Difference between revisions of "Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(No other animal exhibits religion: Remove?)
(No other animal exhibits religion: There is no plausible evolutionary explanation for religion. If, as atheists think, religion is foolish, than animals less intelligent than humans should displ)
Line 24: Line 24:
 
::::The real problem with this point is that it is not, in any way whatsoever, a counterexample to evolution.  The fact that humans are the only animals with religion does not contradict any part of evolutionary theory.  --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:27, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
 
::::The real problem with this point is that it is not, in any way whatsoever, a counterexample to evolution.  The fact that humans are the only animals with religion does not contradict any part of evolutionary theory.  --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:27, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::I assume that I should remove it if there is no objection?  --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::I assume that I should remove it if there is no objection?  --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::::: There is no plausible evolutionary explanation for religion.  If, as atheists think, religion is foolish, than animals less intelligent than humans should display the reverence.  They don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
  
 
== Some of these are rather incomplete ==
 
== Some of these are rather incomplete ==

Revision as of 22:06, 23 March 2011

Archive 1

My plans for this article

I plan on organizing this article into groups, so there would be a group for the statistical counterexamples, and a group for the counterexamples that rely on functions that do not come from the evolutionary mechanisms, or maladaptive characteristics. I am open to suggestions. I also archived the page as it was when I came here. I would also like someone to rewrite the end of the intro paragraph, it doesn't make much sense how it was and only makes a little more how I wrote it. Thanks' --SamF 22:27, 21 January 2010 (EST)

First of all, God bless you for archiving and clearing up this page! It makes the discussion better.
I'm all for better organization of the entry, but without any dilution. So please have at it!--Andy Schlafly 22:35, 21 January 2010 (EST)

I've categorized, and reworded one poorly worded point. I'll look for resources over the weekend and on Monday morning I should be able to life most of the citation needed tags. Some of these seem like they would be impossible to prove to me. Having looked at consciousness as a subject I feel pretty confident in saying that it is a mystery no matter what, and that it should probably be left off of this list, as a for instance. --SamF 18:06, 22 January 2010 (EST)

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.[Citation Needed]
What do you mean by "it is a mystery no matter what"? It seems to me that what the article's saying is precisely that it is a mystery - so no natural process could have created it; since atheistic evolution allows only natural processes, but consciousness exists, atheistic evolution can't be all there is. --EvanW 18:20, 22 January 2010 (EST)
It is just as unclear how a supernatural power might generate consciousness. It is a whole big can of worms and thousands of people in philosophy and neuroscience are working on it. The Evolutionary psychology people have a pretty neat little story about how something that manifests itself exactly like consciousness is beneficial and might come about, I think that if we ever do crack the consciousness puzzle then they will swoop in and claim to have an answer. I think that the bit in that counterexample about consciousness can be axed just fine and the rest left standing. Consciousness is its own big philosophical question, and I have serious doubts as to how accurately an argument about it can be contained in one paragraph, let alone one line. --SamF 18:28, 22 January 2010 (EST)
Um, a miracle? That's the whole point about miracles: we don't understand how God did them. Of course it's "unclear." If you want to say that naturalistic scientists are trying to figure out how evolution might bring consciousness about, that's fine with me, as long as it's clear they haven't found it yet. --EvanW 18:46, 22 January 2010 (EST)

No other animal exhibits religion

Are we really sure that humans are the only organisms with religious beliefs? Is there a scientifc reason why wolves howl to the moon (or perhaps it's actually to God, who created them)? Organization, communication skills, family traditions, common sense, etc are religious traits; religion brings order and meaning to society (which probably explains why idiocy and corruption is invading human society). Sounds like something a liberal would argue: If God exists, why are humans the only ones that believe in him, and my rebuttal is always How do we 'know' that animals don't believe in God? Have you asked one? DMorris 16:01, 17 February 2010 (EST)

