Difference between revisions of "Counterexamples to Evolution"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (cite)
(added logic, and probability)
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.
  
Here are some counterexamples to evolution:
+
The following are some counterexamples to evolution.  If just one is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false.  If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.<ref>At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is 1-(.95)^14</ref>
  
 
* beautiful autumn foliage, which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation
 
* beautiful autumn foliage, which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation

Revision as of 21:32, 25 October 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 is correct, then logically the theory of evolution must be false. If there is merely a 5% chance that each example is correct, then the odds of at least one of the following counterexamples being correct is nearly 100%.[1]

  • beautiful autumn foliage, which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation
  • the whale, which has no plausible ancestor (Charles Darwin suggested black bears)
  • the eye, which lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution
  • bloodclotting, which also lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution
  • the immune system is irreducible complex, as without a completely developed one a creature would die from any microbe that it was infected by[2]
  • Jellyfish in Hawaii, which swarm to the beaches precisely 9 to 10 days after each full moon[3]
  • cicada that appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others[4]
  • migratory powers of butterflies and birds[5]
  • The neck of the giraffe.
  • The enormous gaps in the fossil record.
  • The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs[6]
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • The bat which lives in caves employs a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. A bat can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore the bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.

(add more)

References

  1. At 14 examples and a probability that each is correct being 5%, then the odds of at least one being correct is 1-(.95)^14
  2. Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.
  3. http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html
  4. http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html
  5. migration
  6. http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf