Difference between revisions of "Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Beauty)
(Altruistic behaviour)
 
(497 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Giraffe neck ==
+
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)
+
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]
:How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)
+
  
If anything the giraffes neck is an example supporting evolution, as the animals with longer necks (caused from a genetic mutation) would have survived to reproduction as there is less competition for the food from the high branches. [[User:SSSmith|SSSmith]] 19:10, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
===Cavemen and wolves===
: If the giraffes with shorter necks couldn't survive, then how did the young ones survive to become adults and reproduce?
+
"If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false"
: Also, I've already answered this point lower down the page:
+
Cavemen did NOT create a new species; dogs and wolves are the same species, as they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Recently, scientists have domesticated foxes, and they have developed dog-like characteristics, like changes in colouration and an increased affection and trust towards humans. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)
{{QuoteBox|"It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.}}
+
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)
+
  
==Refutations==
+
How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild?  Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this.  --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently.  Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
That is because macroevolution takes a lot longer, within the magnitude of at least millions of years. Evolution does not imply that it would be possible to directly observe one species changing to another. That is why fossil records are used. These clearly show that microevolution gradually builds up to macroevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution follow exactly the same principle. If you say that microevolution has been observed, then the only thing that would stop macroevolution from occuring would be a very young earth (which several areas of science have independently disproven)--[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:18, 13 November 2011 (EST)
  
Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.
+
:If dogs and wolves are the same species, then the domestic dog had to have come from the gray wolf, exactly as scientists have been stating for years. Before the edit gets reverted again, someone here is going to provide proof of a scientific experiment in which a dog has been bred from a pair of wolves. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)
 +
::Please define "Dog", you definition is far to vague for any scientific purpose.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)
  
1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.
+
===Basic logic?===
 +
''"Species are groups of animals that can freely interbreed. A group of animals that can freely interbreed are C. lupus (dogs and wolves). Thus, dogs and wolves are same species. Basic logic."''  Fine, FCapra.  Now you show me a male and a female wolf that mated together and produced a basset hound.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:46, 13 November 2011 (EST)
 +
:Explain to me how two wolves can breed together and produce a wolf genetically identical to a third, unrelated wolf. When you can do this, I will see your point.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:53, 13 November 2011 (EST)
 +
::You're missing the point here, FCapra.  Evolutionists have stated for years that the domestic dog was created by the breeding of wolves, and done by cavemen.  You're stating that both animals are the same species.  Yet, if I breed wolves, all I'm going to get are wolf pups.  If I breed German shepherds, I'm not going to get St. Bernards, I'm not going to get Boston terriers, and I'm not going to get chihuahuas.  Strange as it may seem I'm going to go out on a scientific limb here and hypothesize that if I breed German shepherds, I'm going to end up with a litter of German shepherd pups. That is called logic.
 +
::And it's also proven that dogs can interbreed with coyotes (''Canis latrans''), the Ethiopian wolf (''Canis simensis''), and the golden jackal (''Canis aureus''), as well as several other members of ''Canis''.  Does that mean that those other Canids must be regarded as the same species?  Or did a lawyer representing the big bad wolf file a copyright-infringement lawsuit?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:16, 13 November 2011 (EST)
 +
:::Coyotes/wolf hybrids show a marked decrease in offspring viability after several generations, and jackal hybrids don't occur in the wild and also suffer reduced fertility and genetic abnormailties. Wolfdogs have no decrease in viability or fertility, and occur (relatively)commonly where feral dog and wolf populations overlap. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 23:26, 13 November 2011 (EST)
 +
::::Then start breeding wolves.  Show me the dogs that come out of it.  If it's so easy a caveman can do it, then so can you.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:31, 13 November 2011 (EST)
 +
:::::I can't breed wolf A and wolf B together to get wolf C, I get wolf AB. Sometimes, I might get a mutant wolf AB+, but it will never be wolf C. Eventually, I could get a domestic pack canine, but it wouldn't be a dog.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 23:52, 13 November 2011 (EST)
 +
::::::And if you get those mutants, and eventually kept breeding to a hoped-for critter you can call "Rover", you would have proved beyond all doubt the fact of intelligent design.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:54, 13 November 2011 (EST)
 +
:::::::"Beyond all doubt" is extremely strong language. In fact, it's more like "have done absolutely nothing to prove or disprove intelligent design", because I am still working with natural mechanisms. Intelligent design relies on non-materialistic explanations to natural phenomena. Also, 1 singular case does not constitute enough evidence to support something "beyond all doubt". I would however, provide evidence that mutations can produce meaningful changes in organisms which help them survive in certain circumstances, such as a symbiotic relationship with a human. And just FYI, wild wolf puppies can be domesticated by humans.[http://web.archive.org/web/20071005105327/http://www.wolfpark.org/training/index.html] [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 12:26, 14 November 2011 (EST)
 +
::::::Also, while wolves haven't been bred into dogs yet, it only took 40 years of selective breeding to produce domesticated, dog-like foxes[http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/2]. It's logical that the same would apply to wolves.
 +
:::::::Thor Heyerdahl proved it was possible for South American natives to sail to south Pacific islands; he did not prove that this had in fact happened.  Current scientific consensus is that domestic dogs are descended from wolves, and as you and many others have said, they should belong to the same species - ''Canis lupus''.  I don't see a fox's bushy tail in those two Latin words.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 14 November 2011 (EST)
 +
::::::::Do you have any evidence that it didn't '''and''' couldn't happen? Then you have a reasonable counterexample. All the mechanisms for domestication exist in wolves and foxes, wolves can be trained by humans, foxes have been domesticated, and foxes and wolves are similar genetically (both are in the Canidae family). There is no evidence that domestication of wolves is impossible, but in theory, it is entirely possible over the course of a few thousand years. Is there any evidence that human domestication of wolves is literally impossible, and not just unlikely? If not, than human domestication of wolves is a possibility, and can't really be used as a counterexample against evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:23, 14 November 2011 (EST)
  
2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.
+
=== PZ Meyers Photo ===
  
3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).
+
Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all?  Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article.  I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page.  Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
 +
:For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
  
4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.
+
== Improving article ==
  
5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.
+
Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::::It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::::::OK, I took it out. I think we achieved a concensus on it, even if it was only a concensus of two. Nobody else seems to object so far. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
(unindent) This article seems to have been pretty lively over the last few days, for all sorts of wrong reasons. I'm new here, but I have to say something pretty blunt: it's not a good article. There seems to be an emphasis on quantity over quality. A lot of the arguments presented are so weak that I have to suspect they're strawmen or parodies inserted by evolutionists. We have about ten really good arguments that are more than enough to refute evolutionism, but we have hardly any detail on them: irreducible complexity only has a few sentences, for example. On the other hand there are a lot of EXTREMELY poor arguments, such as the old chestnut about males and females of a species having to coincidentally evolve together. I'm sorry, but present that argument to any evolutionist and he's going to laugh in your face then take you to pieces. Their theory CAN explain that, and within the naturalist framework they restrict science to they can explain it extremely well. Evolution is a scientific theory and it stands or falls on the evidence. We HAVE the evidence to defeat it, so why do we need to expose ourselves to ridicule by talking unscientific rubbish about the order in which chickens return to their coops? Sorry for the rant, but the latest troll really annoyed me. Not because what he said was wrong, but because so much of it wasn't. Why do we have this compulsion to make ourselves easy targets? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:Does anybody have a problem if I return this article to SamCoulter's last edit? I've done some reading and I think he's on the right track as far as improving it goes, even if he's sadly not able to be with us right now. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:20, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
  
6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.
+
== Perfect number of teeth? ==
  
7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.
+
I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I  suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
Seems like science has proven that we most certainly do not have the perfect number of teeth for a civilized lifestyle, as changes in our diet have lead to jaw shortening and crooked teeth as a result[http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/crooked-teeth-blame-early-farmer.html#.Tsq5ffhCjyQ.reddit]. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:38, 22 November 2011 (EST)
 +
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
 +
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
  
8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.
+
This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states ''the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.'' when in the majority of people the the teeth ''are'' over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::If we take what you have said above as read then the entry ''still'' needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::''e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw.'' As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the ''jaw'' that is too small for the number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::::Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
  
9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.
+
::::::(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better.  As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::::I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::::::I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
  
10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.
+
== Raptorex ==
  
11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.
+
I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
  
I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
+
:Yes, it's pretty much rejected. It does seem to be a juvenile tyrannosaurid rather than a separate species. I think this one should come out. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 11:03, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
  
: I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.
+
== Bats ==
:# "''Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months''" is story-telling.  It doesn't explain ''how'' evolution could have come up with the idea.  The rest of your point applies equally well to creation:  God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.
+
:# Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor.  Vestigial organs are due to a ''degradation'', whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires ''innovation''.
+
:# The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot".  The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all.  What's wrong with image inversion?  That's a natural consequence of using a lens.  As for the blind spot...{{QuoteBox|Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/]}}
+
:# No comment.
+
:# That makes sense.  When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.
+
:# The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all.  The second part about mutations is story-telling.
+
:# As for No. 1.
+
:# Selection only selects from something that is already there.  The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?
+
:# That's an ''ad hoc'' rationalisation.  It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.
+
:# What molecular evidence?  Molecularly, they are quite different.
+
:# I agree that it makes no sense.  I'll remove that one.
+
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
+
: P.S. you had a typo in your first point.  I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!
+
  
Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. '''My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory.''' My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory.  
+
I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
  
Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.
+
== During a vandal attack  when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==
  
I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.
+
During a vandal attack  when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :)  I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm "Broken arrow"] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
  
1) '''All origins theory is story-telling.''' The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).
+
== Artistic beauty argument ==
  
2) Being in the same clade ''does'' imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: '''assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light''' there is no such thing as certainty in science).  
+
Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:I'm sorry, ''"death didn't exist before the fall"''?
 +
:So in the days, months or years before the fall not a single leaf from a single tree ''ever'' worked it's way loose from its parent and fell to the ground?
 +
:If "death didn't exist" for plants (of all things) then all the "green things" G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook?
 +
:You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
  
3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.
+
::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined "life."  Plants didn't fit into their classification of life.  (If you read carefully, you'll find that "life" is usually equated to "having the breath of life.")  Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no "death" as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was "no death before the fall" hence no autumnal foliage. If trees weren't things that were alive to the writer(s) of the Creation texts then how could the effects have been wrought by things (G-d created things, no less) such as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (or the Tree of Life, for that matter)?
 +
:::Nice try, Benp, but we know that we once had much more knowledge than we currently do...the writers of the Creation history knew better than us that trees are "alive".  
 +
:::No. Better that we should re-examine our dogmas than to succumb to metaphysical gymnastic logics to prop them up. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:19, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
  
4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.
+
:::But were there seasons in the garden of Eden? From what I understand before the fall it was a constant, perfect temperature and climate. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:04, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::That's always been my understanding too, so I wouldn't have expected leaves to fall. The definition of life is a tricky one though. Perhaps the animals only ate enough of the plant that it could keep growing, so didn't die? I know that when cows graze they don't eat the roots of the grass, so it can grow again. Of course that argument would also apply to falling leaves, wouldn't it? The leaves die but the tree itself doesn't. OK, I'll have to rethink that one! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
  
5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA
+
:::::Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Regardless, evolution cannot explain artistic beauty in nature, whether it existed before man or not. Indeed, most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature, which is one reason why it becomes such a dreary, negative belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA
+
::::::As an aside though, were there seasons in the Garden of Eden? If not there would never have been autumn leaves which means there artistic beauty comes not from Gods perfect handy work but from the flaws in the post -fall world. An interesting idea and I am sure there is much discussion to be had. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.
+
:::::::"most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature" Andy, I can't believe you get away with bald assertions like that. It's pretty solid rhetoric, though. Just keep challenging dissenters with assumptions and dismiss counter-examples as outliers. I'm positive the statement could not be disproved to your satisfaction. Never mind that you never proved it. That's why most people have trouble taking Conservapedia seriously. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
  
The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.
+
::::::::Brad, the existence of artistic beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of functional evolution.  If you know of any evolutionists who accept the existence of artistic beauty in nature, then please do post some examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::::::: Atheists like Stephen Hawking, David Attenborough and, more recently, Brian Cox go to great pains to extol the beauty and rhythm of the universe and nature. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::I disagree that the existence of beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionists have written about the role of beautiful plumage in birds and how evolution could produce this beauty. I think some have even proposed that we evolved to find the world beautiful because those who thought it ugly were more prone to depression and less likely to survive. We all know they're wrong, but their argument is valid if you only allow naturalistic explanations, which is what their whole model is based on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::"Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature." Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: "After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life." - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" his enthusiasm for the beauty of nature is very obvious; it's debatable whether Sagan was an atheist or not, but he was most certainly an evolutionist. Exactly the same can be said for Brian Cox's recent productions. My personal experience is that most evolutionists DO see beauty in nature; they just don't believe it was designed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
  
6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.
+
::::::::::::Your quote does not say the world is beautiful. Evolution is a theory based on ''functionality''.  How would an evolutionist explain how beauty arose?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
  
7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)
+
:::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word "beautiful" in that quote, but he uses it several times in an interview with Der Spiegel, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,748673,00.html. Evolutionists also argue that the universe wasn't made to be beautiful so much as we evolved to find it beautiful, simply because we live in it. I don't believe that's true, but within the evolutionary framework it's a valid argument and they can ue it as an effective counter. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 09:50, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
  
8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.
+
== float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==
  
9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called ''Diplognathus'' was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)
+
SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer [http://books.google.com/books?id=zJzC7nfAMWEC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&source=bl&ots=xAVwcJihMN&sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&hl=en&ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&source=bl&ots=XUGsWfPVCY&sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&hl=en&ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors.  
  
10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)
+
Also this:
  
And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
+
"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
  
: Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."
+
:Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
It's funny you should bring up [[Richard Dawkins]]. Are you interested in creating a [[Elevatorgate]] article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.  
  