Your point reflects open-mindedness and a willingness to rely on logic rather than consensus. But note that in sharp contrast with humans, animals do not engage in any activities suggestive of prayer.--Andy Schlafly 22:00, 17 February 2010 (EST)
I don't know much about animal psychology, but I really like the poetic notion of wolves howling at the moon being prayer. That's just... beautiful. JacobB 23:05, 17 February 2010 (EST)
Well, animals do not speak English, so of course we're not going to witness animal prayer. Also, dogs howl over their owners bodies when they witness the passing of their owners, but rather than argue like a whiny liberal, I'm going to walk away from this one. DMorris 08:04, 18 February 2010 (EST)
The real problem with this point is that it is not, in any way whatsoever, a counterexample to evolution. The fact that humans are the only animals with religion does not contradict any part of evolutionary theory. --CecilQ 18:27, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
I assume that I should remove it if there is no objection? --CecilQ 18:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
There is no plausible evolutionary explanation for religion. If, as atheists think, religion is foolish, than animals less intelligent than humans should display the reverence. They don't.--Andy Schlafly 23:06, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

Some of these are rather incomplete

For instance 1.6.1

The fact that new discoveries, such as Raptorex, routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.

Not only is the second half a parodist's dig on creationism "creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries" the first half doesn't really explain why raptorex is supposed to be parodoxiacal. It's an interesting species, but there is nothing apparent (especially not in the sentence) that counters evolution, the adaptations of T. rex and Raptorex are related to balance, specifically how you get the biggest head on the smallest, fastest, body. If no one steps forward to expand this in the next two weeks I'm going to trim it from the list. I think two weeks is a fair timeline. --Brendanw 00:26, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

I cut some more out, I would suggest cutting the statistical argument out, it's hard to do with out making up random numbers. Pulling wheat from chaff is going to take some work, but I suspect you will be pleased in the end. --Brendanw 01:03, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
Do not remove without discussion. Do not censor material from the article. DouglasA 01:55, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
I did not censor anything, I did some editing.
  • 1.2.6 is parody, Jim put it in there to mock Andy after their discussion ended in Andy saying that beauty was intrinsic, I clarified Andy's counterexample per his feelings on the subject
  • 1.3.2 is about ploidy, the last time it was removed there was an edit comment about durum wheat, did anyone ever bother to look it up? Durum wheat is descended from Emmer wheat, Duram wheat is tetraploid and Emmer wheat is diploid. That is conclusive proof that it is not impossible. Hence it is probably parody.
  • 1.3.4 actually misreports the selfish gene
  • 1.2.7 we know how cicadas manage to wait , we know that those cicadas that come out a year early or a year late die with out mating typically. we can move mating windows in lab animal populations. So we have a means a motive and an opportunity, more parody.
  • 1.5.6 You cannot demonstrate a lack of fossils until you dig up all the fossil bearing strata on earth, which is a very big task (digging out the trilobites alone would leave the globe covered in a foot thick layer of fossils) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I'm just trying to clean up this article a bit, it seems to be a place were parody and counterexample alike are piled in together and they are never checked. --Brendanw 14:19, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
You were warned not to touch this article, Brendan, then you did again. JacobB 14:29, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

Lack of mechanism

The first point in this section is:

  • Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.

(There follows a reference which does not state that there is no materialistic explanation - in fact, it suggests one.) But I'm more interested in the consequences of there being no materialistic explanation. Did God personally guide the animals to escape? Were the warned by angels? If God or the angels warned the animals - why didn't they warn the human beings?--British_cons (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

Problems I see with this page

1 Example one is not true, we have many different races and genetic diversity can be ANY difference in genes (Your genes are not the EXACT SAME as your mother/father's, that is genetic diversity)

2 Example number three is pointless. Not all genes affect multiple traits, and thus evolution can happen to some without affecting a lot of traits. Furthermore, a mutation can happen to a gene that controls multiple traits and benefit one trait, but that doesn't mean that it will negatively affect the other traits.

Under Lack of Mechanism:

1 Example two is basically a bunch of buzz words lined up in a row.

2 Example five Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All other animals might think that fall foliage looks terrible, and humans may simply have a mass delusion about it. All in all it feels like a pointless cop-out.

