Difference between revisions of "Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Rate of extinction: Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.)
 
(157 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
 
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
 
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]
 
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|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. --[[User:Samsonnn|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.  --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
 
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.  --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
Line 6: Line 10:
 
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently.  Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 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. --[[User:FergusE|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. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 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. [[User:NickP|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)--[[User:Samsonnn|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.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)
 +
::Please define "Dog", you definition is far to vague for any scientific purpose.[[User:FCapra|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.  [[User:Karajou|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.[[User:FCapra|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?  [[User:Karajou|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. [[User:FCapra|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.  [[User:Karajou|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.[[User:FCapra|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.  [[User:Karajou|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.[http://web.archive.org/web/20071005105327/http://www.wolfpark.org/training/index.html] [[User:FCapra|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[http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/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.  [[User:Karajou|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. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:23, 14 November 2011 (EST)
  
 
=== PZ Meyers Photo ===
 
=== PZ Meyers Photo ===
Line 36: Line 58:
 
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|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. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 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. [[User:MaxFletcher|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[http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/crooked-teeth-blame-early-farmer.html#.Tsq5ffhCjyQ.reddit]. [[User:FCapra|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. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::::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. --[[User:JMairs|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.
 
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
Line 379: Line 402:
  
 
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. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)
 
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. --[[User:SamCoulter|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 http://astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page. Email me at john_mairs@hotmail.com. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 16:52, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
  
 
== HIV and Evolution ==
 
== HIV and Evolution ==
Line 391: Line 416:
  
 
: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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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? --[[User:DrDean|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.--[[User:ARamis|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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Carbon_dating#Changing_decay_rates (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). [[User:DavidZa|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. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|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.[[User:FCapra|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. [[User:DavidZa|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. [[User:FCapra|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? --[[User:SamCoulter|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.[[User:FCapra|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). --[[User:JHunter|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. [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/resources/student_papers/silver.pdf (see page 6)] [[User:DavidZa|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. --[[User:SamCoulter|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. [[User:DavidZa|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. --[[User:SamCoulter|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. [[User:DavidZa|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. --[[User:SamCoulter|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. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|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. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:56, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
:Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|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. --[[User:SamCoulter|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. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:59, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|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? [[User:DavidZa|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. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Fossils ==
 +
 +
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. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Trichinella spiralis ==
 +
 +
According to Dickson Despommier who made Trichinella.org, 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.  [[User:DavidZa|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:BrentH|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. [[User:DavidZa|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en 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[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595001301]. 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. [[User:DavidZa|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. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:20, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Evolution of whales ==
 +
 +
The theoretical phylogeny of whales is well documented, [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007062], so the "counterexample" about whales should be removed.
 +
 +
: That article hardly justifies deleting the counterexample.  The counterexample is being restored.--[[User:Aschlafly|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? [[User:FCapra|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:28, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Wait...what? ==
 +
 +
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? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:FCapra|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. --[[User:SharonW|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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[http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/palmer/asym/axes/symmetry.htm], 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 [http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/latestData/rptData.asp]. 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. [[User:FCapra|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. --[[User:JHunter|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. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 13:01, 1 December 2011 (EST)
 +
 +
--[[User:Scochran4|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