Difference between revisions of "Counterexamples to Evolution"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(final ref)
(grammar and style for clarity...I may not agree with any of the points, but they should at least be consistent, precise, and accurate)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
The [[theory of evolution]] cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved.  As in logic, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule.
 
The [[theory of evolution]] cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved.  As in logic, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule.
  
−
The following are some counterexamples to evolution.  If just one is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false.
+
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.
  
−
* beautiful autumn foliage, which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation
+
* Autumn foliage, whose beauty lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
−
* the [[whale]], which has no plausible ancestor<ref>[http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whale.ev.html University of Indiana Natural Sciences Department]</ref> ([[Charles Darwin]] suggested black bears)
+
* the [[whale]] and other relatives, which have no plausible ancestors in the fossil record<ref>[http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whale.ev.html University of Indiana Natural Sciences Department]</ref> ([[Charles Darwin]] suggested black bears)
−
* the [[eye]], which lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution<ref>[http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm Evolution of the eye? Not a chance!]</ref>
+
* the mammalian [[eye]], which lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution<ref>[http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm Evolution of the eye? Not a chance!]</ref>
 
* bloodclotting, which also lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html]</ref>
 
* bloodclotting, which also lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html]</ref>
−
* the [[immune system]] is irreducible complex, as without a completely developed one a creature would die from any microbe that it was infected by<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
+
* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
−
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]], which swarm to the beaches precisely 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]]<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
+
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches precisely 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
−
* [[cicada]]s that appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
+
* the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
−
* migratory powers of butterflies and birds<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
+
* the migrations of of butterflies and birds, and the mechanisms which allow them to navigate.<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
 
* The neck of the [[giraffe]].<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
 
* The neck of the [[giraffe]].<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
 
* The enormous gaps in the [[fossils|fossil]] record.
 
* The enormous gaps in the [[fossils|fossil]] record.
 
* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
 
* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
 
* 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.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
 
* 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.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
−
* Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Flowering plants need bees in order to spread pollen but bees cannot survive without the nectar from flowering plants.  Therefore the bees and plants must have arisen at the same time.  Likewise, grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass.  Again, they must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
+
* 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.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
−
* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice as 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.
  
 
== Statistical Approach ==
 
== Statistical Approach ==

Revision as of 21:08, October 26, 2008

The theory of evolution cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved. As in logic, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule.

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.

Statistical Approach

If there is merely a 5% chance that any of the foregoing counterexamples is correct, then the odds of at least one of them being correct is at least 49%.[14] As the list grows longer, the odds become vanishingly small of the theory of evolution being valid.

References

  1. ↑ University of Indiana Natural Sciences Department
  2. ↑ Evolution of the eye? Not a chance!
  3. ↑ [1]
  4. ↑ Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.
  5. ↑ [2]
  6. ↑ http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html
  7. ↑ http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html
  8. ↑ migration
  9. ↑ [3]
  10. ↑ http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf
  11. ↑ [4]
  12. ↑ [5]
  13. ↑ [6]
  14. ↑ At 14 examples each with a 5% probability of being correct, then the odds of at least one being correct is 0.9514 = 0.49 = 49%
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&oldid=543388"