3 Example twelve is a flat out lie. SOME animals do have self awareness. Here is just one example I found after mere seconds of looking. http://earthtrust.org/delbook.html

4 Example sixteen can be explained by slowly getting more and more of this chemical into their blood stream. A better explanation is that a minuscule bit of anti-freeze won't kill you, you grow a little resistance to it, pass it on, get more anti-freeze and more resistance, etc.

Under Maladaption:

1 Example three could be the process of evolution unfinished. You could be looking at something that is not quite complete, but will be someday.

Under Wrong prediction

1 Example one is simple if you know about evolution: There was creature that came after the gorilla, but before the chimp, a small group of these creatures lost these dna blocks, and another group did not. One group evolved into chimps, one into humans.

2 Example three: Much of it has been shown to be useful, but much of it still has no recognized purpose.

3 Example five: Take one second out of your day and google "Wisdom teeth". We no longer need them, thus most people don't have them (a replacement example could be "Why do some people still have wisdom teeth?")

Under Missing Fossils:

1 example one is a lie: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

2 Example four is obvious because single celled organisms are so small that it is VERY difficult to find a fossil of one out in the wild.

Under Irreducible Complexity: (Note that I won't spend much time here as I know I have a HORRIBLE bias against Irreducible Complexity and I feel that I will just try to argue away all points)

1 Example three: Wings can help something jump farther (Even a small bit helps). Also just because there is no perceived benefit does not mean that something is a disadvantage.


And those are the only MAJOR problems I have with it. I see no problem in arguing against evolution (all things should be argued against in my opinion), but we need to stick to the facts, unlike our liberal counterparts...

Explain the seed of a maple tree then. Karajou 22:54, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

While I don't see the relation to my edit and a maple seed... I assume you are talking about how can something so small become so big? Simple: A maple seed contains DNA. A good analogy for what DNA does is this: There is this thing called RNA, and it is like a construction worker. Now RNA "reads" DNA, which are like a buildings blueprints. Then it goes and lays down "Amino Acids" which are like concrete, beams etc. to a construction worker. Where does the body (seed in this case) get these amino acids, you may ask. Simple: It gets them from the nutrients it absorbs while in the soil. These Amino Acids go and make different structures, one example being an "enzyme" which breaks down big molecules into small molecules that the body can use. So just like these blueprints "become" turn into a tree.

Now, obviously it is a whole lot more complicated. But I don't want to spend the hours it would take to explain enough of 9th grade and AP Biology that would fill in all the gaps. But really it isn't that hard to understand, is it? A seed absorbs a whole bunch of water, sunlight, minerals, etc. and then converts them into building blocks that it can use and energy.


Also, the whale's evolutionary ancestor is the indohyus

You have to do better than that. A common evolutionist trick of pushing work on others for them to try to prove evolution wrong doesn't work here. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
Wait...so when a theist asks an atheist for proof of atheism, is that not the exact same fallacy? Unless the atheist states outright that they know there is no God - very few do, most state that they simply do not believe there is convincing evidence for God - it seems strange to have this contradiction. Unless, of course, intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. JacobP 15:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
Andy, To then further your point: Should this page then not have more than an average of 40 words per point to try and accumulate enough information to disprove evolution. I believe that in point 1 of the Missing Fossils Section there needs to be some source and some backup to the point that they say the whale has no ancestor. Who is the one that said there is no ancestor to the whale? Because if it's the editor(s) of this article who claim there is no ancestor, then there should be someone we can hold accountable for such a statement. I worry that people will read this information and take it as fact (which it entirely could be) but not have the tools to back up that fact. They'll point to this encyclopedia and say that's where the information came from, and yet there is no way to keep tracing that claim backwards until you reach some actual research.
All I'm saying is that you proclaim that the person making the claim must put forth the proof, and there is no proof on point 1 of Missing Fossils. Please don't ask me to Google the fact that the fossils are missing, because that is counter to your own point. User: Luex 17:14 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

