidneys. With only one kidney, such as after donating one, you become significantly more likely to develop renal diseases such as FSGS. --JHunter 13:39, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

Weak Arguments/Logical Fallacies in this Article

I am a student studying Neuroscience. In the process, I have been through several courses in the undergrad and graduate level studying biology and evolution, and I can tell you that many, if not all, of the arguments on this page are quite fallacious in nature and would not hold up to any sort of scientific scrutiny.

Let's get one thing straight here - I personally do not believe that the Theory of Evolution can explain everything about the development of life, but proving it completely incorrect will be quite a hassle if it is even possible.

I see scientists often characterized on here as being "dogmatic" and "driven by faith" to be atheists and defend evolution over the alternative of creation. I can't imagine how you can be any further from the truth, which is why I want to help you get your own story straight. If you can prove the Theory of Evolution incorrect, you will not be hated; in fact, you will start quite the revolution in thought.

With just a quick glance, here is my opinion on the arguments on this page

"Moreover, even 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 27 counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is only 25%." - Extreme misuse of probability and statistics; very laughable.

"1. The current 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 less likely." - There have been many points throughout the history of the world where extinction spikes have been seen, and it is often unknown why they are caused. Just as there are extinction spikes, there were also spikes in population growth and speciation. Google "Cambrain Explosion" for an example.

"2. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation." - This is very well addressed by another user on this talk page. In addition to that explanation, remember that what we perceive as "good" was evolved in response to the environment. If a fruit is bright and colorful, chances are that it is not poisonous. Likewise, If a food is sugary or fatty, it will taste appealing to us; as these were the most energy-rich foods and the ones that were most beneficial for us to eat when we came by them back when we were hunter-gatherers. Just to give a couple examples.

"3. Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[2] Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.[3]" - First of all, the theory of evolution cannot explain something that it is not established to explain. This is like saying that since one is weightless out in space, that the Law of Gravity cannot be true. Secondly, what this point fails to take into account is that: (1) Apes have one more pair of chromosomes than humans do, and therefore more genetic room for genetic diversity. The reason: The 2nd chromosome of our species is actually two chromosomes fused together, which existed separately in our ancestors. (2) Humans did originate from a small population in Africa, but this is neither a subject of debate nor a pressing question to anthropologists, as the reasons for our smaller genetic variance than apes are well-known.

"4. The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation[5]" - Once again, this is not a phenomena that the Theory of Evolution was established to explain and the fact that it can not explain this on its own does not make this a counterexample. There are many hypotheses about migratory patterns as well as ongoing studies in this area.

"5. Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome.[...]having a functional protein are too great." -This argument, once again, has nothing to do with the process of evolution, but is instead making the claim that life is too improbable to have occurred without a creator. While this argument is a great philosophical argument for believing in God, it is not scientific. From a scientific perspective, life has occurred, despite how improbable, and it is the mission of scientists to discover the natural processes through which complex life came about. Maybe these processes were put in place and performed by God. Maybe they were not. This is not a question that science seeks to answer, however.

Clearly Invalid Counterexamples

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.

No, this is a teleological argument that assumes that humans are evolving towards some higher goal or purpose, which evolution never concludes. Teleology is rejected by most Biologists and Anthropologists, because it does not reflect evolution. Murdering psychopaths are just as capable of reproducing as other human, and liars can be even better at reproducing than others. Please explain how evolution could possibly select against personality types which are still perfectly capable of reproduction and don't have a solid, well defined genetic link.
The theory of evolution predicts that natural selection will remove maladaptive, hereditary traits from the gene pool. History shows that social behavior is most adaptive while anti-social behavior would result in isolation from the general population, thereby lowering that person's chances of reproduction significantly. Over the "millions of years" that evolution has had to remove these anti-social characteristics, there should be none left by now because social individuals would have had more children, thereby dominating the gene pool and driving the anti-social people to extinction. A look at America's prison population will show that this is not the case.
Populations have a certain carrying capacity for those who cheat the system, such as sociopaths. When there are very few sociopaths, sociopaths will thrive and be very successful. When there are a lot of sociopaths, they will be less successful and population levels will fall. Thus, society will maintain a constant level of psychopathy, as the benefits of psychopathy outweigh the cons of psychoopathy as fewer sociopaths exist in a population. Also, America's prison population is a factor of population growth too, violent crimes are at their lowest level since the mid-twentieth century.

