Difference between revisions of "Counterexamples to Evolution"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
RodWeathers (talk | contribs) (Removed the statistical approach, because it's absurd. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true. Evolution did not occur. Period) |
RodWeathers (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The [[theory of evolution]] cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved. | + | The [[theory of evolution]] cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved. |
The following are some counterexamples to evolution. If just one cannot be explained by evolution, then logically the theory of evolution as it is must be inadequate. | The following are some counterexamples to evolution. If just one cannot be explained by evolution, then logically the theory of evolution as it is must be inadequate. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. If man were evolved from lower life forms, we would expect at least some other animals to display these traits. Since they do not, it's clear that man is not simply an animal. | * Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. If man were evolved from lower life forms, we would expect at least some other animals to display these traits. Since they do not, it's clear that man is not simply an animal. | ||
* No clear transition form unicellular to multicellular organisms - a single cell in a multicellular organism has no ability to survive on it own as it has only a single function, but if a unicellular organism loses one function it will die. | * No clear transition form unicellular to multicellular organisms - a single cell in a multicellular organism has no ability to survive on it own as it has only a single function, but if a unicellular organism loses one function it will die. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Logical Conclusion == | ||
| + | As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded. | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 22:39, October 26, 2008
The theory of evolution cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved.
The following are some counterexamples to evolution. If just one cannot be explained by evolution, then logically the theory of evolution as it is must be inadequate.
- Autumn foliage, whose beauty lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
- the whale and other relatives, which have no plausible ancestors in the fossil record[1] (Charles Darwin suggested black bears)
- the mammalian eye, which lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution[2]
- bloodclotting, which also lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution[3]
- the immune system is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection[4][5]
- Jellyfish in Hawaii swarm to the beaches precisely 9 to 10 days after each full moon, for no apparent evolutionary reason[6]
- the fact that cicadas appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others[7]
- the migrations of of butterflies and birds, and the mechanisms which allow them to navigate.[8]
- The neck of the giraffe.[9]
- The enormous gaps in the fossil record.
- The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs[10][11]
- The flagellum a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of irreducible complexity and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.[12]
- Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.[13]
- Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. If man were evolved from lower life forms, we would expect at least some other animals to display these traits. Since they do not, it's clear that man is not simply an animal.
- No clear transition form unicellular to multicellular organisms - a single cell in a multicellular organism has no ability to survive on it own as it has only a single function, but if a unicellular organism loses one function it will die.
Logical Conclusion
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.
References
- ↑ University of Indiana Natural Sciences Department
- ↑ Evolution of the eye? Not a chance!
- ↑ [1]
- ↑ Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.
- ↑ [2]
- ↑ http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html
- ↑ http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html
- ↑ migration
- ↑ [3]
- ↑ http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf
- ↑ [4]
- ↑ [5]
- ↑ [6]