Additional support

Mr. Schlafly,

As I looked out the window last night, I was struck by the simple, inherent beauty of the moonlight reflecting off the clouds, and in a sudden moment of clarity it occurred to me that this provides further support to your observation that evolution cannot account for objective beauty. Allow me to explain: in science, it is important for some sort of control to be employed when evaluating a claim, be it an independent group or simply a counterbalancing null hypothesis. Applying that reasoning to the current context, if something such as the beauty of autumn leaves had evolved, making it a purely materialistic biological phenomenon (what a revolting concept!), then the null hypothesis would be that such beauty would not be found in non-biological systems. The latter is disproved by the objective beauty of moonlight reflecting upon clouds, which is composed entirely of non-biological objects and is therefore unexplainable by evolution.

On the other hand, if the beauty of autumn leaves had not evolved, one would expect to find similar examples in a non-biological context- as indeed we do. What do you think of this insight? Is it significant enough to merit inclusion? If so, I would be happy to put it in (in a more succinct form, of course!). Thank you. AJFrederickson 08:17, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

AJFrederickson, moonlight reflecting off clouds is completely up for interpretation on beauty. Whereas you might find it brilliant, there are some who might be completely indifferent to it. This is the same for biological creatures. You use the words 'inherent beauty' yet if humans weren't here to decide if something were beautiful or not, how could it be considered inherently beautiful.
Leaves changing colour are not for any purpose. They change colour because the chlorophyll cells are dying off during the winter. We see that change in colour and some of us enjoy the sight where others do not. We're the ones who may have evolved to have this capability to decide whether we like this phenomenon. I do not believe that it is indicative of creation. (Luex Aug 10 2010 16:56 (-5:00 GMT)

Missing Fossil #1

Sorry to display liberal talkativeness, but I did some research on the statement that whales have no plausible evolutionary ancestor and found this article. If this is true, then I propose we should remove Missing Fossil Counterexample #1. However, I do not know if Natural Geographic is slanted toward the left. Could I have some of your insight on this? -Jwilhem 12:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

I realize this doesn't concern me too much, but I've had this article on hand for a while. It might shed some light on NG's poly views. Tyler Zoran Talk 12:43, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
I also have the same thing from another source here. I think most mainstream scientific journals lean toward the left though. Jwilhem 12:49, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
I don't know enough about those types of science to really comment on the authenticity or lack thereof. Your comment about NG just reminded me of that article I mentioned and its leanings, so I thought I'd share it with you. Tyler Zoran Talk 12:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
The cited articles are silly. National Geographic, which fell for the dinosaur-bird fossil fraud about a decade ago, states in the first link above, "The land-dwelling Indohyus probably dove into streams to avoid predators, as seen in an artist's conception above." The "Nature" article isn't any more plausible. Darwin himself said that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open. Needless to say, the atheistic attempts to plug this gap raise more questions than they answer.--Andy Schlafly 14:05, 30 July 2010 (EDT)


Explanation for some counterexamples

Half a year ago, I had posted an explanation for one of the counterexamples, giving a possible process of how a case of seemingly irreducible complexity could have grown through evolution. It was removed then without notice, and my account was blocked afterwards by TK. (If you were wondering: TK and I had an email discussion after that in which I explained my good intentions, and he unblocked my account.) What I'm wondering now is whether I could re-post that thing at this moment. My explanation had received no replies, and I do think it is important to only have counterexamples on here that are correct. As you all understand, people of any education (including none) can discuss counterexamples, and sometimes our group of editors lacks the right person to explain why a counterexample could be incorrect. In order to improve this page's quality and accuracy, I'd therefore like to discuss again what I tried to discuss half a year ago - this time, however, I would like to not be blocked for it. So I'll ask upfront: Is it alright if I rewrite my theory, and post it here again?