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.

In the past, humans had no idea evolution and speciation was possible, so we never would have tracked animals over thousands upon thousands of year, especially because civilizations tend to not last very long. Evolution takes a long time, and is very gradual. Thus, because history can only record so much, tiny changes in population phenotype were largely ignored by ancient humans. This does not disprove evolution, since evolution could still have been happening. Nobody cared enough to observe it over thousands of years.
Historical records of ancient animals have survived and we find that they are the same animals as today. For example, the ancient Egyptians venerated the domestic cat thousands of years ago. The descendants of those same cats exist today, entirely unchanged. Perhaps if ancient Egyptians had venerated a half-reptile, half-cat creature we could say that evolution is possible, but this is definitely not the case.
Actually, cat domestication is well recorded, and resulted in significant genetic alteration from the wild type. since then, cats have diversified into a variety of breeds. Ancient historical records for animals are very few and far between, written before the existence of modern biology (cell theory, formal anatomy, ecology, ect), and domestic animals are a horrible example, as artificial selection can cause rapid genetic change, followed by genetic stagnation. I would love to see an ancient society that kept detailed records of the mating patterns of wild animals for thousands of years.

Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human genome. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.

The segment of DNA that normally allows mammals to produce vitamin C is completely vestigial in non-lemur primates. We just didn't need it due to the large amount of fruit in our diet. I believe this qualifies as "junk DNA".
Jonathan Wells authored a book called "The Myth of Junk DNA" that covers this topic nicely. Basically, any DNA that secular scientists don't know the function of is labelled "junk" until it's purpose is discovered. You can't say that the DNA you mentioned is junk because it may have a function you don't know about. It's the epitome of arogance to assume that something is junk because you don't know it's purpose.
The problem is that when science is proven wrong, they update the theory. When they find the purpose of a sequence of DNA, which they are always looking for, they change it so that it is no longer "Junk DNA". Even if all "Junk DNA" has purpose, you haven't dis proven evolution. Creationist claims are not scientific because there is no way to prove them wrong, much like there is no way to prove unicorns don't exist. Its not that they couldn't, its just that science doesn't care. Useful "Junk DNA" is still possible under evolutionary theory. FRodgers 13:01, 1 December 2011 (EST)

--Scochran4 22:42, 29 November 2011 (EST)

"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." They did. More specifically, they evolved with an entire population of females to mate with and other males to compete with. Evolution occurs at the level of the population, not the individual. FCapra 22:52, 19 November 2011 (EST)

wisdom teeth

Why do so many of us need to have them removed if we have the "perfect" number of teeth? ScottDG 22:08, 27 November 2011 (EST)

For aesthetic purposes, and perhaps many of the removals are unnecessary. The wisdom teeth are not needed to consume modern food, but have the potential to increase pressure on the front teeth, which can make them look crooked on television.--Andy Schlafly 22:14, 27 November 2011 (EST)
Well said. We should keep in mind, when dealing with issues of medicine (in this case dental work), that the human body was designed for the Garden of Eden, and the diet and lifestyle associated with it. After the fall, mutations built up in the genetic code leading to many modern ailments. --Scochran4 20:47, 28 November 2011 (EST)

Autumn foliage

This is caused by the chlorophyll (which makes the leaves green) fading away, and other pigments becoming more prominent and displaying the reds, oranges, and yellows. The purpose is not beauty; it is simply a natural consequence of the chlorophyll fading away as the air gets cooler. More detail can be found here. Maybe this example should be removed. CWest 09:14, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Birds from Dinosaurs?....Not!

I had added the following entry as a counter example to Evolution. It was removed at some stage. I wonder what was the reason. I thought it was a good point.

  1. Evolutionary scientists claim that birds are evolved from dinosaurs.Longisquama insignis is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the dinosaurs.

--Maria O'Connor 14:54, 27 September 2012 (EDT)

Can I please add it again as there is no objection?

--Maria O'Connor 09:29, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Blind beetles

How do I add this?


The probabilities in the intro make no sense. They should be removed. (unsigned edit by User:YoGabbaGabba)

You have a negative attitude. VargasMilan (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2015 (EST)


"Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages."

