Automoderated users, edit
3,552
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 630:
Line 630: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 15:51, October 9, 2009
, 15:51, October 9, 2009→Several points
::::As before, perhaps there is someone else who can discuss these issues on a more substantive level. Just to be clear what I mean by that, let me give the example I give to my students. A substantive discussion involves more than mere rhetoric; it involves the presentation of facts and evidence (supported by reliable sources) and the discussion of the logical consequences of those facts and that evidence. Anything else is not terribly useful, at least in science. [[User:JasonS|JasonS]] 10:47, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
::::As before, perhaps there is someone else who can discuss these issues on a more substantive level. Just to be clear what I mean by that, let me give the example I give to my students. A substantive discussion involves more than mere rhetoric; it involves the presentation of facts and evidence (supported by reliable sources) and the discussion of the logical consequences of those facts and that evidence. Anything else is not terribly useful, at least in science. [[User:JasonS|JasonS]] 10:47, 9 October 2009 (EDT)
If you are HONESTLY open minded about this, then it won't be a waste of time to answer your questions.
* Immune system: Even though various animals have different immune systems with different methods, the HUMAN immune system is irreducibly complex because it requires both identifying and mounting specific responses. If T cell receptors did not exist, then an adaptive response would be impossible, but an adaptive response is necessary for T cell receptors to have any use at all.
* Fossils: [http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm][http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/fossil_record.htm] or our own [[Evolution]] article.
* Ploidy: The point of the statement is that these multiple chromosomes are detrimental and unlikely, so that one species cannot evolve additional chromosomes.
* Bats and sonar: First, swimming is basically flying in water. The point is that animals which can walk (like the supposed ancestor of the bat) wouldn't use sonar. Second: I looked at your source, and it said that when not using sonar, "In the wild they could rely on spatial memory in familiar surroundings, and they could also use vision in moonlight that would aid them in locating obstacles." Well, there you go. If ever they don't use sonar, it's because they've used it so often in a spot that they remember it well. Even though I can walk around in my apartment at 2 AM without turning on the lights, I would still be right in saying that in general, I need lights to get around.
* Prostate: You would need to dispute this for EVERY prostate-having species to have any validity to this. Additionally, men are capable of having children into very old age.
* Bad design: Actually, evolution is repeatedly claimed to be responsible for tons of things that don't have reproductive value. Evolutionists claim, for example, that people live to such long age to help raise grandchildren.
* Teeth: Really? Because people had teeth for thousands of years before that surgery was developed and they all fit into our mouths.
I hope this can answer your questions and put an end to this silly debate. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 11:51, 9 October 2009 (EDT)