: The point here is simple:  one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution.  Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.
+
Here are some sources:
  
: It only takes one counterexample.  Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough.  The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest.  The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance.  But such beauty does not happen by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
 
::: In ''principle'' it only takes one counterexample.  In ''practice'', it's not that simple.  Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius.  We run 100 tests to see if that's true.  One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees.  Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)?  And that was for a very specific hypothesis.  Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses.  Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded.  At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all.  Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework.  Of course there are ''plenty'' of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 
  
::It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that ''none of the proposed points actually follow through'' as counterexamples.  
+
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting
  
::The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.
+
http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists
  
::And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role''. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them '''because they work well enough'''.
+
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum
  
::A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.
+
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/
  
::As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).
+
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/
  
::Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
+
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
  
::: You write that "beauty can happen by chance."  That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.
+
:Ha ha, I hadn't heard about that! I've read some other stuff on it as well now, including PZ Myers' comments, and it seems they're all at each other's throats. That could make a pretty good article, and I might have a shot at it as soon as I work out how. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
  
::: When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance."  If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off.  Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
+
== Altruism ==
  
Responding to Thinker...
+
I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book "The selfish gene" from the argument on altruism, because in fact Dawkins doesn't deny altruism in animals and the book has a whole chapter discussing it. Dawkins regularly makes a fool of himself talking about evolution and religion, and the reason is that he's not qualified in either subject. What he actually is, is an ethologist (studies animal behaviour) and I have to grudgingly admit that he's quite good at that, so he's not really in a position to deny altruism because it obviously exists. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
  
"''All origins theory is story-telling''":  In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, ''which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator'', is just a made-up story.
+
== The Devil's Advocate ==
  
"''The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible''":  True.  Which is where evolution hopelessly fails.  It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.
+
I'd like to spark some discussion on this article by pointing out which arguments can be easily countered by evolutionists (yes, many of them can, unfortunately) and which ones are definite refutations of evolutionary theory (yes, we have plenty of those too.) What I plan to do is list every example with its evolutionist refutation if applicable and my opinion on what we should do with it. Please contribute as much as you can. Anyway here's the list (apologies for the massive edit):
  
"''...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.''":  Huh?  Evolution is a claim about what ''actually happened''.  Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because ''they'' can see the contradiction).  Whether or not it happened ''is'' very relevant.
+
Logical examples
  
"''Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...''":  But the claim was that it doesn't ''identify'' a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true.  Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor ''if evolution is true''. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing.  So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.
+
1. This example assumes that the rate of extinctions has remained constant. While the theory of evolution doesn't make any statements on this, it incorporates data from other sciences such as paleontology that claim there have been massive spikes in extinction rates, including one that's happening now. Weak argument - should be removed.
  
"''Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.''":  Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against ''evolution'', not ''biology''. The two are not synonymous.
+
2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed.  
  
Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?
+
3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.
  
"''It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.''":  No, it doesn't serve well.  Evidence of things working well is evidence of good ''design''.  Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that.  The same applies to your response to No. 7.
+
4. Evolution can explain this and would point out that the eyes found in species they claim to be closely related tend to be similar while those found in species they claim to be distantly related are much less similar, e.g. vertebrates and cephalopods have different eye structures. They also claim that eyes have clear survival benefits and are likely to evolve. This is a dubious argument and needs discussion.
  
"''All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.''": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again.  Where did those valves come from to get selected?  Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.
+
5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.
 +
   
 +
6. Strong argument and should be expanded.  
  
"''Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.''":  Except that these [[intermediate forms]] are almost entirely lacking.
+
7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.
  
"''scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.''":  Two different types of keratin.  And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/909 this article]:{{QuoteBox|‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.}}
+
8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.  
  
"''The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry''":  Or a common designer.
+
9. Based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (and, to some extent, on arguments between evolutionists.) What LEVEL are traits benefitting? Lying might not benefit the human race as a whole but it can certainly benefit the liar. Dubious and needs more discussion.
  
"''The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic.''":  Yes, that's the point.  Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic.  However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying.  A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/].
+
10. Based on a factual error. The dog is NOT a separate species; it's Canis lupus familiaris, a sub-species of the wolf. Dubious and needs discussed.
  
"''...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...''":  No, they don't.  They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.
 
  
"''...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.''":  No, they don't ''ignore'' such gradual development; they argue against it.
+
Lack of mechanism
  
"''IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role.": No, it ''argues'' that without the missing part, it will not work in ''any'' role.
+
1. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and many animals have a demonstrated ability to sense imminent earthquakes. A bit dubious and needs to be expanded.
  
"''If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.''":  Hand-waving story telling.
+
2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of "information" you use, for a start. Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with disorder; it refers to energy available for work. Ice is much more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. This is a common misunderstanding and one that evolutionists like to jump all over. The information part needs to be expanded; the entropy bit needs to go.
  
"''Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.''": Oh?  The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?
+
3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?
  
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.
  
::Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.
+
:Evolution can explain why animals migrate but not how they are able to navigate by instinct. They can give a believable explanation for how an animal might evolve a mechanism capable of finding its way over long distances, but not how information is already loaded into that system when the animal is born. I agree it's not the strongest example in the world, but I don't think it's as weak as you seem to. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
  
::But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:
+
5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.  
::1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.
+
  
::2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.
+
6. Laughable. Should be removed.
  
::3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.
+
7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps?
  
::And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.
 +
 +
9. Should be merged with 8 and not emphasised so much. Evolutionists can put forward MANY explanations for why these things would be favoured, but what they can't explain is how we're able to do them in the first place.
  
::But what if some evidence proved that the bible is in fact, not infallible? Would you disregard that, Mr. Schlafly, as you suggest we do with the theory of evolution? I dont mean to judge, just please don't say that someone is closed-minded because they may not change their views because one part of the theory may appear to be faulty.  
+
10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.
  
::Arguing about this seems to be pointless anyways, since it is possible that one counterexample could prove the theory impossible, and it is possible that this counterexample could be overlooking something that neither side can see. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
11. This is factually inaccurate. Birds don't even HAVE X and Y chromosomes (they have Z and W) and the evolutionary argument would be that if two groups evolved sexual reproduction separately there's no reason why their chromosomes should follow the same pattern. This needs to be cleaned up and focused on the fact that the alleged common ancestor of birds and mammals was ALREADY reproducing sexually, which evolutionists can't explain.
  
 +
12. This one is easily answered. An evolutionist would say that the fish gradually colonised colder water as they evolved resistance to low temperatures. Weak and should be removed.
 +
 +
13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?
 +
 +
14. Animals like isolated places because they tend to be safe, and lots of them can climb better than we can. Very weak and should be removed.
  
:: Thinker, evolution ''is'' used to disprove creation, whether it should be or not.  And in a sense it should be, as (depending on how you define them), there are really only two options: a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation.  If one is correct, the other is wrong.
 
:: I reject that evolution is a core tenet of biology.  Biology existed before Darwin published his idea, and the two are different concepts anyway.  Biology is the study of living things (e.g. how they work), evolution is the study (if you like, I would say story) of how living things came to be.
 
:: [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342 This source] says that the eye ''can'' detect a single photon, and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/ this source] says that the cephalopod eye can't see as well as the human eye.  In any case, you are comparing eyes for different environments and that therefore have different purposes.
 
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 
  
I'd like to throw something out there regarding number 1. It appears to be a "tree falls in the forest"-type statement. It appears to say that beautiful phenomenon are designed (divinely) for human pleasure and thus they could not precede humanity. Ah.... what?
+
Maladaptation
[[User:Inspector]] 11:58, 1 June, 2009 (MST)
+
  
== Consciousness ==
+
1. This only applies to box jellyfish and the reason they come close to the beach at this time is well understood: that's when they spawn. Fallacious example and should be removed.
  
Excellent new point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
+
2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.
  
== Bat counterexample ==
+
3. Can anyone name any benefits of the prostate surrounding the urethra? The theory of evolution actually states that there are many examples of poor design that natural selection CAN'T eliminate because it can't go back and start again. Dubious and needs discussion.
  
Superb again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
+
4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed.
  
You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
+
5. Strong example.
  
The article stated: "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."
+
6. This assumes that HIV and other pathogens aren't evolving too. Evolutionists say that they are, and it's obvious that they do undergo adaptation. A fairly weak example that should probably be removed.  
1) Bats do not require sonar to fly; the existence of 150 species of non-echolocating bats proves this.
+
2) Even ignoring the sonar of toothed whales and the echolocation of oilbirds and swiftlets, there are nonflying land animals that use echolocation: two genera (multiple species) of shrews and the tenrecs. Thus the statement that "an animal that can't fly doesn't need it" is also disproven.  
+
3) Since mammalian flight and mammalian echolocation both exist in isolation, the flight-echolocation combination is not irreducibly complex and therefore does not disprove evolution.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
: It was poorly worded, but the point was valid, that a certain group of creatures do need the sonar to fly, even if that was only some bats and not all.  I've reinstated and improved the entry.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
::It's clearly a waste of time to remove it again, but the point is most definitely not valid. To approach validity, there would have to be no current non-echolocating bats and no non-bat echolocators. There would also have to be no fossil evidence of non-echolocating bats and no fossil non-bat echolocators. In reality, none of these four conditions are met. Therefore there is no theoretical impediment to an echolocator evolving flight or a flyer evolving echolocation, since the two traits are entirely separable and need not have arisen simultaneously. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
  
== Reversion explained ==
+
7. Does schizophrenia make people less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? If not there is no reason why natural selection would eliminate it. Potentially interesting but needs some discussion.
 +
 +
8. Very, very dubious. Male pattern baldness HAS been observed in other species - orangs and chimps - and does it actually make men less likely to find a mate? Does it tend to appear after the reproductive peak has already passed? This should PROBABLY go, but may benefit from more information.
 +
 +
9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.
  
"Thinker", please take your own name to heart:  there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 
  
:My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.
+
Wrong predictions
  
:And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
1. A very good example.
  
== Some Comments ==
+
2. Fairly strong.
  
Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
3. Moderately strong but not concrete.
 +
 +
4. Again, the theory of evolution states that natural selection can't work backwards and therefore often has to make the best of a bad job rather than produce a perfect design. Weak and should be removed.
 +
 +
5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.
 +
 +
6. Possibly false and certainly irrelevant; evolution doesn't necessarily predict human improvement and the short timeline claim assumes very strict uniformitarianism. Weak and should go.
 +
 +
7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.
 +
 +
8. True but irrelevant; evolutionary theory doesn't recognise devolution, just evolution in different directions. They will say that if an organism becomes more adapted by losing genetic information, it's evolved. Pretty weak and should perhaps go.
  
: No, PatWills, autumn foliage ''is'' beautiful.  Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too.  You do have free will.  But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful.  It is, and it disproves evolution.
 
  
: As to animals, they don't dress themselves.  They really don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
Missing fossils
  
::Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.
  
::: OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone.  In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.
::::Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
  
:::::PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful.  And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.
+
3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and the vast majority of fossils, even claimed transitionals, are NOT frauds. Not especially strong but should probably stay.
  
:::::Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
4. Pretty strong.
  
::::::Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
5. Very strong and should be expanded.
  
Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals?  It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it.  It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture.  Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
6. See 3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. Also this is vergin on being a duplicate. Should be merged with 3.
  
: Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty?  Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity".  So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?
+
7. There are lots of hominid fossils that are clearly genuine. Those beings existed. The big question is, were they actually human ancestors or not? Evolutionists say yes; we say no. Potentially strong but needs expansion.
  
: Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it.  And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty.  It's a depressing fate.  Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 
  
::Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
Paradoxical fossils
  
:::Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:
+
1. Is Raptorex actually questioning any evolutionary assumptions? It seems like most palaeontologists reject the Raptorex classification and say it's a juvenile tyrannosaurid. Weak and should probably go, unless anyone can add anything.
:::1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent.  [[Facts]] are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place.  Can we say the same about beauty?  If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful.  What makes it beautiful is a perception.  You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.
+
:::2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods.  Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.
+
:::3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant.  It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.
+
:::[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
  
:::: Sideways, your comment is not responsive.  I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with until you do, except to reiterate the following.  Evolutionists ''must'' deny the existence of beauty, and you can see examples on this page.  Suit yourself, but I'm going to spend my time with the 99.99% of the population that admits that beauty exists, and enjoys it.  Depression awaits those who deny the existence of beauty, and you have free will to choose your own path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 
  
== Consciousness (2) ==
+
Irreducible Complexity
  
The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.
:: Be careful not to confuse ''consciousness'' with ''self awareness''.  They are not the same, and I was talking bout the latter.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
:::Ah I see, I'll be more careful. However, I still think the point is flawed though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
: Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process.  Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
  
::I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.
  
 +
3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.
  
There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:
+
:Evolutionists have lots of examples for intermediate wings in mammals, such as sugar gliders, but not in birds. It looks to me like they can give an evolutionary explanation for bats but not birds. I think this example should stay if that's clarified. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.
+
:*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality.
+
:*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'.
+
:*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).
+
:*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.
+
:*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
::Regarding the point on symbiosis.  The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view.  As such the point relies on evolution not occurring.  Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.
+
::Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this.  While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures.  Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.
+
::Regarding animals and self-sacrifice.  Other animals do exhibit altruism.  A good example of this is the ''U. stansburiana'', or the Side-blotched lizard. 
+
::Regarding intermediate fossils...  This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument.  Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another.  People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils.  Hence why I call it a cop out argument.  There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.
+
::Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
  
::: Self-awareness and clothing have little if anything to do with each other, I agree there.
+
:::Ostriches use their wings for balance when running at high speed. Obviously that's not proof of evolution, but it's a demonstrable use of wings that aren't capable of flight. I still think this one just leaves us open to attack and should be removed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:48, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::: Whether morality is subjective or not depends on whether or not you believe that it comes from God.
+
::: I'm not sure that it's true that tool use is "most often" found in primates, but otherwise I agree with this point.
+
::: I agree that animals do exhibit self-sacrifice.  Stories of a hen dying whilst protecting her chicks are legion, for example.  Admittedly, though, I don't know if any animals exhibit self-sacrifice for anything other than their own offspring.
+
::: Sorry, but evolution ''does'' say that "man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish".  Well, perhaps not "rats" specifically, but it does the rest.  True, it doesn't claim that we evolved from the creatures around today, but it does propose a ''line'' from the simplest creature to man (as well as lines to other creatures, altogether forming a tree). And any common ancestor to modern humans and apes would be referred to as an ape.
+
::: Yes, man is ''defined'' as an animal, in the taxonomic [[classification system]](<-- read that), but you can also ''define'' man as not an animal by using different criteria (such as the existence of an eternal soul).  However, whether or not man is an animal is beside the point for this article.
+
::: The symbiosis argument does not rely on both "coming into existence as they are today", but on the requirement that both species became dependent on each other at the same time.  In theory, that could be after both came into existence.
+
::: Scientists have discovered what ''they claim'' to be intermediate fossils, but (a) they are often not indisputably so, and (b) they are often not actually intermediate!  That is, New Scientist in March this year had an article on supposed fossil transitional forms, and I'm reasonably sure that Tiktaalik was one of its examples, but it said that it was on a side branch.  If it's on a side branch, it's not intermediate!  For Ambulocetus, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776 here].
+
::: Just because creationists have rejected all proposals so far doesn't mean that it's pointless asking for them or that there's any that they wouldn't, in theory, accept.
+
:::  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
  
== Removed "Statistical Approach" ==
+
4. The flagellum is a solid example.
  
It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truthInstead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
5. The eye isn't. Even a non-imaging eye has lots of uses and are found in many species. If they didn't help the organism they wouldn't have been designed in. This is another example that evolutionists love.
 +
   
 +
6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.
  