Ancestral languages were only spoken and not written, so it is very hard to reconstruct them. Writing was invented much later. However is there any proof that linguists accept that there was no common ancestral language?--JoeyJ (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics

The second law is a statistical law and says that entropy tends to increase, not that it always increases, so already this particular argument against evolution is flawed. Furthermore, it only applies to a closed system, the earth is not a closed system as the sun pours energy onto the earth. Also some systems can become more ordered, but you have to do work. For example, if you cool a glass of water in a refrigerator, it's entropy decreases.

This isn't to say evolution is true, rather that this argument is not. Richardm (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2016 (EDT)

This argument is quite correct. Entropy means "lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder."[9] The 2nd Law states that everything goes from order to disorder, from complex to simple; you cannot avoid it. And if the earth is not a closed system, as you and too many others harp on, then why is the 2nd Law so observable everywhere you go? Does an apple get better or worse if you slice one open and leave it on the counter for a month? Karajou (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
To answer your question, a I would expect the apple to get worse and rot. However I feel reading my earlier comment, I was not very clear. Let's talk about closed systems since you mention it, and let's simplify matters by neglecting the statistical nature, so that we can assume entropy never decreases.

My point is that the second law only applies to closed systems and can easily be disproven if one tries to apply it to an open system.

For example, suppose you make a cup of coffee, and leave it on the table. Let's says the coffee is at 60°C and the room at 20°C. You will agree that the coffee is an open system, it can exchange heat with its surroundings. So let's take the coffee (but not the cup to make it easier later on) as our system. What happens?

Well over time the coffee will cool down, i.e. its temperature will decrease and there will be a flow of heat out of the cup of coffee and into the room.

So what has happened to the entropy of the cup of coffee? Given that the entropy change , is given by:

Where is heat, is the temperature and 1 and 2 represent the initial and final states. Since we can express the heat lost as

Where mass of coffee and is its specific heat capacity. We can substitute this in and so

Where and are the initial and final temperatures respectively. Hence we can see that the entropy of the coffee must decrease.

So I hope you can see my point that the second law simply isn't valid for an open system. I'm not saying that in an open system, entropy can't increase.

Also, disorder is a good starting point when thinking about entropy, but it is not a perfect description of entropy, so some you have to careful when thinking about it in that way. Though I believe your example to be correct. Richardm (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

But you said above "Furthermore, it only applies to a closed system, the earth is not a closed system as the sun pours energy onto the earth." You're saying that the earth is an open system, that the 2nd Law isn't valid for an open system. If that's the case, then how do you get that coffee to cool down like you described?
The 2nd Law is happening to this open system on earth; we see it every day. Karajou (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
You are right in that I'm saying the earth is an open system and the second law is not valid for an open system.
The second law talks about entropy. I'm not sure how you are relating it to how the coffee cools down.
I feel I might be repeating myself, but I'll try to rephrase my point. I feel we are each missing subtleties of each others arguments.
My point with the coffee example is the if we try apply the law to open systems, we find it easy to come up with a scenario where it does not hold. It is not valid in the same way as neglecting quantum effects when looking at particle physics.
Please could you expand on what your problem with the coffee is. Thank you Richardm (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
The overall point about the 2nd Law was proven, in part, by the coffee, which is a cooling down once the heat is turned off. But since we're dealing with coffee, there is an additional factor that also follows this law to the letter. When left to itself, coffee will start to taste bad after a few hours...and you probably had a bad cup of coffee at some point. I never did; I can't stand the stuff! Karajou (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2016 (EDT)

Let me simplify my example. The coffee tasting bad has nothing to do with entropy.

OK, lets replace the coffee with pure water and add a lid to the cup so that nothing can get in or out. Let's make our container completely unreactive so that it cannot affect the water, but let it still be partially conductive. Hence nothing can happen to our water, except its temperature changing. (Assume normal pressures so there aren't phase changes. even if there were, it would be vapour condensing which would be a decrease of entropy anyway)

My example still holds, I think. The entropy of the water decreases and the water is an open system.

Also, the equation for the change in entropy above is a precise mathematical equation that defines the change of entropy. There is no other contribution from the coffee/water.