Thanks a lot in advance. MalP 12:25, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

"I do think it is important to only have counterexamples on here that are correct." Excuse me, but anyone with an education should realise that none of the counterexamples here are correct. But if you try to remove them, or even rationally debate them you'll get blocked, so don't bother. Just saying. --Houshalter 13:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
I think you can only say with absolute certainty that something is correct/incorrect, after you have considered the example and debated about it with other people who are also considering it. I have a feeling that there are indeed quite some incorrect counterexamples in this article, but there many for which I can't come up with an explanation. Right now I'm only talking about a few examples for which I have some possible explanations. -Mal Peeters (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
Houshalter, you're wrong on both of your points. I suggest you try taking an openmindedness test. Please let us know what your test score is.
MalP, please do post your point.--Andy Schlafly 16:12, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
Thank you, Mr Schafly. My point is about the possibility of giraffes being able to develop a long neck despite the seemingly irreducible complexity of it.
Because of the logical laws of natural selection, a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat. Up to that point, I think we all agree. It is also very logical of the article's author to write that a long neck is impossible with the valves present in it.
The point where the author is wrong, though, is that he forgets that the development of this neck went very slowly, and through many generations (and in case evolution is correct, it is likely still developing). The first giraffes which had a slightly longer neck than their smaller fellows, didn't need any special valves for this difference that was, at that time, probably still hard to observe with the eye. They were taller nevertheless, so they had a higher chance of surviving. That way, the neck "grew longer" through generations, up to the point that an even longer neck would be no longer beneficial, because the blood would then not be able to reach the head anymore.
At this point, all it takes is the first valve to develop in the giraffe's neck. Please note that most, if not all, animals (including giraffes. Humans too, by the way) have a rather simple valve system all through their body to improve the flood of blood. So, we have our giraffe with a neck so long that it would need stronger/better valves to continue growing. It is very logical that this animal will have a higher chance to survive if it develops a valve in its neck.
The longer the neck, the more problems there will be for the blood to reach the head. But also; the longer the neck, the more food the giraffe can get. There is obviously a balance between those two, where the neck has the exact length that balances these two things. If this balance point is reached and a valve is added, the giraffe will be able to continue growing its neck, until the next balance point.
If this whole process repeats itself, the giraffe is perfectly able to grow a long neck, albeit (like everything in evolution) very slow. I know this explanation may not be explained very well, but I think it's enough to show that irreducible complexity can perfectly develop through evolution, taking into consideration that all of this is a very gradual process, and two things can perfectly develop simultaneously this way. Please tell me what you think about this. -Mal Peeters (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
For starters, as the entry says, it's simply untrue that "a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat." That concept is easily to believe by students, but demonstrably false. That doesn't stop evolutionists from teaching and relying on the falsehood, as long as some people believe it. Giraffes eat low-lying vegetation.
Moreover, the issue of why a valve would develop remains implausible due to the irreducible complexity.--Andy Schlafly 22:06, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
I have personally seen giraffes eating from trees. They definitely do not feed on low-lying vegetation exclusively.
On your second point: I had expected you to answer that, and that's why I already "countered" it in my first post, though maybe not clear enough: The longer a giraffe's neck is, the higher the chance of it having some blood pressure problems, while it still benefits from its reach (read the balance thing again). A giraffe would definitely benefit from a valve even if the length of the neck hasn't increased as much as it is now -- a valve would not inprove its reach to high branches, but it would decrease the chance that it will suffer from a potential shortage of blood in the brains, which can of course be fatal. Anyway, as I also stated: animals already have these valves, but in a less sophisticated form. All it takes is for these valves to grow stronger and more efficient. Taken all of this in consideration, I think it's safe to say that -- in case evolution is true -- there certainly is a possibility of giraffes growing long necks. -Mal Peeters (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