== "The foliage existed before man does" ==
+
7. Ear bones; an excellent example.
 +
 +
8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.
  
But only by a few days, right?  Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
9. Social insects; a very good example but the argument about workers not reproducing should be removed. They share their entire genome with the queen, so by helping her reproduce they ARE reproducing their own DNA.
  
== Beauty ==
+
 +
Uncategorized
  
The argument about the impossibility of evolution creating beauty is a valid one, contrary to Sideways' commentIf beauty objectively exists for no apparent evolutionary reason, then it's fair to ask why it exists, and it's fair to conclude that this argument is one that favours creation. To put it another way, evolution would not predict the existence of beauty, but creation would, so if beauty exists, the creationary prediction has been fulfilled and the evolutionary prediction is falsified.
+
1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.
 +
   
 +
2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?
  
So does beauty exist? Certainly we humans consider various things to be beautiful or notJust as certainly, we differ as to what we consider beautiful, which suggests that the whole idea is subjective, not objective.  So no, it is most definitely ''not'' like 2+2=4. The saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is quite true.
+
3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.
 +
   
 +
4. Without a definition of "kind" this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.
  
However, it can be framed in a more objective manner, as I almost do in the first paragraph. That is, are there things that are generally considered beautiful ''for which no apparent evolutionary reason exists''?
+
5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.
  
Autumn leaves are ''not'' an example of that. Why are autumn leaves the colours they are?  Because in dying, they have lost the chlorophyll that makes them green.  There is no need to invoke design to explain their colour.  (This does not mean that God didn't deliberately design dead tree leaves to be nice colours, but it does mean that we can't invoke God as the only likely cause.)
+
6. I don't think a 24-hour circadian cycle defies materialistic explanations at all; in fact it makes perfect sense on a planet with a 24-hour rotation. On the other hand if someone can come up with examples of a WEEKLY cycle in non-humans that would be very strong.
  
However, an example is the one I mentioned higher on this page: the peacock's tail. Darwin considered the peacock's tail to be an example of ''sexual selection'', that is, the peahen prefers the more colourful peacock tails, so evolution favours more colourful tails.  For a long time this hypothesis has been accepted, but more recently tests have been done to show that peahens ''don't'' favour more colourful tails, so this idea has been put to bed. (See link higher up this page.)
+
7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.
  
Now it's always possible that some evolutionist will come up with some other evolutionary explanation of the peacock's tail in the future, but at the moment, this evidence favours the creationary view, so is a valid argument.  But autumn foilage is not, for reasons I've just explained.
 
  
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
I realise that I'm proposing removing a majority of the examples, but the ones that I think should go are ones that I've seen evolutionists give plausible answers to in a materialist framework (which is, after all, where they're working and therefore where we need to combat them to win over their followers) and I don't think they should be used. In compensation, the remaining examples are all inarguable and many of them can be expanded, so in my opinion the article would be a lot more solid and informative. Anyway, please let me know what you think and contribute any specialist knowledge you have. Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
  
: Philip, if you think that beauty is ''completely'' subjective and relative, then do you feel the same way about the term "good" as commonly used?  E.g., God created such-and-such, and saw that it was "good".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
:Thanks for your thoughtful analysis.  I plan to study each of your points carefully, and will respond to the first ten now (the logical counterexamples):
  
:: Exactly.  As God created 'goodness,' so too he created 'beauty' on Earth. Psalm 27:4 states "One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple." Likewise, Psalm 50:2: "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:58, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
:#It seems implausible that the rate of extinction would vary enormously, but even if it did, it would still exceed the rate of the generation of new species.
 +
:#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage.  It cannot be explained by evolution.
 +
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
 +
:#But the eye is remarkably similar across species that have no direct evolutionary connection, such as humans and cats and eagles.  The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!
 +
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
 +
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
 +
:#This is a valid point.  Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary mannerIt's like lightening striking twice at the same place, at the same time of day, etc.  Doesn't happen, and certainly not repeatedly so (for many species).
 +
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
 +
:#Evolution does have a problem explaining why so many self-destructive people and personalities exist.  A liar typically ends up hurting himself as well as others.  An addict is even worse.  They should not exist under evolution.
 +
:#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.
  
::: Right.  Anyone who claims that beauty is completely subjective and relative is likely to say the same about goodness.  God saw that his creation was good, but under this view that is in the eyes of the beholder. It wasn't ''really'' good, it just looked that way to God.  For there, of course, it's a small step to saying that morality is in the eyes of the beholder.  God said something was wrong, but it wasn't ''really'' wrong, it just seemed that way to God.
+
:Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
  
::: When 100 out of 100 people say something is beautiful (like autumn foliage), it ''really'' is beautiful.  And those who deny it for the sake of evolution can look forward to the depression that life without beauty inevitably entails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:
  
:::: It is not true that 100 out of 100 people say autumn foliage is beautiful. Does that then open the possibility that it is not ''really'' beautiful? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 00:46, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
+
::4. According to evolutionary theory humans, cats and eagles actually have a very close connection: they're all vertebrates, and all vertebrates have the same basic design of eye right down to the same features that evolutionists describe as flaws, such as the inverted retina. On the other hand no NON-vertebrate has the same basic design; cephalopods have a very similar eye in almost every respect, but the retina isn't inverted. Within the naturalistic model, they can explain this very well.
  
:::: So what are we to make of the old saw that ''Beauty is in the eye of the beholder''?  [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
::7. Evolutionists would argue that males and females aren't evolving separately, because they're all part of the same population. Changes between generations would be very small, so it's unlikely that incompatibility would emerge with such a small change. Honestly, they LIKE it when people use this as a counter-argument because they're all over it. It would be better to focus on how sexual reproduction evolved in the first place, because they can't answer that. They can explain WHY it would evolve, because it has all sorts of advantages, but not HOW. The question of males and females of a species evolving together, though, is something they see as trivial and often amusing, and anyone reading it here and using it in a debate is likely to emerge feeling quite battered.
  
::::: It's meaningless when the beholder is God.  What He sees as beauty IS beauty, as he created it. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
::9. Game theory has a lot of explanations of how lying can be a benefit. Addiction is an interesting one: it's been argued that addiction to certain things - fat and sugar, mostly - was a survival benefit for early man, because these were scarce high-value foods and people who went to the effort of finding them were more likely to survive. Current obesity epidemics have been blamed on humans retaining a low-level addiction to them now that they're widely available. Addiction to things that are simply harmful is probably more difficult for them to explain though. Anyway I'll revise my position on this one and say that it's not as clear as I initially thought.
::::::: We are talking about what appears beautiful to ''humans''. But to take your point, how do you determine (apart from explicit references in Scripture) what God considers beautiful?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
  
:::::: My mother, long passed now, used to hate Autumn - when she saw the leaves turning brown she always used to feel depressed, as to her it signaled the end of summer and the oncoming long dark winter months.  I guess not everyone sees the world the same way.  [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
::10. Dogs are classified as a sub-species of wolf (Canis lupus,) not as a separate species. They're often referred to as Canis familiaris, but the correct names are C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo, with the species remaining C. lupus.
:::::::I experience a similar state - while I enjoy the pretty colors, it also means the end of the gardening season, and the onset of the heating season, hunkering down for winter, and the short, dark days.  PS, one word I find interesting in other contexts in this "argument": kaleidoscope. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:00, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
I'm not saying that beauty is ''completely'' subjective, nor relative.  I believe that it exists, and that God created it (i.e. that's probably why the peacock's tail is like it is).  But it doesn't follow from that that everything that we ''consider'' beautiful is that way because God intended it to be so.  Do you find a landscape beautiful?  Most do, but most landscapes are the result not of God's design, but of God's judgment on the world in the form of Noah's Flood. So in such cases, beauty is actually (a) subjective (i.e. it wasn't intended that way) or (b) ''despite'' the judgment (i.e. God made the world so beautiful that even in a corrupted form we still find much of it beautiful).  I'm quite happy to accept (b), but if (b) is correct, what we have to acknowledge is that it ''isn't the way God designed it''.  So are autumn leave beautiful because God designed autumn leaves to be beautiful, or simply because they are part of an overall beautiful creation?
+
  
'''But all that's rather beside the point'''. The point of the beauty argument is that evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't explain it.  But natural processes ''can'' explain why autumn leaves are the colour they are. Therefore it's not an evolution-refuting argument.
+
::My experience is that of a creationist who grew up in the UK and spent most of my adult life in the British Army, which is a pretty aggressively secular environment. Evolution is much more widely believed and there are very few creationists (I don't know where the BBC got their poll figures from; every other poll puts belief in evolution at about 80% and "don't knows" as half the rest) and evolution is taught in a lot of detail in schools. I've had some fairly bruising experiences when I've used what I thought were good arguments and then promptly been beaten down. As a result I've studied evolutionary theory quite a bit, just to find out what it says; lots of creationists sadly have a pretty shallow knowledge of it, which makes it easy for them to allege straw man tactics on our part. Even Michael Behe fell victim to this at the Dover trial; he's done a lot of excellent work on something that really is irreducibly complex (the flagellum) but when he concluded that the immune system was also irreducibly complex he didn't read deeply enough, and he fell down quite badly; the evolutionists stacked up a huge pile of research showing that it isn't, and this terminally damaged his credibility with the judge. There really ARE fatal flaws in the theory of evolution, but a lot of them aren't quite what we think they are. I'm very wary of putting forward arguments that can be countered, because it may make them question the reliability of the site where they found those arguments - which is us. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 10:31, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
  
As for God pronouncing the creation "good", first, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily uses the word "as commonly used" (in the present day)Rather I see "good" as referring to a range of things, such as impeccable and excellent design, faultlessness, fit for purpose, and suchAnd yes, beauty would be one aspect of that.
+
::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamplesBut note that many of the evolutionists' "explanations" are simply implausible, unproven work-aroundsThat does not negate a counterexample.
  
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
::: As to the specific points:
  
: Aschlafly already explained it to you clearly, Phil.  Beauty cannot result from evolution, as it cannot result from chance.  As for Bible's use of the word, yes, it necessarily uses the word "as commonly used."  Vague definitions is a favorite method of liberal deceit.  God's word is inerrant, and thus does not mislead with vagueries. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
::::4 - the point is that a very broad and diverse range of species have virtually identical eyes that could only have evolved long after the existence of their supposedly common ancestorThat's simply implausible for the same thing of enormous complexity to evolve independently in very different species.
:: That name's "Philip", by the way.  And I've explained myself at least as well as Andy's explained it to me, and you've not added anything new to his explanation.  Why is the Bible's use of the word ''necessarily'' "as commonly used"?  Many Bible words have subtly different meanings than how they are commonly used ''in modern times''.  And referring to my use as a "vague definition" is incorrect; I gave a definition that was more detailed than Andy's.  Inerrancy is different to clarity.  I agree that God's word is clear where it needs to be, but it's not always clear (on less-important matters), although always inerrant.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
The old saw is an atheistic falsehood, which is traced to statements by a young Benjamin Franklin (before he returned to [[faith]]) and by [[David Hume]], an early atheistic philosopher. See [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59100.html].  Looks like it has misled many who are unaware of its atheistic roots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
+
: That's a rather selective interpretation of the link you providedIt actually says that in the wording we've been using it's attributable to a Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, although the concept appears earlier, including by Hume, and before him Franklin, and before him Shakespeare, and even he was not the first.
+
: Nevertheless, the existence of a saying does not mean that it's true.  It may not be, but it appears to have a fair bit of truth simply by the ''fact'' that some see beauty where others do not.
+
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
  
:: No, Philip, Shakespeare did not say that beauty is in the eye of the beholderThat is obviously an atheistic saying that you repeated, as I pointed outIt's time to concede that point.
+
::::7 - yes, evolutionists try to answer tough questions by saying that populations, not individuals, evolve, but that does not solve the dilemma.  It reminds me of how evolutionists will inject the passage of more time to try to fix the implausibility of some of their arguments, when more time often does not helpMoreover, once evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve did not originate as individuals, but only as some type of population, then the theory directly conflicts with Christianity and is even forbidden by the Catholic ChurchSo evolutionists typically avoid admitting that their theory denies the existence of Adam and Eve.
  
:: Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't.  The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose.  Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty?  It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
::::9 - again, this is an issue of plausibilityLet evolutionists claim implausibly that addiction is part of survival of the fittest, with addicts surviving, and watch them lose any persuasive effect they had.
:::: No, Shakespeare did not say precisely that, but then neither did Hume nor Franklin.  Your point?
+
:::: No, Andy, I did not simply "seem to think" that evolution could explain the beauty in autumn foliage.  I explained why your argument was invalid, and you've done nothing to answer that, instead simply stating without any substantiation that "it plainly can't".  What was actually wrong with the argument that I put (and which Samd has repeated below)?
+
:::: And what does "the color arrangement arose before man" have to do with the debate?
+
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
+
::: I had been under the impression that leaves change color as a result of their chlorophyll dying due to a lack of water. If this is, in fact, true, I do not think that it is impossible to describe how and why the leaves change using a purely naturalistic viewpoint. (To be honest, I haven't really given this much thought before, and your view on it is very interesting. I'll have to dig out my old Wile biology book and see if it covers this. It's so hard to find science books written from a Christian perspective.)
+
:::With regard to whether there is a set-in-stone definition of beauty, this idea intrigued me, so I searched the King James Version of the Bible for various words and phrases meaning "pretty", "beautiful", and the like, using a software concordance. The Hebrew word used is almost always the same one, "יפה". Here is Strong's definition of it:
+
:::::H3303
+
:::::יפה
+
:::::yâpheh
+
:::::yaw-feh'
+
:::::From H3302; beautiful (literally of figuratively): - + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.
+
:::H3302 is simply a root (and unfortunately, I can't get the Hebrew letters to render correctly. Oh, well...):
+
:::::H3302
+
:::::יפה
+
:::::yâphâh
+
:::::yaw-faw'
+
:::::A primitive root; properly to be bright, that is, (by implication) beautiful: - be beautiful, be (make self) fair (-r), deck.
+
:::Most of the time, the word "beauty" was used in the phrase "the beauty of his [God's] holiness". "Beautiful" and "comely" generally referred to people or things that looked good, or, pretty. "Fair" was often used to describe various women, such as Sarah and Vashti. ("fairest" and "fair one" were only used in the Song of Solomon). "Goodly", "pleasant", and "well" (when it was used in this sense) likewise were used to describe things, but no definition of the ''words'' was offered in the text. In short, I was unable to find any hard-fast definition of what God considers to be beautiful (in a physical sense, at least). Based on this, as well as my own experience, I think that while there are things which practically anyone would agree is beautiful, such as a sunset, beauty is largely subjective. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 23:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
  