In fact, we could replace this with a lump of some material (a sphere with a radius of 10 cm for example) in space. We heat the material up and surround it in a perfectly insulating sphere of material to shield it from us, let's say this sphere is 1 light-year in radius (so that in the time frame of our experiment, the lump of material and insulation cannot interact). If we watch the sphere for 10 minutes, it cools down via radiation and so its entropy decreases. Richardm (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2016 (EDT)

I don't you have had time to read my comment, so I will wait, but if you have do you want to amend the page or shall I? (This of assumes you have not come up with a counter-argument. Richardm (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2016 (EDT)
A "counter-argument" does not constitute proof. Need proof here before the page gets changed. Karajou (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

Ok, I thought I had proved that the second law does not apply to an open system, which forms the basis of the counterexample to evolution in the article. If you can tell me what the mistake is in my example above, we can proceed further. Richardm (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

As you said, the 2nd Law does not apply to an open system; for such a statement to be correct, then the 2nd Law cannot function at all anywhere there is an open system. If the earth is an open system as you said above, then the 2nd Law should not exist; you would never, ever, see entropy of any kind. Unfortunately, such a belief flies in the face of direct observation, which happens to be the first step of the Scientific Method.
That is the point of the argument you are missing when it comes to evolution. This open/closed system argument was made when it was discovered that entropy exists in life; we are born, we age, we wither away, we die, and our bodies turn back into dust. That is entropy. The heart of evolution states that as species evolve they get better and better, and that is the opposite of what is actually observed. So, for this strikeout to happen on the article page, I require absolute proof that the 2nd Law cannot function anywhere for any reason in an open system. Karajou (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

I have a problem with this part of your argument:

"As you said, the 2nd Law does not apply to an open system; for such a statement to be correct, then the 2nd Law cannot function at all anywhere there is an open system. If the earth is an open system as you said above, then the 2nd Law should not exist; you would never, ever, see entropy of any kind."

I assume where you say "see entropy of" is just a typo and you mean "see entropy increase of". My understanding of your reasoning is as follows:

let us assume the second law (entropy of a system does not decrease) does not apply to an open system.


second law (entropy of a system does not decrease) is false for an open system.


entropy of an open system must not (not decrease) = entropy of an open system must not increase

The implies statement is incorrect. A law not applying to a system is not the same as the law being false for that system. If a law does not apply, we cannot say anything.

The second law says "the entropy in a closed system does not decrease". It does not specify what happens in an open system. For example, suppose that if I don't win the lottery tomorrow, I shall buy some milk. It would be wrong to conclude that if I do win, I will not buy any milk. Hence it is wrong to conclude that entropy cannot increase in an open system.

I am not denying that entropy can increase in an open system, just that it can easily decrease. My example above shows an open system in which I have shown using mathematics that entropy decreases, hence we cannot gerenalise the second law to include open systems as well. Why does that not constitute a proof? Richardm (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

Here is my proof that the second law does not apply to open systems. If we say it does, then we are saying "entropy never decreases in an open system"

Let be the proposition that "entropy never decreases in an open system"

must be true for all open systems for the second law to apply to open systems

My example above shows mathematically an open system in which entropy decreases

Hence it does not apply to all open systems.

Hence the second law does not apply to open systems.

If you have a problem with my proof, then please point it out. Otherwise I shall amend the page in a few days. If you are busy, then I would appreciate it if you say, so that we settle it on the talk page and don't keep changing the article page back and forth. Richardm (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2016 (EDT)

Is this a true statement:
Where is an elephant, is the act of the elephant hanging off (a cliff) while gripping (a dandelion) with (its trunk). Math can "prove" just about anything; if you want to balance a battleship on the spout of a tea kettle, math will "prove" to the world it can be done. But actually seeing it is something else. The battleship's anchor alone would crush that tea kettle, and the elephant will fall to the bottom of the cliff, taking the dandelion with it. Your math is not matching up with what everyone is actually seeing on a daily basis. You are not correct. Karajou (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

I have no idea what your equation means. Maths works by making some assumptions and proceed from there. For example, you never specified the gravitational field strength. On an asteroid, you could probably balance a typical anchor on a typical kettle with no problems.

Maths is based on logic. Maths won't allow you to 'prove' anything you want unless you make a logical contradiction. For example, you cannot 'prove' that 7 is a solution to the equation , interpreting that equation in standard notation.

A mathematical proof works either from a set of axioms (e.g. Euclid's axioms for space) or already something already derived from axioms and proceeding from there in a series of logical steps to derive something new or show something is true or false for example.

