Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Reverted edits by Kokoro (talk) to last revision by DavidB4-bot
Line 2: Line 2:  
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples.  '''If any one of the 52 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 10% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 1%.
 
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples.  '''If any one of the 52 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 10% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 1%.
 
==Counterexamples==
 
==Counterexamples==
−
===Lolis===
+
===Logical examples===
 
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as brilliant autumn foliage and the staggering array of beautiful marine fish, which originated before any human to view them. "[[Natural selection]] has no reason to produce beauty," Ann Gauger says in ''Metamorphosis'' about a principle that applies to flowers as well as butterflies. "Beauty is a sign of the transcendent. It's purely gratuitous. We all recognize it. We just have to acknowledge what it points to."<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/baroque_botany102711.html Baroque Botany: Elaborate but Functional]</ref> See: [[Argument from beauty]].
 
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as brilliant autumn foliage and the staggering array of beautiful marine fish, which originated before any human to view them. "[[Natural selection]] has no reason to produce beauty," Ann Gauger says in ''Metamorphosis'' about a principle that applies to flowers as well as butterflies. "Beauty is a sign of the transcendent. It's purely gratuitous. We all recognize it. We just have to acknowledge what it points to."<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/03/baroque_botany102711.html Baroque Botany: Elaborate but Functional]</ref> See: [[Argument from beauty]].
 
# 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.
 
# 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.
Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,209

edits

Navigation menu