== Sarfati reference ==
+
::::10 - I'll check with an expert on dogs and wolves.  I think there may be disagreement about their classification.  If so, then this could be omitted from the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:37, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
  
The Safarti reference about the prostate doesn't say anything about how natural selection would have changed the design for the worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::I REALLY have to disagree with you on that one! Most evolutionists don't avoid mentioning that their theory says Adam and Eve didn't exist, and the rest even use it as a joke, such as "Mitochondrial Eve." I'm not sure what the USA is like but in the UK it's quite routine to deny that Adam and Eve existed, even among most christians. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:52, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
: See the last line of the article.  It doesn't say quite what was in this article, but I've improved it now.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
::It smells of [[straw man|straw]] to me. Sarfati (thanks for the spelling btw!) simply claims that evolutionists say that the prostate is a bad design, but doesn't (a) give any evidence that evolutionists actualy make this agument, <s>(b) give any reasons why evolutionists think the prostate is a bad design,</s> (c) give any reasons why evolutionists would ''admit'' that a bad design would be naturally selected or (d) show that it is necessary to the evolutionist argument for the prostate to have been badly designed. Maybe he has it in his book, but it's certainly not supported by the reference. (In fairness, there is also one line at the beginning of the article, but again this is just an assertion). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
:::I guess he does say why evolutionists allegedly think that it is a bad design, but he then spends the whole article arguing that not only is it ''not'' a bad design, but evolutionists are using fautlty data to come to the conclusion that it is a bad design. Thus, according to Sarfati, if evolutionists knew about these data, they would have to agree that the prostate is a good design, thus counteracting his own argument! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
  
==Chromosome example==
+
::::::The "joke" may be a way of avoiding the issue.  Can you link to clear statements by evolutionists that Adam and Eve could not have existed as first humans under the [[theory of evolution]]?  You might have a hard time finding such statements by leading evolutionists, because it conflicts directly with [[Christianity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
  
The chromosome example, currently #15 on the list, is false. The standard human has 46 chromosomes. A human with Downs Syndrome has has 47. If they were to mate, they would produce viable offspring. However not all instances of having an extra chromosome result is problems such as Downs Syndrome, some have relatively no impact, most are far worse, and some provide benefits.  However I cannot recall a situation where it was beneficial in humans, I have read of cases where it has benefited other animals and plants.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::::"Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all." - Richard Dawkins, "The root of all evil?" "There was no Adam. There was no Eve." - PZ Myers, "Pharyngula," 22 Jun 10. The fact is that no published scientific paper is even going to mention them because they're outside the naturalistic framework, but in public statements most evolutionists are quite happy to deny the existence of Adam and Eve and couldn't care less that it contradicts the bible. This even applies to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago and evolutionists claim that modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, so the idea that they were real people and the ancestors of us all is ruled out from the start. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
  
: Random mutations are never beneficial.  Please make your point after you have the evidence, not by referring to evidence that you don't have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
  
::They can be, in the right circumstances. Take the SNP responsible for sickle cell anemia. A person homozygous for sickle cell will have a debilitating disease, but a heterozygous person is more resistant to malaria than a non-carrier and is not symptomatic for sickle cell. This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world.  [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::::::I can't find a direct quote from Miller denying the existence of Adam and Eve (although I didn't have much time to search last night) but there MAY be one in his book "Finding Darwin's God." That (as well as many of his public speeches) certainly contains several denials of the literal truth of Genesis and numerous statements of his belief that humans evolved. I'll try to have another look later. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 01:14, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
  
:::If we were to assume that I was incorrect on mutations sometimes providing benefits, I was still correct that mates with different numbers of chromosomes can still mate successfully, provided of course that they would have been able to produce viable offspring in the first place. That part alone is enough to disprove the point. As for mutations providing benefits, I am not saying that all mutations are beneficial, in fact most mutations involving extra chromosomes cause serious problems, especially in larger mammals (humans included).   However plants tend to make better use of the kinds these kinds of mutations, take the F. chiloensis or the Beach Strawberry, It has 8x the number of chromosomes compared to wild type strawberries.  Because of this, it produces larger fruit with more seeds.  More seeds and larger fruit being an obvious advantage regarding reproduction. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
+
This is like boxing against dough. JMairs seems to have put a lot of work in here, along the lines I was planning to do before the Fun Police stamped on me. What's the response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It seems like nobody cares about this article until somebody has the temerity to try to improve it, at which point they'll be immediately blocked and forced to grovel and ritually humiliate themselves just to be allowed the privilege of RESTRICTED editing rights again. You know what? I'm PROUD to be a Conservative! Yes, PROUD! I actually kissed Margaret Thatcher's hand once. But trying to contribute to this site is like slamming my fists pointlessly into a sack full of wet, yeast-impregnated wet flour. It's like kicking sandbags. It's like headbutting a dead walrus. Whatever I do, I step on someone's toes and get blocked for it. Andy Schlafly has responded positively to my ideas, even if we don't agree about everything, but what do the sysadmins do? Block, revert, revert, block. Trying to achieve anything here is like suffocating inside a giant squid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Corry said "''This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world.''" Just because the sickle-cell mutation happened to produce a beneficial ''result'' in one case does not mean it is truly beneficial. Natural selection dictates that anything that is beneficial stays, and anything that does not ''immediately'' benefit an organism is thrown out. If there ever was a beneficial mutation, it would very quickly be passed among ''all'' members of a species. Since all of humanity does not have the sickle-cell trait, the mutation is, hands down, not beneficial when applied across a broad spectrum (which is what would have to occur in order for a species to evolve). [[User:Samd|Samd]] 00:02, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::No- mutations in the genome do not spread like computer viruses.  And as above, I said that homozygotes are at a disadvantage, while heterozygotes are at an advantage. If a mutation causes an overall reproductive benefit, in this case by heterozygotes being resistant to malaria and more likely to have children, then that mutation will be spread more than one which does not have a reproductive benefit. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 00:12, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
+
  
As Corry said, "random mutations" ''can'' be beneficial, even though that is (usually?) only in specific circumstances/environmentsThe claim that they can't be is one that leading creationists specifically say is wrong[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#mutations].
+
: Sam, I responded in detail to JMairs' first ten points, and discussed them furtherI plan to get to the remaining points once we're through discussing the first ten.
  
Samd is also correct that it is not beneficial ''overall'', but that doesn't make Andy's claim that it is "never" beneficial correct. And by the way, these rare beneficial mutations do not help the argument for evolution, because these beneficial mutations are still information-''losing'' mutations, whereas evolution requires information-''gaining'' mutations.
+
::No offence, but you didn't go into very much detail on any of his points and you were pretty dismissive on a couple of them where there is real grounds for debate. Separate evolution of males and females for example. Any evolutionary biologist WILL stamp all over that argument. Their theory doesn't require separate evolution at all, and insisting that it does just makes us slow fat ducks. I KNOW the theory - I studied it for four excrutiating years - and they really do not see an issue with this. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:24, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
  
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
+
:JMairs, Christianity is based on one Adam and Eve.  So I wouldn't be surprised if Miller lacks an express, public denial of their existence, because it's virtually impossible to make sense of the Gospels and the Crucifixion without the original sin by Adam and Eve.  The Catholic Church expressly forbids teaching that Adam and Eve somehow did not exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
  
:Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations. What it requires are information-changing mutations, which are the definition of mutations in the first place. There are massive parts of genetic material in living things that appear to do absolutely nothing. If one of these parts is mutated, there is no loss whatsoever (unless the mutation is worse than what it replaced, as many are). If the mutation makes a creature less likely to reproduce ''in that environment'', that gene will not be passed on to as many offspring, and the gene will become infinitely uncommon. If the mutation does nothing whatsoever, the population of that species is unaffected. If the mutation is beneficial (meaning that it makes that creature more likely to produce more offspring, which is extremely rare, but happens nonetheless), then this gene will be passed onto its offspring, which in turn are more fit to reproduce than competing creatures within that species. Therefore, this beneficial mutation spreads throughout the population as time passes (it does take a while).
+
== Vestigial organs ==
  
:This can happen indefinitely until a species no longer in any way resembles its ancestors. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 20:53, 6 November 2008 (EST)
+
I'd like to make a small edit to the example on vestigial organs. While it is true that every organ in the human body serves a purpose, the evolutionist meaning of "vestigial" is NOT useless; it merely means no longer used for its original purpose. For example the appendix is part of the immune system in human infants; most evolutionists acknowledge this, but claim that it's still vestigial because in their opinion it used to be a caecum, used for digesting cellulose. Clearly there is no evidence for this, but the inclusion of an incorrect statement (i.e. Vestigial = Useless) in this counterexample leaves it open to attack on the grounds of creating a strawman. Unfortunately the Fun Police have told me that I'm not allowed to edit this article but I hereby ask for permission to make this change. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
:Don't bother, this page is so hopelessly divorced from scientific reasoning, it really can't be salvaged. Most the the examples are either completely false or hopelessly divorced from actual evolution theory. The "Fun Police" know that if they actually let people correct the counter-examples, there would be about 3 examples left. Just for example, male nipples are completely vestigial, as are your ear muscles and the plica semilunaris (third eyelid). And even though the appendix is not completely useless, it still fits within the theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:21, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
  
:: If a bacteria has no ''information'' for hair, eyes, bones, skin, and so on, but it's evolutionary descendants do have this information, then they must have ''gained'' this information!  And if mutations didn't supply it, then where did it come from?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 7 November 2008 (EST)
+
::This is my concern. I'm guessing that you're probably an evolutionist. Well I'm not, but I do have a BSc in evolutionary biology from Glasgow University, and I'm not so demented as to think evolution is a liberal plot aimed at turning Christians into homosexual CNN presenters. Most evolutionists are good, honest scientists who sincerely believe that their theory is correct, and within the naturalist worldview they follow they have flawed but coherent arguments. Similarly most atheists aren't maniacs who want to convert children into drug-addicted Satanist male prostitutes. Sure they want to turn people away from Jesus and his offer of salvation, but they think they're doing the right thing. I disagree with evolutionists and atheists (and yes, I know the two aren't equivalent) but I've learned to respect their sincerity. I want Conservapedia to be a resource that will convince them that we DO have a valid worldview. This article should be reduced to about a dozen good, solid examples that Neo-Darwinism really can't explain, and it should present them in depth. 80% of the examples on here now just make us look like window lickers on the Sunshine Bus. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:36, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
::: Mutations did supply it. There are examples of information-gaining mutations as well. And genes are not organized according to body parts.  Scientists have discovered that genes interact with each other. The system is very complex. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 10:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::There are? Care to name one, and rock the scientific world?  Your last two sentences say nothing that argues for information-increasing mutations.  Infact, gene interaction, expression, polyploidy and generally the complexity of the "system" as you call it are all problems for biological evolution by random changes.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:05, 9 November 2008 (EST)
+
  
:::: So JArneal, how do you explain these two comments of yours:
+
:::Vestigial does mean useless supposedly due to evolution.  Look it up in a good dictionaryOf course evolutionists try to change the meaning of words to avoid admitting they're wrong.  That doesn't change the fact they are wrong.
::::* "''Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations''":
+
::::* "''Mutations did supply it.''":
+
:::: You say that evolution does not require information-gaining mutations, I point out that the information had to come from ''somewhere'', so you respond by saying that it came from ''mutations''!
+
:::: Yes, please give those example'''s''' of information-gaining mutationsDawkins was asked for examples, and couldn't supply any.  Since then, I know of ''one'' disputed one that is always trotted out, but even if that one is correct, it's ''one'' when there should be ''many'', and you've referred to them in the plural anyway.
+
:::: And LowKey is quite correct that your comment about the complexity doesn't answer the question about where the information came from.  That "genes are not organized according to body parts" doesn't mean that the information for the body parts is not there somewhere.
+
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::: I'm sorry I contradicted myself, Philip. What I meant is that evolution is a theory about the adaptation of life, which does not necessarily require information-gaining mutations. What you are talking about is an argument about the progression of life, which is a consequence of people trying to contradict evolution based on creationist beliefs. To you, Lowkey, the complexity of the system is not the issue, so again I apologize. The fact that it is possible to generate the changes through random mutations is the issue. It is possible, no matter how complicated anyone tries to make it out to be. It's the same thing with the information-gaining mutations. As long as there is one example of an information-gaining mutation, it does not make sense to use this argument. I see an information-gaining mutation. That tells me that information-gaining mutations are possible. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::::: Regardless of whether you label my argument as about the "progression of life", the unavoidable point is that evolution ''requires'' the addition of enormous amounts of new genetic informationI can't see how evolution going from a "simple" cell with no arms, heart, skin, brain, and so on to humans with all those and much more is not a "progression".
+
:::::: Simply claiming that it's possible to generate the required changes does not make it so.  Lowkey specifically asked you for examples, yet you supplied none.
+
:::::: And no, it's not as simple as claiming that one information-gaining mutation is enough, for several reasons:
+
::::::* There is no undisputed example.
+
::::::* Evolution doesn't require ''one'' but very many (probably millions if not billions).  Evidence of ''one'' is not evidence that evolution is capable of providing sufficient such mutations.
+
::::::* What evolution needs is more information-gaining mutations than information-losing ones.  If a hamburger seller makes a loss on every sale, but then eventually sells one for a profit, does that mean that his business is viable?
+
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::::: If you are looking for an example of an undisputed information-gaining mutation, I cannot help you. I don't know if anyone can, because evolution will always be disputed on this basis. Do you want me to give that commonly known example? Fine. Down syndrome. I did not want to bring it up because I did not want to argue about this. It is beside the point. The length of the genome does not need to increase to create organs such as eyes or a heart. It must change, however.  An amoeba has a far larger genome than a human, yet an amoeba does not have eyes or a heart. The actual size of the genome is not relevant, and therefore information-gaining mutations are not necessary, even from your viewpoint. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:46, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::::::: Down syndrome is caused by a genetic ''defect'', a ''loss'' of information, not an information-''gaining'' mutation.
+
:::::::: The amount of information is not proportional to the length of the genome.  See the section on ''Measuring information'' in [[information#Measuring information|information]].  You are confusing the ''size of the genome'' with the ''amount of information''.  That's like comparing chalk and cheese.  As I said, the first cell doesn't have the information for things such as hair, skin, and eyes.  So this information has to be ''added''.  Even if the cell or bacteria loses ''other'' information in the process, the information for those other things has to be generated ''somehow''.  That is the problem that microbe-to-man evolution has yet to produce evidence for.
+
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 13 November 2008 (EST)
+
  
Philip, I believe I provided an example of a gain of information with HIV developing an ion channel.  An ion channel that requires more than just a single mutation to occur.  I believe it can be found [[Mutation|here]] with the gain of function examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 07:41, 13 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::Nobody claims that most atheists are "maniacs", but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
  