I am arguing that the second law does not apply to open systems. This:

is a mathematical definition of the change in entropy in classical thermodynamics. I have started from here and calculated the entropy change for the system above. Since it is an open system and I have found the change to be negative, it follows that the statement "entropy cannot decrease in an open system" is false for that system.

I am not denying that entropy can increase in an open system. If you look at my maths, you can see that if we heated the coffee instead of allowing to to cool its entropy would increase.

If you disagree with my maths, please point out the step where I have made an error. Richardm (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

You did make an error, and I'm going to repeat what I have said, because I don't think you understand the situation.
1. You stated above "I am arguing that the second law does not apply to open systems." You claimed above that the earth is an open system. The earth gets its energy from one source: the sun. Turn the earth away from the sun, and what happens? It's called entropy, something you are denying is happening in an open system.
2. It's a proven fact that heat always goes from warm to cold, and not the other way around; to do the opposite, to get cold to flow to warm, requires an energy source, i.e. the sun reheating that side of the earth when night turns to day. Entropy will never ever decrease unless that energy source happens. The same thing happens in a refrigerator; you can use the heat generated by the machinery inside it to send that cold air throughout it, but you gotta plug the thing into a wall socket to give it some power first!
You have to stick with the facts. Karajou (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

Note that entropy is a quantity like distance not a process.

I am going to go through your points in a table, stating which points I agree/disagree with and why.

First Point:

Sentence Agree/Disagree Explanation
You stated above "I am arguing that the second law does not apply to open systems." Agree
You claimed above that the earth is an open system Agree
The earth gets its energy from one source: the sun Agree
Turn the earth away from the sun, and what happens? It's called entropy, something you are denying is happening in an open system. Disagree At the bottom of my comment from earlier I say "I am not denying that entropy can increase in an open system. If you look at my maths, you can see that if we heated the coffee instead of allowing to to cool its entropy would increase."

Second Point:

Sentence Agree/Disagree Explanation
It's a proven fact that heat always goes from warm to cold, and not the other way around; to do the opposite, to get cold to flow to warm, requires an energy source, i.e. the sun reheating that side of the earth when night turns to day. Agree
Entropy will never ever decrease unless that energy source happens. Disagree My example shows an object radiating heat and its temperature and entropy decreasing. Heat flows out of the object and the surroundings do no work on the object so there is no "energy source" as you have described.
The same thing happens in a refrigerator; you can use the heat generated by the machinery inside it to send that cold air throughout it, but you gotta plug the thing into a wall socket to give it some power first! Agree What you are saying actually agrees with me. Consider putting a glass of water (this is our open system) into the fridge. It cools down and its entropy decreases. Same as my example above.

What you just said above is 1. the sun is not an energy source; and 2. your glass of "open system" water in the fridge cooling down and not increasing its entropy. The fridge needs power to do that.

But my other question is this: why do you feel a need to question the 2nd law of thermodynamics on a page which the subject is "counterexamples to evolution"? Karajou (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

I wish to remove it because the physics is incorrect. That all.

The sun is outside our system (earth), and releases energy, so I'm not sure why you think it is not an energy source.

The water by itself is an open system since it can exchange energy with its surroundings, I'm not sure why you have put it in quotes.

It's entropy decreases and I think you are agreeing with me. Richardm (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

At this time the debate is over with; you are clearly twisting what I'm saying. It's done. Karajou (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2016 (EDT)

I did not intentionally try to twist your words and apologise if I have. I don't understand your previous comment where you say:

"What you just said above is 1. the sun is not an energy source; and 2. your glass of "open system" water in the fridge cooling down and not increasing its entropy. The fridge needs power to do that."

Richardm (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2016 (EDT)

A clearer example I hope

The conservapedia article refers to what I would call a "closed system" as an "isolated system", that is one that exchanges niether matter nor energy with its surroundings. I shall use this terminology from now on.

I shall rephrase my argument using another example, perhaps this will be clearer. Suppose we have two systems 1 and 2 which are in thermal contact and thermally isolated with their surroundings. Together they form another system. Each of these systems are open as they can exchange energy with the other, but the combined system is isolated. The two systems look like this:

| System 1 | System 2 |

The two systems both have the same mass, and the same specific heat capacity, . System 1 has an initial temperature and system 2 has an initial temperature . We shall say that system 1 has a greater temperature than system 2 so that .

We now leave the systems for a while and eventually they reach thermal equilibrium and so have the same temperature .

Considering that the heat transfer into or out of a system, , can be related to the temperature difference, , as we can relate the two temperatures as:

since system 1 loses energy and system two gain . Rearranging, we find it no surprise that the final temperature is the average of the two initial temperatures:

I am arguing that the entropy of an open system can decrease. I am not saying that it cannot increase. So let's consider the entropy of each system, and respectively, and of the combined system (the overall change in entropy), . The entropy so we find each entropy first individually. Let us consider system 1 first. The entropy change is:

We can use the equation for specific heat capacity to derive a substitution to produce an integral that we can evaluate. This substitution is , where is the infinitesimal flow of heat, is the mass, is the specific heat capacity and is the infinitesimal change in temperature. Hence:

with an upper limit of as this is the final temperature and a lower limit of as this is the initial temperature. Similarly, the change of entropy of system 2, , can be expressed as:

Performing the integration one finds:

Since , it is clear that and (remember that for any real numbers )

Hence we have two open systems, the entropy of one (system 1) has decreased and the other (system 2) has increased. Hence you can see that I am not denying that the entropy of an open system can increase as system 2 does exactly that.

What about the combined system?

Substituting in for as above we find:

Expressing as for some real constant , we see:

This can be seen here [10]. Since temperatures are always greater than 0 :

Hence the overall change in entropy is greater than zero.

So we can conclude that the second law is not valid for an open system (i.e. we cannot say "for any open system its entropy cannot decrease") as in the example there is a system that entropy decreases. However for the overall, isolated system we see the second law holds true in this case.

Since entropy of an open system can decrease, this argument in the article using the second law is invalid and should be removed.

I shall change the page if I receive no response in the next day or two. Richardm (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

Note to AlecT

I was about to obliterate your recent edit, though I see that Cons has done so more thoroughly than I can. And I was about to chastise you for using the crude language that you used—a crude sexual word and a word that wrongly disparages people with mental handicaps. And I was going to do it right here, rather than on your talk page, in the expectation that that talk page would soon be deleted.

I believe that the discussions of thermodynamics, evolution, cosmology, relativity, and similar topics, are being adequately handled by the competent people that we have here at Conservapedia. Notably myself, Richardm, AugustO, and a few others. None of those people are potty-mouths. We can always use more people to help with producing high-quality expositions of these topics. For all I know, you might have been a good candidate for such, if you weren't such a jerk. It's too bad. SamHB (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2016 (EDT)

Would people please stop trashing this page?

It's very distracting. SamHB (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (EDT)

Some observations by User:Conservative

On a personal page at Conservapedia, I posted a recent Scientific American article entitled Creationism invades Europe. It's arriving on the backs of evangelical Christian and Muslim immigrants to Europe and as a consequence of evangelicals/Muslims having more children.

With immigrants flooding into London and British native white flight out of London, I suspect increasing challenges to the evolutionary indoctrination of children in London. In 5-15 years British evolutionists could face stiff opposition to evolutionism in London. In 2011, about 44% of Londoners were white British. [11]

Since Britain is the birthplace of Darwinism and Europe is a stronghold of evolutionism that is being chipped away at, this does not bode well for evolutionism.

Evolutionism being under siege may partly explain the anger of this particular evolutionist.

The evolutionary paradigm is being propped up by politics. Namely, at the present time, there are more European voters wanting public schools to teach evolution than there are opposing this matter. But the demographics of various European areas/cities is changing rapidly and causing an increase in creationism. And the 21st century demographic changes happening to Europe as a whole is favorable to the creationists as well. Conservative (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

