Difference between revisions of "Counterexamples to Evolution"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(From the source, it was only one scientist and it is unclear their field of science.)
(don't know why reference to autumn foliage keeps being censored; just restored it)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
The following are some counterexamples to the abilities of random mutation.  If just one cannot be explained by the idea, then logically the theory of evolution as it is must be inadequate.
 
The following are some counterexamples to the abilities of random mutation.  If just one cannot be explained by the idea, then logically the theory of evolution as it is must be inadequate.
  
* Many cases of beauty, such as the staggering array of beautiful marine fish, lack any plausible evolutionary explanation.
+
* Many cases of beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, lack any plausible evolutionary explanation.
 
* 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>
 
* 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]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
 
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>

Revision as of 07:56, 13 December 2008

A scientific or logical theory cannot permit any counterexamples. Therefore, the theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation must be able to explain the origins of all things in terms of a purely mechanistic view. Although natural selection and common descent are both very well-supported by evidence, the ability of random mutations to generate higher levels of complexity remains in doubt.

The following are some counterexamples to the abilities of random mutation. If just one cannot be explained by the idea, then logically the theory of evolution as it is must be inadequate.

  • Many cases of beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, lack any plausible evolutionary explanation.
  • the immune system is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection[1][2]
  • Jellyfish in Hawaii swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full moon, for no apparent evolutionary reason[3]
  • the fact that cicadas appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others[4]
  • the migrations of butterflies and birds, and the mechanisms which allow them to navigate.[5]
  • The neck of the giraffe. Although the length of the neck can be explained by simple sexual selection, the presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).[6]
  • The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the fossil record.
  • The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs[7][8]
  • Pterosaurs; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?[9]
  • The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
  • 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.[10]
  • Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
  • 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.[11]
  • Many bats which live 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. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore those bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
  • No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
  • The human prostate surrounds the urethra and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.[12]
  • Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.

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

  1. Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.
  2. [1]
  3. http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html
  4. http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html
  5. migration
  6. [2]
  7. http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf
  8. [3]
  9. http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html
  10. [4]
  11. [5]
  12. Sarfati, Jonathan, The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?, 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)