Philip, I said I did not want to argue about Down syndrome. But if you really want to, then here: Down syndrome is also scientifically known as "trisomy 21."  This is because there is a third copy of chromosome 21 in the cells of a Down syndrome person (there are usually only two.)
+
::::No, "vestigial" does NOT mean useless according to evolutionary theory. Yes, they have an agenda: they have a worldview that they honestly believe is correct, and they want everyone to accept what they see as the truth. To that extent, they are exactly the same as us and they are JUST AS SINCERE as we are. The way to reach them is not by calling them Neo-Stalinist queer-promoting loons who're too stupid to accept Ray Comfort's banana argument; that just provokes them into a violent defence that is winning the argument in my country and, "Question Evolution!" campaign and all, is at least holding its own in yours. We need to engage them on the level of real scientific arguments that they can't answer, of which we have a good supply. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:36, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
  
The example in the [[information]] article does not have anything to do with our argument. It is pure coincidence that the english word for "vehicle" is longer than the english word for "car." The longer the genome, the more base pairs there are. The more base pairs there are, the more information is present in the genome.
+
:::::No, it's not symmetric.  Some atheists are opposed to free speech by Christians, and even claim offense at Christian speech as a way to censor it. The converse is virtually never true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:40, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
  
If a creature exists that has, lets say, 10000 base pairs(very simplified example) and only about 5000 actually code for proteins that carry out functions(there are long strands of genomes in animals that have no purpose), then there are still another 5000 that do nothing. If a part of this section of 5000 base pairs is mutated and "turned on" to code proteins as is possible, and this part codes for proteins that create arms, then according to the gene, you have lost information to gain the exact same amount of information (no information gain or loss.) But according to our observation of what the creature actually looks like, it looks exactly the same except it has arms.
+
::::::Isn't it? I hate to hear blasphemy, but how can we prevent it without censoring the free speech of atheists? There's a Commandment against blasphemy, but can we realistically demand that they follow that Commandment? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
  
I'm sorry if I'm not making any sense right now, but I'm not sure if I understand your argument, either.  --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:43, 13 November 2008 (EST)
+
== Vanadium and tunicates ==
  
:3 copies of something instead of 2 is no increase in information.  I have 3 copies of a couple of books (I lend a lot), but I have no more information than if I only had 1 copy of them. Switching existing information on or off is not gaining or losing information. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:25, 13 November 2008 (EST)
+
While the blood of tunicates MAY contain high levels of vanadium (the only research indicating this dates back to 1911 and nobody has been able to replicate the results since) it does not replace iron as an oxygen carrier; haemovanadin does not appear to carry any oxygen at all, and it is likely (though not confirmed) that tunicate blood also contains haemoglobin and haemocyanin. Therefore this example is at best unsubstantiated and at worst wrong. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)
  
:::Hmm. What is your metric for 'information'? Can you represent it formally (i.e. mathematically)? I ask because every well-defined metric for quantity of 'information' (such as used in signal processing), seems require more to encode three copies of a gene than two or one (at a minimum it requires at least an extra bit or two). It's very important to settle on ''specific'' definitions for quantification of 'information' before proceeding with assessments of relative changes. Shifting between specific definitions and metrics cause many problems. That was precisely the trouble that damaged many of Lee Spenter's claims about there being no increase in information from mutations (from his book _Not By Chance_) [http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199908/0178.html American Scientific Association discussion -- Follow links from this post] (an organization of Christian professional scientists and engineers) and [http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/spetner.htm Discussion from Ian Musgrave].--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:05, 3 December 2008 (EST)
+
:Waste of time, Sam. You SHOULD be writing hard-hitting articles on atheism and machismo, illustrated with pictures of rabbits. You're good at science: you should get out of here and start editing at http://astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page. Email me at john_mairs@hotmail.com. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 16:52, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
  
:: I agree completely. But imagine instead that those books were created the old-fashioned way (copied by hand, this is similar to the way DNA is copied) and there were some errors made in the copying (mutations) in your third copy of the book. What has happened? No information was lost, because you have already stated that the third copy is useless information-wise if it was the exact same as the others. The amount of information did not stay the same, because you now have a book that contains a different bit of information in it, and the information it would have had without copying errors is already in the other 2 books. If information was not lost and information did not stay the same, it must have increased!
+
== HIV and Evolution ==
  
:: What I said might be a little confusing, but the above scenario is far more similar to that of DNA. Mutations cause changes in the information, which in this case is an increase in information.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
+
The HIV example is terrible evidence against evolution, as HIV is a relatively new disease in humans and the genetic mutation that provides immunity is rare. Additionally, HIV affects a relatively small proportion of the population. There is no way for universal immunity to HIV to develop in a few generations. This counterexample is extremely weak, and undermines the integrity of the article.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 01:52, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::That is a false analogy, because in the example you gave the mutation '''is''' the 3rd copy. You are now talking about 2 mutations, the over-copying and then the copying error - but you still have not provided an example of the copying error in which the "copy" has a greater information content than the original. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:09, 14 November 2008 (EST)
+
  
::: JArneal, the word "vehicle" is not longer than the word "car" due to "pure coincidence". Rather, the example was ''intelligently selected'' to make the point that the amount of information is not the same as the number of letters, bits, or base pairs. When you randomly change a letter or bit, you say that information is not lost, it didn't stay the same, so it must have increased.  But why do you say it was not lost?  The point is that information is data that has ''meaning''.  You've not shown that the ''meaning'' was not lost. Rather, you are continuing to falsely equate the number of bit, letters, or base pairs with ''information''.
+
==Rate of extinction==
::: In your example of the creature gaining the information for arms, what information was lost?  According to you, nothing!  That is, it has gained the information for arms, but the genes previously did nothing, which means that they had no information for anything, so no information was lost!  Similarly, if bits or base pairs that already have ''meaning'' are mutated, then that ''meaning'' will be lost.
+
"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."<br/>
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:49, 15 November 2008 (EST)
+
This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.<br/>
 +
Evolutionists say that there was period of history when extinction rate was far higher than speciation (generation of species) rate and other period when it was the opposite. We are just currently in one of those times when extinction rate is higher (mostly because of human activity).<br/>
 +
I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
  
:::: Lowkey, you are right about the fact that my analogy did not use just one mutation. It uses two. But the fact that it uses two does not make it a false analogy. Two mutations can easily happen in the same replication. Therefore, the analogy stands because it still represents what can happen in a replication.    
+
:Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time?  There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::And to your charge that I "have not provided an example of the copying error in which the 'copy' has a greater information content than the original," you are completely right. But I don't have to provide an example of this, because my analogy still works, and it is an example of how an information-gaining mutation could happen because of a combination of mutations. 
+
::You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 
+
:Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Philip, that's not what I meant when I said the word "vehicle" was longer than "car" due to coincidence. But I don't know how to say what I did mean. I'll leave it. And your comment that it was ''intelligently selected''...are you implying that because you intelligently selected an example, intelligent selection happens in nature? I don't know ''what'' to say to this.  
+
::It seems that to you, Mr Schlafly, the rates of processes are either fixed for all eternity (e.g. extinction) or are variable [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Carbon_dating#Changing_decay_rates (e.g. rate of C-14 decay)] depending upon which best supports your pre-formed conclusion. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that extinction rates vary over time (the asteroid and the dinosaurs being perhaps the most blindingly obvious example of a huge spike in the rate of extinction). [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 17:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::To your comment that I haven't been properly arguing because I have been equating data to information, you may be right. But hopefully this analogy (analogies are going to be the death of me) will work: 
+
:::There is evidence of the meteor impact too, in the form of a rock layer with an relatively massive amount of iridium, the enormous crater in Mexico, and the fact that there isn't a single true dinosaur fossil found above this rock layer. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::''You have three copies of the same book. You want another three of the same, because your copies are getting old, and you want to get rid of them. So you go to a man who will copy the contents of the books for you. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that each book you gave him says only one thing: "The old man walks." Now in the copying, the man you hired makes an error in the third copy, instead making it read: "The old man talks."''   
+
::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::What did you know about the old man in your books before the copying? All you knew about him was that he walked. But after the copying, you have 3 new books, two of which say the same, and one that gives you a new piece of information about the old man, that he talks.  You now know, after the copying, that the old man walks and that he talks. You have new information about the old man. 
+
:::::Birds are the only exception, although whether they are true dinosaurs is a hotly debated topic of taxonomy.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::And about my creature example, the genes that were mutated did not have "meaning" because they did not code for proteins that carry out functions, so according to you, those genes had no information:"The point is that information is data that has ''meaning''."  The genes did have data before the mutation, however, so when it gets a mutation that causes it to have "meaning" (code proteins), information is created out of the meaningless data.  
+
Well we're moving off topic slightly, but the point about birds is that if they did evolve from dinosaurs, as is the favoured theory among scientists, then by the time of the asteroid impact they had evolved physiological or behavioural features that enabled most of them to survive. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::To your statement that "if bits or base pairs that already have ''meaning'' are mutated, then that ''meaning'' will be lost," you are absolutely right. The meaning will be lost, which brings me back to the very first post I had in this section: If the loss of the previous meaning causes a creature to function improperly, that creature will not reproduce and the mutation will cease to exist. But if it causes the creature to function even better in its environment, its gene will be passed on, and the creature will never miss its previous gene, because it got something even better in exchange. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 13:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)
+
  
== Thank you ==
+
== Trilobites and Evolution ==
  
Now I see the light. ''Beautiful autumn foliage'' is a clear, decisive evidence against Evolution. I am sure that most of my fellow colleagues, scientists, will see the light as well. A few militant atheists will stay on their positions no matter what evidence is presented them, but I'm sure the majority will understand. Now, let's spread the news! Answersingenesis, Creationontheweb, but also scientific papers: here we come! --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
+
Saying that the lack of arthropods prior to trilobites disproves evolution forces one to make the assumption that all arthropods had chitinous exoskeletons. It is quite possible that early arthropods lacked an exoskeleton, explaining their absence in the fossil record. The development of this exoskeleton led to the explosive success of the trilobite and made it much easier for them to be fossilized compared to earlier, soft bodied arthropods, who were much less abundant. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:26, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
:Poor sarcasm if a favourite tool of [[liberals]] who have nothing to contribute and no facts to back up their objections. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:15, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
+
  
:: Right.  After a while, the [[liberal]] nonsense is so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it.  Watch that user and I bet you never see an insightful edit by him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
+
:Isn't the DEFINITION of an arthropod an invertebrate with a segmented body, jointed legs and an exoskeleton? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:44, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
  
::: If the nonsense is "so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it," why are you commenting on it? --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 21:37, 6 November 2008 (EST)
+
::Nope, it is just the definition of modern arthropods. It is entirely possible that the ancestor of the trilobite had a much softer exoskeleton, limiting its ecological success. Whether or not it was an arthropod is literally a matter of semantics, not a matter of biology.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
  
== 'Chain of being' ==
+
::::Proto-arthropods do exist.  They're called "lobopods".  They are reasonably well-documented in the fossil record and can still be found today if you know how to look (e.g. digging through sponges with dissecting probes). --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 12:47, 21 January 2012 (EST)
  
RodWeathers reinstated the 'consciousness' entry with the edit comment "''Evolution requires a 'chain of being,' including varying consciousness''".  I would like to know what this means and how it addresses the concerns with this entry already explained earlier on this page.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
+
== Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==
  
==Recent Revisions==
+
The article currently states, without a reference, that there is greater genetic similarity between gorillas and humans than between chimpanzees and humans. This is false. [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/resources/student_papers/silver.pdf (see page 6)] [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 15:58, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
  
I'm back, taking a much-needed break from research, and I've started out with some relatively minor edits. As promised, here are some explanations.
+
:You're right; there is NOT greater similarity between humans and gorillas than humans and chimps, and the article isn't intended to say that; the point is that there are SOME SEQUENCES that are more similar, which contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis that we have a mmore recent LCA with chimps than with gorillas. The confusion is my fault and I'll fix it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:05, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
  
1) I removed the example of the giraffe's neck because it is very easily explained by the naturalistic theory of evolution. And that's not just from me and the rest of evolutionary biology, that's from Dr. Behe.
+
::It still doesn't contradict evolution at all. Say we start with 4 genes, A, B, C, D. The gorilla branches off earliest and takes with it A, B but has evolved two new ones, W, X. The chimpanzee branches off from the original line later on, but takes with it A, C, D and evolves Y. Humans on the other hand branch off last taking B, C, D and evolving a new one, Z. Now, humans share only one gene with gorillas but two with chimpanzees. However, it so happens that the one they share with gorillas is not also shared with chimpanzees.  
  