The Scientific American article to which you refer is presumably Though I don't know why you would be promoting an article with a subtitle "An antiscience movement once limited mostly to the U.S. is gaining ground on the eastern side of the Atlantic". I assume you support science. Also, I couldn't find any reference to that article on anyone's personal page at CP, or any page at all. In any case, it's posted now.
And I don't know who "this particular evolutionist" is. It couldn't be AlecT; all we know about him is that he is a potty-mouth who uses crude language, like the "f" word. SamHB (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2016 (EDT)
SamHB, I mentioned the article not because I wholly agree with it, but because it does make some valid points.
You don't have to agree with everything someone says or some book/article says before you cite them. That would be illogical. In courts of law, attorneys commonly call opposing witnesses and get them to make admissions favoring their client.
Evolutionists are in the best position to give statistics about creationism growing in Europe. They are worried about this and are in the midst of studying it via pro-evolution academics. If you want to read about creationism in Europe, here is a synopsis: Creationism in Europe: Facts, Gaps, and Prospects.
But my guess is that the prospects of creationism is understated by academics as they have not taken into account sound scholarship about desecularization such as the research done by Eric Kaufmann. In addition, they are not privy to the plans of the leading creationist organizations and moderately successful creationist organizations nor have they taken the time to interview their leaders. Conservative (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2016 (EDT)

A few weak arguments to address

Hey, I found a few arguments that I believe are too weak to combat against the liberal propaganda. The first was the argument from beauty. Clearly, evolution talks more about practicality and function rather than what is appealing to the eye. As the old saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and I believe that Schally would agree with that. The next one is #12 in Logical examples. By definition, evolution is merely about changes to an organism, and not whether it benefits an organism. Yes, "survival of the fittest" applies, but many animals "evolved", and many practice infanticide. One more issue is #4 in Uncategorized. The left-wing scientists can disprove your argument by saying Africans and whites were "reproductively isolated" and yet interracial marriages produce viable children. And by definition, a species is when 2 organisms can produce young that can also produce young, so mules are off the cards.

I am a creationist and I am tired how the liberal bastards are ruining the truth, but I want you to use airtight arguments or else liberals can freely resort to the "you're so stupid" card.

Possible new counterexample about viruses

I was just reading counterexample 14 in the logical counterexamples section, where it says "The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria". I then thought if that were true, how could viruses have evolved. After a quick look on the internet, I found this, which ends saying viruses are consistent with creationism, not evolution. I don't really understand the article, so was wondering what other people think and whether it should be added as a counterexample. FredericBernard (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2017 (EDT)

I don't really understand it either. I think what it's saying is that there is good evidence that God created viruses, but for a different, positive purpose (and became what they are as a result of sin), rather than gradually forming through evolution. I encourage you to add this evidence. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
I recommend against it. I don't think the notion that all life started with bacteria is accepted by the scientific community. Biogenesis is, to say the least, not a well-understood topic. In any case, the cited article makes religious arguments, stating, for example, that viruses only started being destructive because of mankind's sin. Considering that viruses and other primitive life forms long predate mankind, this doesn't seem to be a well-founded assertion. SamHB (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
First, I don't think the article stated that evolutionists believe all life came from bacteria, unless I didn't read properly. Also, your arguments against adding this article are based on your presupposition that evolution and long ages are true ("Considering that viruses and other primitive life forms long predate mankind..."). This article is showing that the evolutionary view that retroviruses came from DNA mutations does not hold up. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
OK. First, I'm not an expert in any of this, from either a scientific or creationist standpoint. So I'll bow out of the discussion. My "all life started with bacteria" comment was not about the cited ICR article, but about the comment at the start of this section, which presumably was from the CP article. It just struck me as odd that viruses were considered by creationists to have predated humans, but then retroactively changed their behavior as a result of human activity. But it's not for me to say. SamHB (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
OK, how about adding this:
"Retroviruses" are a type of virus. An article in Science claims that a retrovirus can be formed by two "protoviruses" in a process called "recombination". In regards to evolution, both humans and chimpanzees have retrovirus-like DNA and this is claimed to be evidence for evolution. But this ignores the fact that evolutionary theory says that chimpanzees and humans diverged of 6 million years ago, in which case these retrovirus sequences should have mutated to the point where they would be completely different. Furthermore, it assumes viruses existed before animals where as the Science article says animals existed first to produce the retrovirus.
I'm not sure what the best section to put it in would be and I can't add it as the page is currently protected. FredericBernard (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2017 (EDT)

Altruistic behaviour in animals and humans

This article could mention altruistic behaviour and how - as noted by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene - according to the theory of evolution, it should not have evolved.

Popper's philosophy

This article could mention that the philosopher Karl R. Popper said that in order for a theory to be proved scientific, it must be capable of being proved wrong, and that this is not possible with the theory of evolution. Ergo, the theory of evolution must be a pseudo-science. Carltonio (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2020 (EST)