MalP, evolution is continually stating that the giraffe grew the long neck to reach the higher leaves in the trees, so it isn't a valve thing that matters here. It needs the leaves in the trees to eat and to survive, am I right? Let's set the way-back machine to a dozen or so million years ago, the approximate time that the evo crowd states that giraffes began stretching their dinky necks. Let's say that this year the rainfall was good, and the trees decided they were going to grow another two feet, putting the leaves out of reach of the stubby-necked giraffes. They need to do something johnny-on-the-spot, don't they? Question one: just what are these giraffes going to do? Question two: how many years do evo-supporters state that it took for these stubby-necked giraffes to grow enough neck to reach the leaves? Question three: how long does an animal the size of a stubby-necked giraffe live if it can only eat leaves in a tree, but can't reach them this year? Question four: if the stubby-necked giraffe needs to eat, do you honestly think it's going to wait a thousand years or more to grow the neck that it has got to have right now? Answer: that stubby-necked giraffe will be forced to look for other food sources; if it means it grazes like a cow, it grazes, and there wouldn't be a need for a long neck, anyway. It's either that or it dies of starvation within three weeks. And that is not enough time to rearrange it's genes to play that DNA game that evo's are touting. Karajou 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
Karajou: You are assuming that every giraffe is of the exact same height. Where as when a giraffe is at it's mature adult age, it may not be as tall as another giraffe of the same age. This means that where some giraffes in your example would not be able to reach the trees because they are just 2 more feet out of their range, some of those giraffes could actually reach them. Say that if that those giraffes only survive if they're able to reach those trees (whether they die from starvation or weakness + disease due to shortage of calories and nutrients) then the only giraffes that survive in this situation are the ones with the longer neck. Now in the gene pool there is an abundance of long necked giraffes that were able to suffer the year and they then produce the next years generation of long necked giraffes. If you don't believe that some giraffes could be significantly taller than one another, even though they're so closely related genetically, just look at humans and the fact that some are very easily taller than others by large amounts. Allow me to state that I know that giraffes can in fact graze on grass at their feet, but for the sake of considering a life and death situation where if you can't reach those leaves you die, this situation doesn't disprove evolution. (Not sure how to sign this, so I'll just type it in!) User: Luex 16:36 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)
Luex, you're the one who's doing the assuming, not me. What you're assuming amounts to wishful thinking as to what went on with the origins of the giraffe according to evolution. Where's the proof of this tale? You're not taking into account the time involved here; not the time of millions of years, but the time a giraffe or two or several has left on earth if they cannot get anything to eat. If they ate everything within reach in the trees, they have to find another food source or starve to death; they are not going to wait several months to give birth to a calf that they hope would have an added inch or two to its neck, it's that simple. What you have described above does not have the proof to back it up; it is hearsay evidence, and anyone with common sense just isn't going to accept it. Karajou 23:12, 10 August 2010 (EDT)
@MalP, well every other argument here is basically just irreducible complexity. For one, you should group all of the irreducible complexity examples together for organization. Second, you should at least mention why scientists and "evolutionists" (as you call them) don't take it seriously. Irreducible complexity works two ways. One, that if you remove a part of the system it wouldn't work, therefore it would have to be created in it's present form. This should be noted to be an obvious fallacy. We have observed in simulations and models, irreducibly complex systems evolve on their own many times. The second meaning could be somewhat valid, but is generally ignored because we are well aware that there is large gap in what we can study and observe, mainly the fossil record. It goes that, because we don't know how something could have evolved or what evolutionary pressures would have caused it to evolve, it couldn't have evolved. As I explained, this would only be relevant on a system that we have a complete or close to complete understanding of, like a very thorough fossil record. Most of the examples are from places where the oppisite is true and we have no idea what the ancient conditions were at the time.