2) I removed the example of the whale because it deals with common descent, which is (again citing Behe) accepted by scientific critics of evolutionary theory.
+
::Obviously this is a ridiculously simplistic analogy, but it demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for one species to be more closely related to humans, with a  more distantly related species still sharing DNA sequences only with humans. Even if you don't accept the concept of evolution, there is no contradiction with its internal logic. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
  
3) I added some clarification to the opening paragraph so that readers can better understand the premise of the article and the limitations of the counter-example argument. It is relatively technical compared to other entries, but as this is a technical subject, this article must unfortunately reflect that. I am not trying to say that the re-wording makes the arguments less legitimate, only that they focus the reader's attention on what exactly is at stake (the power of random mutation, which is the only thing questioned within the scientific field [and as an aside, that's being generous with "scientific", but I digress...]).
+
== Declining human fertility ==
  
4) Finally, some of the examples needed rewording to actually reflect the argument. If anyone wants the technical explanations, I'll be more than happy to provide them, but suffice it to say for now that these arguments have to be worded very specifically to be true.
+
While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context "fertility" is a measure of birthrate, and the decline is due to social factors and increased life expectancy. There is an issue of a decline in male sperm count, but this appears to be linked to water pollution and is recent; there was no evidence of a decline before 1960. The most likely culprit is residual DDT breakdown products, which have also been linked to feminisation in freshwater fish. This is not evidence for a young Earth. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:24, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
:The key point here is that to be valid the counterexample presumes that the rate of the process has been consistent throughout history. However, as with this case, for all counterexamples resting upon this assumption there is no reason to believe that this is true; indeed for some it is perfectly obvious that it is not so. As such, I propose that all counterexamples that are dependent on this assumption be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and "old Earth" geology, and CP shouldn't (and doesn't need to) use it. If you're interested I have a couple of articles (peer-reviewed, not from AiG or any Hovindite loons) questioning this assumption; email me if you want them. My address is on my user page. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::When using the term uniformitarianism it is extremely important to specify the definition being used. The idea of uniform rates of processes is one such specific definition, but one that has long since been rejected by mainstream science, including evolutionists and geologists. Take the theory of punctuated equilibrium for example, which basically argues that evolution occurred via long periods of very gradual change, punctuated by shorter periods of relatively rapid change. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
  
I think that covers all of them. If any of them are in question, please post here and I'll explain my actions. Please don't blindly revert them without a reason. That's unscientific. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 13:46, 14 November 2008 (EST)
+
== Vestigial organs ==
  
: I've reinstated the whale and giraffe examples. It is nonsense to claim that common descent is not in dispute. And I've explained at the top of this page why evolution can't explain the giraffe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 15 November 2008 (EST)
+
There is a great deal of debate over whether certain features/organs are vestigial in certain species or whether they still retain a useful function. However, while it may be true that in the past scientists have believed certain features to be vestigial, only for it later to be discovered to have a function still, this does not provide a counterexample to evolution. Evolution merely argues that vestigial features are theoretically possible, not that they ''must'' exist for evolution to be true. To point out that incorrect predictions have been made is merely to point out that science progresses by making predictions which are then tested. This is therefore not a counterexample and I therefore believe I was justified in deleting it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:56, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Common descent is not ''scientifically'' in dispute. The only attacks to common descent come from without the scientific realm. That doesn't invalidate those attacks, per se, but in order for this article to use scientific reasons for the "rejection" of evolution, it has to be subject to scientific reasoning. And the fact of the matter is that no reputable scientist who has looked at the evidence rejects common descent.  
+
:Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::Ear muscles in humans have many important functions, such as providing the ability to close the ears when presented with an argument you don't like. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:01, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
::This is a very controversial article and the feeling in the CP community is that editors shouldn't delete information from it without adding other information to compensate. If you would just email me I can explain this to you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:59, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
::::If a statement is untrue it should be removed irrespective of how many counterexamples are wanted. Perhaps we could mark any refuted counterexamples with the appropriate explanation? [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:02, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
:::::Perhaps you could. Perhaps somebody would even listen. Are you going to listen to me or not? If you want to keep editing at CP it would be in your interests to do so. I can give you some advice on what provokes the sysops to use their favourite surgical implement, the banhammer. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
  
::The neck of the giraffe is a result of what we would call "runaway sexual selection". If you observe giraffes in their natural environment, you might notice that the neck is far, far longer than any shrubs or trees which they eat. So, the neck is obviously not adaptive in that way, because natural selection dis-favors anything that expends energy without need. However, the ancestral giraffe (which is conjectured to look somthing like the Okapi) had a much shorter neck. Although we cannot quite be sure what the environment looked like millions of years ago when these selections took place, it is not much of a stretch to assume that giraffes with longer necks (and we're not talking about a significant difference here) had a higher fitness, so natural selection favored longer necks. At the same time, however, males were competing for access to receptive females. It should be obvious that better competitors were able to reproduce more, and that they would pass on whatever heritable trait allowed them to compete better. In the case of giraffes (anc yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution. Most importantly, the length comes from increasing the length of individual neck bones, rathering than gaining new structures. It's a perfect example of evolutionary homology!
+
== Fossils ==
  
::Now the next part becomes a little more complicated, and I expect a number of people might not be able to follow it (I'm drawing on some relatively high-level biology). The neck ''valves'' of the giraffe do pose a bit more of an obstacle. The explanation requires accepting common descent, but since I'm sticking to science, I'll go ahead and make that jump. If you know your evolutionary history, you know that all terrestrial chordates are derived from an ancestral fish-like organism. This organism had valves in its ventral aorta for just the same reason as giraffes (prevent back-flow). That's information bit number one. Information bit number two is that the vast majority of our genetic code is inert. It must be "turned on" to work. As the last information bit, remember that natural selection acts against anything which expends unneccessary energy. As the circulatory system of chordates evolved, the original requirement for aortic valves diminished, so natural selection favored those organisms which lost the structure. But wait! '''Losing a structure is not the same as losing the genes for that structure!''' Indeed, the genes were there the whole time: they are part of the ''hox'' complex that controls body plans, and this complex is very heavily conserved. Thus when the need arose for pressure control in the aorta again, it was but a small step to reactivate those genes in the giraffe.
+
In response to the undoing of FCapra's edit, I believe FCapra is right. The article is about 'counterexamples'. The example in question merely argues that there is a lack of evidence; a counterexample must be actual evidence that contradicts the proposition, not simply a lack of evidence for it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  
::I can see how that becomes a "chicken or the egg" problem, and I think I may change the point to reflect that. Evolution does a great job of explaining how the neck became long, but people might take issue with the potentiation argument for the valves. I guess it's sort of an irreducible complexity argument.
+
== Trichinella spiralis ==
  
::Reinstating the whale example shouldn't have been done. The question posed by this article is "can these phenomena be explained in the framework of Darwinian evolution?" The resounding answer for the case of the whale is '''YES!''' That's because one of the main tenets of evolution is common descent, and it's also one very, very strongly supported by evidence. So, scientifically, there is no basis for the inclusion of the whale as a counter-example to evolutionary theory. And please note, when we apply the type of scrutiny we're applying, we must first "pretend," if you will, to accept the theory as a whole and see if it does not provide explanations. That's how speculative science works.  
+
According to Dickson Despommier who made Trichinella.org, the referenced website, the immune response is driven up in the animal after the animal is infected and that this is probably to reduce competition and increase the probability that the host will meet its end in a predation situation, thus enabling Trichinella spiralis to be transferred to a new host. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  
::So with that in mind, I will once again remove the whale example. There's simply no scientific reason to include it. To do so would require attacking common descent first, which has been attempted numerous times and has yet to succeed in empirically-based scientific study.
+
== Deletions will be restored ==
  
::If we want to throw out the requirement of scientific scrutiny for a scientific article, that's the perogative of the admins. But we should be honest about the worldview lens through which we're viewing reality. That would save everyone a lot of time, because then we could focus on the source of discord itself.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:24, 15 November 2008 (EST)
+
The repeated deletions will be restored unless there are well-supported, fully explained, and justified reasons for the deletions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
:The "teeth in mouth" example:  Many if not most adults need to have their wisdom teeth removed. The balding example: Baldness is not necessarily undesirable. Some women--like my wife, find it attractive. Moreover, it often manifests long after a man has reproduced, passed on the trait, and is out of the mating pool. The schizophrenia example: Schizophrenics can reproduce before they demonstrate any symptoms and become undesirable mates, thus allowing the condition to perpetuate even if it is undesirable. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:42, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
 +
::To shed further light on the removal of the balding example; studies have shown that bald men are perceived as being older and thus more senior, giving them an advantage within social groups. Therefore it is deemed to be somewhat advantageous. The fact that historically humans have had much shorter life-spans also means that most men died before experiencing it, meaning that it never even became a significant factor in terms of evolution, either as an advantage or disadvantage. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
  
:::You said above ''"In the case of giraffes (and yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution"''Before you remove anything, I want you to prove to all of us the test. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:29, 15 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::Lifespan for healthy people has not changed much, and it's absurd to claim that balding is desirableAn implausible argument such as claiming that balding is a desirable trait does not warrant deletion of a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
  
::::The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher.
+
::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en last 50 years alone!] Go back further and the increase is even more remarkable. (Indeed, you should welcome this point, for if we apply your argument about the rate of extinction and assume that this rate of increase is constant, then we soon find that human life expectancy was 0 sometime in the 16th century. A possible addition for 'counterexamples to and old earth' perhaps?)  
  
::::My other revisions also need explanation. I removed the peacock's tail as an example from the beauty argument because it is even more easily explained than the neck of the giraffe. It doesn't change the argument itself, it's just an example that doesn't fit there. The variety of marine fish is a more consistent example.
+
::::You are mistaking 'aesthetically desirable' (which is subjective, and obviously different people with have different views), with desirable in terms of evolution. Studies have shown that whether or not people 'like' the appearance of bald men, they nonetheless perceive them to be older and thus more senior than men of the same age with a full head of hair[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595001301]. It has been shown that MPB is equated with seniority within social hierarchies of other primates. Whether you deem it implausible or not, the evidence is there. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 00:13, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
  
::::I also changed the wording of the opening paragraph because the idea that mutations only destory information is a bogus "sound bite." There are reams of examples of informatio-producing mutations: gene duplication, inversions, and insertions all give rise to radically new coding in simpler life. Genetic recombination and meitoic crossing-over account for even more increases in information (Dawkins, ''The Selfish Gene'', to name just one source).  The argument of irreducible complexity (which is the idea that this article is largely based on) merely states that even these mutations cannot account for complexity (and as another aside, I obviously don't agree with that point, but the last time I refuted it, it took up 30 pages...not so keen to repeat that;)).--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:43, 15 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::::As an older woman, I don't find bald men any less attractive then men with a full head of hair. My friends would agree with me. I believe we know more about male attractiveness than you, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:20, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
  
:::::Did those scientists who made that observation actualy see the giraffe's neck grow?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)
+
== Evolution of whales ==
:::Huh? That question doesn't make sense (well it does, but not in a relevant way), and I think you may have misunderstood how we test for fitness correlations and natural selection in general. I was a little brief in my explanation considering that there are entire books on the subject, so let's try something a little more detailed and beginning at the basics.
+
  
:::Ok natural selection works on the idea that traits which increase fitness (the number of surviving offspring) will be passed on to the offspring of those parents (assuming it is heritable...no Lamarckian evolution). As long as the conditions remain steady, those offspring will then be able to have more offspring themselves until they make up a significant part of the population. Assuming (as Darwin and Malthus did) that there are more organisms than can be supported, only those who are best able to create offspring in this environment will be successful. "Survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification that spreads more misconceptions than anything else, which is why I hate the phrase.
+
The theoretical phylogeny of whales is well documented, [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007062], so the "counterexample" about whales should be removed.
  
:::So now we have the idea that natural selection ''favors adaptations which increase fitness''. Therefore, if we want to test whether or not a trait is adaptive, we can observe the number of offspring an organism has (who is in possession of that trait). This works best on traits which exist across a spectrum of phenotypes (say, the neck of a giraffe). The independent variable is the length of the giraffe's neck, and the dependent one is their reproductive success (gauged by number of matings and number of offspring). Such studies have shown a positive correlation between neck length and fitness (remember, "fitness" is just short-hand for "number of viable offspring). Also note that the specific test is one we use to judge the effects of sexual selection (in this case by intrasexual competition, based on qualitative observations of males fighting). To judge the adaptiveness of a trait from a ''natural'' selection standpoint, we simply look at the number of offspring produced (without taking into account mating success). If something is an adaptive trait using these tests, Darwinian evolution can explain it using its framework. If not, then the problem requires further investigation.
+
: That article hardly justifies deleting the counterexample. The counterexample is being restored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
 +
::If you could explain to me what parts of the counterexample it fails to address, I'd be more than happy to find an alternate article. I dont see what points about whale evolution are not addressed within the article, however. Perhaps you missed one of the charts? [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
  
:::I hope that explains how we test the adaptive value of a trait. I don't know where the idea of "needing to see it grow" came from, but perhaps my initial explanation was too brief (I am used to teaching science majors at the college level and forget how much I've specialized, at times).--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::Based on its abstract, I don't think the article even comes close to addressing the many unique attributes of a whale that defy any evolutionary explanation.  If you'd like to explain here what you find so persuasive about the article, then feel free to do so.  But the counterexample is not going to be deleted unless and until a much more persuasive showing of an evolutionary path is made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
  
The question was "did a scientist see a giraffe's neck grow?"  What you said was this: ''"The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher."''  There are all sorts of little words in your explanations (and many, many others) which suggest that scientists just don't know, words like "assuming"; "conjectured"; "plausable"; "scientists believe"; and so forth.  Scientists are people, and people anywhere can "assume" that the moon is a lump of cheese, but that of course doesn't change the facts.
+
::::Based on the title, "Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and '''Character Evolution'''", the article does indeed address many of the "unique attributes" of Ceteca. The section titled "Selected Character Optimizations for Cetancodonta", in particular, explains how whales are expected to have evolved within a clade filled with terrestrial herbavores. Whether you accept the research or not, scientists have mapped out and have an explanation for the evolution of whales, and everything they have concluded fits within the theory of evolution.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:28, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
  
With all due respect, the implication of your argument relative to ''Cameleopardus sp.'' has very much to do with scientists stating that mating rituals were responsible for the lengthening of the neck vertebrae, and these scientists implied such as if it were absolute fact. To make such an implication, I'm "assuming" they used the [[Scientific Method]]; the first step of that method demands that a scientist observe the phenomena in question; i.e. ''he has to see the neck actually grow'', and then provide a reasonable explanation for such growth in step two.  In step three, the scientist has to do an experiment to see if his hypothesis is correct, and you did say above that "we can test this".
+
== Wait...what? ==
  
Here is my explanation for the giraffe's neck, which is supported by facts:
+
I have honestly never heard the following arguments used as counter-examples for evolution and I'm not sure I follow:
*At no time did a scientist of any kind observe a giraffe's neck grow, either in a single animal, or passed down to offspring through successive generations, in accordance with step one of the Scientific Method.
+
*At no time was testing done pertaining to the hypothesis related to mating; if such was done the results were at best inconclusive, or plain wrong.  If the observation instruction of step one cannot be accomplished, then steps two and three could not be done as well.
+
*At no time in the history of paleontology was the remains of an animal found which could have been declared by science to be the links between the "okapi-like" animal and a giraffe.
+
That means science is left with two other explantions of the giraffe's neck, of which the familiar one is that it grew in relation to the growing height of the trees.  That explantion falls apart for the simple reason that if the animal in question needs to eat and cannot reach the leaves, it either grows the neck immediately, looks for another food source, or starves to death within a few weeks.  Two of those facts, by the way, can be observed and tested on any animal.
+
  
The third explanation is what I believe in, and there's no testing at all which can refute it: giraffes and their necks were created on the sixth day by an act of God.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 
  
:Wow...I'm not sure where to start here. I guess I can start by saying that the above is a very, very twisted version of the scientific method. In fifteen years of intense science, I've never experienced anything like what you described, nor have a I related anything like that to my many students. I would try to explain it for any observers, but I have the feeling that what I say is going to be squelched, anyway.
+
'''Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.'''
  
:First off, science does not require ''direct'' observation. If it did, then we wouldn't have chemistry or phsyics (aside from applied chemistry and Newtonian physics, which are just a small part of those respective branches). It depends on inference based on observed phenomena, followed by predictions based on those inferences. The scientific method would never require direct observation of the neck growing, it would require observation of a long neck and a scientist asking why it's long.
 
  
:Second, my "little words" are there for a reason: '''scientists do not know'''. We assume, we test our assumptions, we change them when things don't go as planned. I just finished up a research project in which the results completely refuted the initial hypothesis, and this eventually led to some radical insights into muscle development. Only the most arrogant and mis-informed (or rhetorical) scientists say things like "we know this beyond a doubt." If we knew all the answers there would be no need for science.
+
'''Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying atheistic explanations'''
  
:Third, your explanation for the neck of the giraffe is based on incomplete facts. Moreover, its line of logic is based on an incorrect assumption about the scientific method. Science simply does not work the way you described. I don't know who is relaying the sort of information about the scientific method upon which you base your argument, but shame on them. They have either lied or were dead wrong.
 
