539
edits
Changes
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 17:19, August 25, 2011
, 17:19, August 25, 2011→The Devil's Advocate
4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.
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. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.
5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.
3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.
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. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
4. The flagellum is a solid example.
4. The flagellum is a solid example.