Chipmunks on Devil's tower?

Evolutionist fantasies aside, how did chipmunks get to the top of Devil's tower after the flood? --LyleT 20:07, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

By magnetic sensors in their brains??? Chipmunks ended up there the same way that monarch butterflies descend on the same towns every year, and the same way that chickens find their way back to their coops at sundown each night.--Andy Schlafly 20:20, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
Sorry, perhaps I misstated my question. The stated counterexample suggests that chipmunks have no means to reach the top of Devil's tower, and that this is problematic for the evolutionist paradigm. How does science (including the global flood) provide such a means? Were the chipmunks dropped off there from the ark as the waters receded? --LyleT 21:02, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
I have an open mind about possible explanations. But proving that one theory is wrong does not require proving that another theory is right. If a math proof is flawed, then it is flawed regardless of whether a valid proof is available.--Andy Schlafly 21:11, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
This strikes me as more of a "unanswered question in biology" than a "counterexample to evolution". The right answer is out there somewhere, though we may never be able prove what it is. It seems likely to me that whatever that answer is, it will be compatible with both creationist and evolutionist accounts. (Unless, of course, Noah made a world tour dropping off critters in inaccessible spots as the flood receded!) --LyleT 21:41, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
Lyle, you have free will to believe what you like, but your approach is not scientific. A new theory cannot develop until people let go of the disproved theory. It's time to let go of the disproved theory, and start looking in earnest.--Andy Schlafly 21:49, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
My mind is also open about this. In fact, as I am actively seeking counterexamples to evolution, I would like this counterexample to be true. Unfortunately, an open-minded approach to the mystery of animals on the peak of Devils Tower yields what I believe is a plausible explanation. Many birds of prey inhabit the area. They can be seen perched on Devils Tower. These birds (hawks and eagles) can snatch a chipmunk/snake/etc and return to their perch on the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that some of these animals survived the flight and managed to evade their captors. I'm not saying that this is what happened on Devils Tower, I'm just saying that it's plausible.
However, I cannot fathom a evolutionary explanation for animals on remote islands. That's a good counterexample. KyleDD 23:59, 30 August 2010 (EDT)
Your suggestion is a clever one, but seems extremely implausible to me. Rarely does captured prey escape, and probably rarer still for one to be taken to the top of Devils Tower only to escape and not be recaptured there. But I wouldn't rule this out if there is something to support it. With millions of dollars in government funding spent on evolution "research" each year, there should be some observed evidence for it if it were true.--Andy Schlafly 00:13, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
Thanks. I'd like to note that rarity does not negate plausibility, in fact, it implies it! As for something supportive, here is a video of a red-tailed hawk (which is fairly common to the area) carrying off a live snake. It is entirely plausible that a hawk (or any of the large birds of prey found in the area) could carry a snake to the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that, upon landing, the snake bit the hawk and managed to escape. Do you have any evidence that any money was spent trying to figure out how animals got to the peak? We should be glad if they hadn't wasted any money on it, so I don't know how you could then decry the lack of observation. But regardless of whether or not there is direct observation of the event in question, that isn't a requirement of plausibility. KyleDD 18:10, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

Turkish Angoras

I think this might be added. Turkish Angoras are a race of cats, very well known for their beautiful, long fur. If there was any reason for this race to have such long fur, I'd assume that all cats would have such long fur. Yet if shorter fur increases survivability, why do these cats have long fur in the first place? -Mal Peeters (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

Logical Example 8

There has actually been a great deal of research amongst the evolutionists regarding why 'bad' behavior exists. I know his name is taboo, but before Richard Dawkins became the poster child for the New Atheist movement, he was a reputable biologist. One of his greatest books was The Selfish Gene, which describes in great detail how 'nasty' behavior actually could be construed as an evolutionary advantage to the individual. Before some haughty evolution supporter tries to come in here with a lengthy, indignant protest to that specific counterexample, I'd suggest we remove it. There are plenty of other logical counterexamples. Alphanumeric1 20:34, 30 November 2010 (EST)

Example 8 entails highly self-destructive behavior. I don't think that's what Dawkins meant.--Andy Schlafly 21:48, 30 November 2010 (EST)
If indeed Example 8 refers to self-destructive behavior, then it does make sense as an example. However, it should be clearly stated that we're referring to behavior that is damaging to the person doing the action. Right now the example suggests that lying and murdering could not have evolutionary benefits; they could - such is the mindset of a Darwinist, but it's the truth. Both of them are mentioned by Dawkins in his book directly. I can give quotes if you'd like. Perhaps we should switch out liars, murderers, and psycopaths with examples like...oh, say, drug addicts, people who purposefully injure themselves, and suicidal people. These self-destructive tendencies are not accounted for by evolution.Alphanumeric1 18:10, 4 December 2010 (EST)