  
:Finally, "belief" in an explanation has absolutely no place in science, because it precludes the possibility of doubt. Without doubt, again, there is no science. I believe nothing in the scientific field...I accept explanations, and I hold mutable opinions...I even make assumptions when doing is so is needed for forward progress. But I never "believe" anything (ever wondered why so many scientists are atheists? There's your answer). That would be a grave threat to scientific thought.
+
How do these prove evolution doesn't exist? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 18:51, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
  
:I simply cannot continue. My arguments and logic rely on an understanding of science and "proof" which is simply not present here. I will return my focus to my students who are willing to learn. Good day. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:38, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
:The [[theory of evolution]] is based exclusively on materialismThose observations confound the theory, because there is no materialistic explanation.  If materialism does not drive animal behavior, then evolution falls apart.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
::Typical evolutionist weaselingWhat Karajou has described is fully in line with the scientific method, and naturally you plug your ears and fail to actually answer the objections, since they undermine your entire worldview. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:48, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
  
:::Now, now, this is a debate page, and not a page where we can say "typical evolutionist weasaling".  The point I made is simple.  Science, as stated above in this example, says that the neck of a giraffe got longer as a result of mating choices, and Thinker indicated that testing has in fact been done on that subject.  But to contradict what he said, belief is everything in science.  In this example, science believes that the neck of a giraffe got longer over time via the mating of certain individuals.  They believe it so much that they are willing to test their beliefs (hypothesis) to see if it is a fact.  Thinker indicated above that it was tested; I said it never happened.  Both statements could be considered beliefs, but the end result states one is a fact and the other is not.  In short, show me a successive line of directly-related individuals who had larger and larger neck vertebrae over time exactly as described, and show me that this occurred through mating.  It either happened, or it didn't.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
== Reasons why the Artistic Beauty Argument Fails as a Counterexample ==
  
 +
Artistic Beauty is subjective, and any objective means of describing beauty are usually based on patterns such as symmetry or the Fibonacci sequence, which have many evolutionary advantages. Within the framework established by science, beauty has no inherent meaning, it is up to individual organisms to interpret a meaning from the stimuli they are presented with. In addition, organisms that seem impractically beautiful, such as the peacock, evolved that way to attract mates, as the increased mating attractiveness was more useful than any disadvantages brought about by the peacocks impressive plumage. Trees seem beautiful because they often branch in the Fibonacci sequence, as it results in the most efficient absorption of light. The bright colors are a result of secondary pigments which allowed for a wider spectrum of light to be absorbed. In nature, the most beautiful trees are the most successful, so they have an evolutionary advantage over uglier trees with poor light absorption and awful branch layout. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:22, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
  
==Some Items to Consider==
+
== Kidney donor ==
I believe it is important to point out a few misunderstandings of this article in relation to scientific thought.  First off, subjective statements are not scientific.  The term beautiful is subjective and can not be quantified.  As such number one is not something that pure science can validate, “Beautiful by what standard?”  Number two has been shown it be false as well.  During the Dover trial M. Behe was shown a stack of research dealing specifically with the evolution of the immune system.  I know personally that in most college level evolution classes immunology is not a common topic, however in graduate level immunology classes the evolution of the immune systems of different species is covered quite extensively.  Number 6 is also another area that has been studied substantially.  Simmons, R. & Scheepers, L. (1996). Winning By A Neck: Sexual Selection In The Evolution Of Giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148, 772-786. is an excellent paper explaining how sexual selection played the most plausible role in the evolution of the giraffe’s neck.  Number 7 is one of those on going arguments; many transitional fossils have been shown however there are transitions between transitions.  The best explanation for this is that soft tissue is very rare to find in a fossil and changes from evolution occur at the biochemical level.  So it is a matter of morphology which leaves gaps.  Number 8 was shown to be false, either last year or the year before, with the finding of Dilong paradoxus.  This fossil showed feather precursors and featherlike projectiles with a scaled skin.  Number 9 needs a citation, I know of no biologists that make a claim that Pterosaurs did not fly.  Number 10, most thoughts on this issue is that wings were selected through sexual pressures and gained functionality at a later state.  Number 11 has been recently debunked as well, there has been an established cascade leading to the formation of flagellum.  Number 12 was shown to be false on this talk page already.  Number 13 is misleading due to the limited understanding of symbiosis.  Symbiosis is caused through mutual beneficial partnership.  The species involved could survive on their own but over time were able to survive better through the partnership and eventually became dependent on each other.  Number 13 does not address this.  Number 15 runs into the issue of the soft tissue that was listed above.  Another point to make is that there are cases where unicellular organisms do work together to survive, but do not have systems.  I am not sure if this would qualify since the difference between unicellular and multicellular organisms is based on the development of specialized function of the cells.  Number 16 is misleading.  The prostate would only be eliminated through natural selection if it did not influence reproduction, considering the purpose of the prostate this is false.  Number 17 is also false.  There are many cases of animals using tools to achieve an effect, as well as self-sacrifice for the betterment of their young.  Case for the tools would be primates and some marine mammals using rocks and other shaped objects to crack and open objects that they would not normally be accessible to them.  Self-sacrifice happens in all kinds of environments from birds to mammals protecting their young to the point of sacrificing themselves.  I would say that this mindset that is unique in humans is not a single mutation as much as a buildup of mutations and experiences thus allowing for some to be able to self-sacrifice while others do not.  I am unsure how to proceed on fixing these issues in the article so a little advice might help.  (Unsure being if I must present a well documented research case disproving the claim or show through logic why it is false then be able to do the deletion)  Moreover, I am fine with having some items in this but please let those items be scientific examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
+
:Oh sorry, I should have read your comments before adding my 2c below. You've added more detail than me, and seem to be more of an expert in the topic, so I'll let you discuss it with the others. [[User:MattS|MattS]] 11:22, 1 December 2008 (EST)
+
  
==Discredited Examples==
+
I'm not arguing whether this should be in the article, but someone needs to re-read one of the quotes included in this section "...mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a '''''deceased''''' donor in the United States is five years" - as far as I know, most deceased donors don't need ''either'' kidney. Most often, the patient wasn't healthy enough at the time of death to use their organs, or the family refused to allow the procedure.
Although I agree with a lot of the examples here, you should probably consider removing the two examples for irreducable complexity (immune system and bacteria flagellum) as both of these examples have strong counter-arguments, and including them in your list will serve only to discredit the page.
+
Considering the immune system, the original arguments based on antibodies not working by themselves and the compliment cascade:
+
1) Antibodies do function by themselves. Opsonisation is only a small part of their function
+
2) Various mammals have been found which lack portions of the compliment cascade, showing it is possible for the cascade to have 'evolved'.
+
As far as flagellum is concerned, the actual motor is very close in structure to the bacterial poison pump, which 'squiges' a protein (poison) through itself. This could have 'evolved' into the flagellum by the poison protein becoming affixed, and thereby facilitating movement to a less hostile environment, potentially promoting survival.
+
  
As I said, I'm not trying to attack your arguments, I'm just worried that you are flogging a dead horse with these examples which will discredit an otherwise excellent page. There must be tons of other arguments you can use instead. What do you think? [[User:MattS|MattS]] 17:53, 29 November 2008 (EST)
+
Also, getting listed for kidney transplantation is rather complex - a lot of dialysis patients don't qualify for a transplant because of health or financial reasons. They can miss out on an available kidney because they have a cold, and die before another one is available. They could have had health insurance when placed on the transplant list, but not have it when the kidney becomes available and can't afford the medication needed afterward, thus losing the kidney.
  
==Pterosaurs==
+
Most people don't donate kidneys because they're scared - of the surgery, of the cost, or of the chance they will suffer kidney failure themselves. The US population is not well-educated about the subject. For instance, most people don't know that if a donor does suffer from kidney failure later on (and I have actually met several), they are automatically placed at the top of the transplant list. One man I met waited a whole 2 days for his kidney. Another one waited a week.
  
Where did the writer get the idea that they couldn't fly? I have many books that say they could. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 19:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)
+
A patient who isn't on dialysis yet tends to be transplanted ahead of a person who has already reached ESKD and is on dialysis because it is healthier for the patient to receive a transplant before undergoing dialysis. Thus, the sicker patients often have to wait longer, and most of them have additional conditions that worsen their situation. Dialysis is extremely hard on the heart, and the average life expectancy of a 40-45 year old patient is around 6 years.
  
: I've seen pictures of them pulling Santa's sleigh through the air, so you must be right!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 1 December 2008 (EST)
+
I really think this section needs rewording, because the situation is a lot more complex than merely misinformation about evolution. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:29, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
  
:: Mr. Schlafly, with all due respect, could you please not insult other people's conceptions?--'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 20:04, 1 December 2008 (EST)
+
:You make good points, Sharon, and I did remove the quote (although the quote was accurate, but tended to be confusing). Still, the bottom line for how the "US population is not well-educated about the subject" is simply this:  Americans are taught to believe in evolution, and makes them think both kidneys are needed.  It's a false belief resulting from a false teaching, and the consequences are tragic for those who need kidney donors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:23, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
  
As the person who originally added the statement, I shall take all questions. [http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html Here] is a cite, I will put it in the article presently. --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 14:03, 3 December 2008 (EST)
+
::The evolutionary explanation of having multiple kidneys was that the resource cost of possessing two fully developed, equally functional kidneys was slightly less than the risks of only having one kidney in case of injury or disease. Additionally, all vertebrates posses two kidneys, as all vertebrates posses bilateral symmetry, an ancient animal characteristic that is only broken in extremely rare instances[http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/palmer/asym/axes/symmetry.htm], such as in flatfish (which are symmetrical as larva). Indeed, it is almost impossible to violate bilateral symmetry, which is why humans still posses two kidneys. Our ancient animals ancestors needed two kidneys, but now that we don't need both our kidneys anymore, it will take a lot more than a few million years of evolution to get rid of them.
  
Thanks PhilipV for the site.  I would point out that it is only one researcher who makes this claim, and the comment section on the site even explains why it was flawed. To state that biologists do not believe that Pterosaurs could not fly is a mischaracterization of a single article.  Now if there were several papers supporting the researcher's claim then that would be different.  Perhaps saying "That a researcher made a recent claim" since the article is from this year there has not been much time for others to test the claim. Just to point out, there are physicians who still claim that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, there will always be fringe interpretations of data.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:45, 3 December 2008 (EST)
+
::Also, if evolutionary belief is having an impact on kidney donor-ship, the numbers certainly don't show it. In the past 20 years, kidney donations have almost tripled and the ratio of living donations to deceased donations has rapidly diminished [http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/latestData/rptData.asp]. Evolutionary teachings certainly haven't become less common in America, so unless there is concrete evidence that an education in comprehensive, evolutionary biology actually has a negative impact on donations, your statement on donor-ship can't really be justified. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 14:07, 16 November 2011 (EST)
  
Phillip, next time remember to site your reference. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 03:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)
+
::::We do actually need both kidneys.  With only one kidney, such as after donating one, you become significantly more likely to develop renal diseases such as FSGS. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 13:39, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
  
OK no problemo ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]<sup>[[User talk:PhilipV|''Support our Troops!'']]</sup> 22:26, 13 December 2008 (EST)
+
== Weak Arguments/Logical Fallacies in this Article ==
  
==Unicellular to Multicellular Organisms==
+
I am a student studying Neuroscience. In the process, I have been through several courses in the undergrad and graduate level studying biology and evolution, and I can tell you that many, if not all, of the arguments on this page are quite fallacious in nature and would not hold up to any sort of scientific scrutiny.
What would constitute a clear transitional form?  A group of unicellular organisms that work together to accomplish a function to sustain their life, like digestion of an energy source through shared enzymes?  If this is the case bacteria order myxobacteria is a prime example of this.  These bacteria work together often to achieve results that are not just based on physical manipulation but chemical.  They often will converge on food and increase the concentration of their digestive enzymes to digest the food.  They have to do this in close proximately of each other due to the enzymes being unstable; being close together allows the bacteria to produce a stabilizing chemical environment to stabilize the enzymes. In other words, by working together they share chemicals to aid in their ability to digest their food source.  So would this be considered an example or social behavior by unicellular organisms (which can only be chemically driven)?  I will wait for a few days for responses before editing the article.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:23, 16 December 2008 (EST)
+
  
==Altruism==
+
Let's get one thing straight here - I personally do not believe that the Theory of Evolution can explain everything about the development of life, but proving it completely incorrect will be quite a hassle if it is even possible.
Actually Rod, I am afraid you are incorrect.  Altruism favors evolution because selfless acts that ensure the survivability of the population allow for the continuation of the genes of the population.  Evolution is not based on the individual it is based on the population.  For example, a father organism gives his life to protect his offspring, a purely altruistic act, thus allows for the genes of the father to be carried on by the offspring.  You have to look at genetic shift on the evidence that once the organism reproduces its evolutionary role is not as important as its offspring therefore allowing for the parent organism to function as a protector of its offspring.  If a parent performs the act, it does support evolution because it allows the offspring (or population) a better chance of survival.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:10, 18 December 2008 (EST)
+
:You really have bought into evolutionism hook, line, and sinker.  Altruism is not limited to parents caring for their young.  Animals adopt orphaned young of other species.  Primates share food with unrelated animals in their group, help the injured, etc.  None of these things improve individual survivability, and are thus counter-evolutionary. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 09:20, 18 December 2008 (EST)
+
::Actually they do provide for evolution.  It does not really matter what the act is, just as long as it does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread.  You have to think about altruism in terms of gene dispersion, what helps it spread and what helps it survive, thus favoring evolution.  If organisms share among each other then the genes will survive and spread at an increased rate than organisms that do not.  Another piece of evidence that shows that altruistic behavior falls in line with evolution is the evidence that parallel and convergent evolution are functions of altruistic behavior between two populations (part of the environmental selective pressures).  I believe the point you are missing is that a single mutation in an organism is not enough to cause an evolutionary shift, that mutation must spread; therefore evolutionary shift is based on population and not the individual thus supporting altruistic behaviors due to their impact on the population's survivability over the individual.  Perhaps you can counter this argument with some explanation as to why altruism can not be beneficial to evolutionary theory.  I would agree that if the organism sacrifices itself before producing offspring then the behavior would counter evolution, however when one removes learned social constructs, you will see that the time an organism develops altruistic behaviors is often after the organism is able to reproduce.  As for the comment about buying in, I am a biochemist, if I did not understand evolutionary theory then most of what I study would make no sense, such as seeing the similar metabolic pathways in different species with only slight, and progressive, modifications to differentiate them.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:40, 18 December 2008 (EST)
+
:::''All'' unnecessary action reduces the chance of the population having genetic spread, through wasting of energy.  And to suggest that evolution is inherently population based undermines your argument.  Any genetic change which improves altruism ''reduce'' the altruistic individual's survivability, thus the altruistic changes are lost.  Thus altruism should not be seen in nature, as it destroys its own propagation. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 09:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)
+
::::Rod, all I can say is that you are mistaken.  I provided you with several instances where altruistic behavior would allow for genetic dispersion (father giving up life for child), provided you with a hypothetical situation where two populations could benefit from altruistic behavior as compared to populations that do not show similar behaviors and explained in detail why you are mistaken due to your understanding of evolution being based on the individual instead of being based on the population.  So to answer your point about wasted energy, populations are not closed systems and evolution is not based on the conservation of energy.  So when an organism invests energy in an act where no defined outcome will occur it is not against evolutionary theory, nor is it for due to it being based on the individual once again.  However if the energy used did happen to encourage a response from the environment that would improve the gene dispersion and chances of the population's survivability then it truly supports evolution.  "All" unnecessary action does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread, for example reciprocal altruism: Sharing food is a good example. Suppose an animal captures a food source which is so plentiful that it cannot consume it all alone before it goes off. Sharing it with others may entail getting slightly less food now, for the possibility of more food later (when it might be sorely needed) if the recipients reciprocate the altruistic action. Kin Selection: When adult animals risk their life to distract potential predators away from their offspring they are exhibiting this form of altruism. Such behavior is evolutionarily stable since although it decreases an animal's chances of survival, it increases the chances for its offspring. Multilevel selection theory: Consider, for example, an animal population made up of warring groups. This would entail two levels of selection - between groups and within groups. Within any one group, altruistic behavior would be deselected by the dominance of selfish behavior. However, if altruistic behavior increased the overall fitness of the group, then the groups with the highest proportion of altruists would outperform the more selfish ones. Under appropriate conditions, this alternative selection pressure could dominate the disadvantage of altruism for the individual. Multi-level selection doesn't only occur on these two levels, since animals may be a part of various groups - close family group, extended family, tribe etc. We can consider evolutionary selection to happen on each level simultaneously. This explanation of altruism finds more evidence from anthropological studies which support viewing of groups of humans as adaptive units. According to Sober and Wilson,  "the concept of human groups as adaptive units may be supported not only by evolutionary theory but by the bulk of empirical information on human social groups in all cultures around the world."  More reading [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/][http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdf_attachments/de%20Waal%20(2008).pdf] As you can see your example supports evolution more than it counters it.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)
+
:Able806, I don't have time to read through evolutionist propaganda.  You have yet to explain intra-species altruism, which is the key point.  Parents dying for their children is obvious in its advantage, but an animal nursing one of another species invariably reduces its ability to propagate its own genes.  Dolphins assisting injured humans and animals do so at risk to themselves, with no possible genetic propagation or benefit. So long as ''any'' examples cannot be explained by evolution, it must be discarded; this is the nature of ''science.''  Altruism is endowed by God, not Darwin. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 10:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)
+
  
Rod, if you would have read my post you would have seen I gave you and example of intra-species altruism, or reciprocal altruism, and the science behind it as well as multi-level theory. As for propaganda, I really do not wish to participate in ad homium attacks against researchers, especially when one refuses to read the information provided. Evidence is evidence, take it as you will, however you claim has been shown to be false and contrary to the purpose of the article.  Your trailing statement “Altruism is endowed by God, not Darwin” means nothing in this argument, and is a hook, which I shall not bite.  I believe an administrator should settle this issue.  Now if you will excuse me, I have articles to write.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)
+
I see scientists often characterized on here as being "dogmatic" and "driven by faith" to be atheists and defend evolution over the alternative of creation. I can't imagine how you can be any further from the truth, which is why I want to help you get your own story straight. If you can prove the Theory of Evolution incorrect, you will not be hated; in fact, you will start quite the revolution in thought.
  
I don't pretend to understand all of this, but I don't think the existence of [[altruism]] either proves or disproves the [[Theory of Evolution]]. Certainly a species whose individuals "do nice things for each other" without getting an immediate reward will survive better than species who are more individualistic. But God might have set it up that way for a reason.
+
===With just a quick glance, here is my opinion on the arguments on this page===
  
It's fun to speculate on how traits like [[cooperation]] may have "evolved", but until we can read behavior in the [[fossil record]] it's all academic. The only scientific question about evolution is whether it was directed by an [[intelligent designer]] or its was merely due to the "creative" force of [[natural selection]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:41, 18 December 2008 (EST)
 
  
:Ed, I agree with your statement.  Being that Altruism is a behavior, it is not something that can be detected in fossils of organisms that never used tools.  As such, using altruism as a counterexample is grasping when there are other examples that have more "meat" if you will.  Hence the reason why it should not be a part of this article due to it subtracting from the areas that hold more testable and provable potential.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)
+
"Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[1]), then the odds that these 27 counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is only 25%." - Extreme misuse of probability and statistics; very laughable.
  
Maybe an example would help. A form of altruism has been observed among certain species of vampire bats, where one bat that found a meal (the "lucky bat") would share part of it with another bat (the "unlucky bat"} that didn't find a meal that night.  The lucky bat can afford to give up some of its food, while the unlucky bat has to have something, or it will starve; so the exchange helps the unlucky bat more than it hurts the lucky bat. And the next night, the lucky bat might be the unlucky one, and have to depend on a handout. Since he showed himself to be generous the previous night, the other bats know that he's good for a meal for any of them if they need it, so they help him out this night. I heard of this back in college, so I forget all the details, and it's only anecdotal evidence, but it does seem to show how altruism can be a good evolutionary strategy, under certain circumstances.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)
+
"1. 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." - '''There have been many points throughout the history of the world where extinction spikes have been seen, and it is often unknown why they are caused. Just as there are extinction spikes, there were also spikes in population growth and speciation. Google "Cambrain Explosion" for an example.'''
  
==Hair==
+
"2. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation." - '''This is very well addressed by another user on this talk page. In addition to that explanation, remember that what we perceive as "good" was evolved in response to the environment. If a fruit is bright and colorful, chances are that it is not poisonous. Likewise, If a food is sugary or fatty, it will taste appealing to us; as these were the most energy-rich foods and the ones that were most beneficial for us to eat when we came by them back when we were hunter-gatherers. Just to give a couple examples.'''
Rod, once again another area which you might rethink.  Hair is dependent on the rs-3 locus which encodes for the ectodysplasin-A receptor (EDAR), which is required for the initiation of hair development in mammals. This locus is also essential for scale development in fish and reptiles. This locus is the developmental precursor which follows a path similar to the Pax6 in eye development.  As for hair being well fossilized, it is in amber but in other types of fossils it fossilizes poorly.  Most fossils found in amber are of insects (due to the bugs eating or landing on the plant) not many higher animals are found in amber fossils, was [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E7D61139F935A25757C0A960958260 one] of the rare instances that it occurred. I know you are getting your information from AIG or ICR but follow up with it by searching pubmed.  You will see articles that have been researched and reviewed that sometimes conflict with AIG or ICR's claims.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:01, 22 December 2008 (EST)
+
  
==Vestigiality==
+
"3. Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[2] Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.[3]" - '''First of all, the theory of evolution cannot explain something that it is not established to explain. This is like saying that since one is weightless out in space, that the Law of Gravity cannot be true. Secondly, what this point fails to take into account is that: (1) Apes have one more pair of chromosomes than humans do, and therefore more genetic room for genetic diversity. The reason: The 2nd chromosome of our species is actually two chromosomes fused together, which existed separately in our ancestors. (2) Humans did originate from a small population in Africa, but this is neither a subject of debate nor a pressing question to anthropologists, as the reasons for our smaller genetic variance than apes are well-known.
Now I am begining to wonder about your purpose Rod, you have added yet again another false claim. In humans, the coccyx, the plica semilunaris, the pseudogene L-gulonolactone oxidase among many other muscles that serve no current purpose but had purpose in the past are all considered vestigial structures.  To claim there are none in a human is false and further not supported by fact.  So back to the orginal purpose of this article, perhaps we could stick to the valid counterexamples to evolution, instead of those that have been shown to be false.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 18:59, 25 December 2008 (EST)
+
'''
  
:Every claim of "vestigiality" (an absurdity, I might add) has been proven false about humans, as far as I am aware.  The claim about tonsils resulted in the needless death of thousands in improperly subjecting them to anesthesia and removing their tonsils. Are you willing at least to admit that?  Please improve your spelling and also spell out your far-fetched claim that something else is vestigial in humans. Godspeed and Merry Christmas.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:08, 25 December 2008 (EST)
+
"4. The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation[5]" - '''Once again, this is not a phenomena that the Theory of Evolution was established to explain and the fact that it can not explain this on its own does not make this a counterexample. There are many hypotheses about migratory patterns as well as ongoing studies in this area.'''
  
:I find it curious that you see it necessary to attack sourced, well-established problems with evolutionary theory, with nothing more than your own propagandist assertions, no doubt ingrained by an evolutionist education. Please, either back up your claims or leave these facts alone and contribute elsewhere in the encyclopedia. If you do some reading with an ''open mind'', you just might find the natural world is far different than you were taught. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:03, 26 December 2008 (EST)
+
"5. Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome.[...]having a functional protein are too great." -'''This argument, once again, has nothing to do with the process of evolution, but is instead making the claim that life is too improbable to have occurred without a creator. While this argument is a great philosophical argument for believing in God, it is not scientific. From a scientific perspective, life has occurred, despite how improbable, and it is the mission of scientists to discover the natural processes through which complex life came about. Maybe these processes were put in place and performed by God. Maybe they were not. This is not a question that science seeks to answer, however.'''
  
Aschlafly, to start, not every claim of vestigiality has been proven false about humans.  The three items I listed above are examples that have withstood testing for now.  I do not disagree that there is a possibility that they may be reclassified as more information is gathered, just like tonsils, however it is unlikely.  Here are some published references for the items I listed: Coccyx <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8059973</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/677043</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6373560</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3284435</ref>,  Plica<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15255295?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref>
+
== Clearly Invalid Counterexamples ==
L-gul<ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10572964</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8175804</ref>.  I have no problem admitting the deaths of people placed under anesthesia however to claim that the removal of the tonsils caused the death, well that is something that would have to be looked at on a case by case basis, which considering the millions that have their tonsils removed does not seem to be the cause.  I believe the key is the definition of vestige: the remnant of a structure that functioned in a previous stage of species or individual development.  Vestigiality can be proven by morphology and sequence testing, pretty clear if you ask me.  As for my spelling I apologize, English is not my first or primary language and I wrote the comment while traveling for the holiday, failing to spell check before I posted as I normally do.  Rod, as for your comment, I agree with many of the items posted on this article as shown in one of my previous posts, however what you have posted recently is easily shown to be incorrect thus allowing for the question to be raised what are your intentions for this article?  You keep trying to label my assertions as propaganda; however you provide no published evidence contrary to my statements.  As I have said before I am a Biochemist, a field which relies heavily on the ToE so it is only reasonable for me to have a favorable view of evolution.  I am a scientist which also means I question everything, including ToE.  Aschlafly’s comment of the fall colors actually intrigues me.  I know the biochemical pathways that lead to the chemical reaction in the leaves but I only understand that the difference in color is caused by the concentrations of the chemicals in the leaves.  Not being a neurobiologist, I do not know what wavelengths of light stimulate what parts of the brain which would be needed to scientifically understand Aschlafly’s statement.  I have supported my claim in the links above, perhaps you should open your mind to the understanding that perhaps not everything is as it first seems.  As for being taught, well consider that I actually perform research so my friend I use experience more often than not.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:38, 29 December 2008 (EST)
+
  
== Reversion Explained ==
+
''If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.''
 +
:No, this is a teleological argument that assumes that humans are evolving towards some higher goal or purpose, which evolution never concludes. Teleology is rejected by most Biologists and Anthropologists, because it does not reflect evolution. Murdering psychopaths are just as capable of reproducing as other human, and liars can be even better at reproducing than others. Please explain how evolution could possibly select against personality types which are still perfectly capable of reproduction and don't have a solid, well defined genetic link.
 +
::The theory of evolution predicts that natural selection will remove maladaptive, hereditary traits from the gene pool. History shows that social behavior is most adaptive while anti-social behavior would result in isolation from the general population, thereby lowering that person's chances of reproduction significantly. Over the "millions of years" that evolution has had to remove these anti-social characteristics, there should be none left by now because social individuals would have had more children, thereby dominating the gene pool and driving the anti-social people to extinction. A look at America's prison population will show that this is not the case.
 +
:::Populations have a certain carrying capacity for those who cheat the system, such as sociopaths. When there are very few sociopaths, sociopaths will thrive and be very successful. When there are a lot of sociopaths, they will be less successful and population levels will fall. Thus, society will maintain a constant level of psychopathy, as the benefits of psychopathy outweigh the cons of psychoopathy as fewer sociopaths exist in a population. Also, America's prison population is a factor of population growth too, violent crimes are at their lowest level since the mid-twentieth century.
  
We don't allow ideological [[censorship]] here.  Try Wikipedia if you want to insist on censoring criticism of evolution, though I oppose censorship by Wikipedia also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 7 March 2009 (EST)
+
''There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.''
 +
:In the past, humans had no idea evolution and speciation was possible, so we never would have tracked animals over thousands upon thousands of year, especially because civilizations tend to not last very long. Evolution takes a long time, and is very gradual. Thus, because history can only record so much, tiny changes in population phenotype were largely ignored by ancient humans. This does not disprove evolution, since evolution could still have been happening. Nobody cared enough to observe it over thousands of years.
 +
::Historical records of ancient animals have survived and we find that they are the same animals as today. For example, the ancient Egyptians venerated the domestic cat thousands of years ago. The descendants of those same cats exist today, entirely unchanged. Perhaps if ancient Egyptians had venerated a half-reptile, half-cat creature we could say that evolution is possible, but this is definitely not the case.
 +
:::Actually, cat domestication is well recorded, and resulted in significant genetic alteration from the wild type. since then, cats have diversified into a variety of breeds. Ancient historical records for animals are '''very''' few and far between, written before the existence of modern biology (cell theory, formal anatomy, ecology, ect), and domestic animals are a horrible example, as artificial selection can cause rapid genetic change, followed by genetic stagnation. I would love to see an ancient society that kept detailed records of the mating patterns of wild animals for thousands of years. 
 +
 
 +
''Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human genome. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.''
 +
:The segment of DNA that normally allows mammals to produce vitamin C is completely vestigial in non-lemur primates. We just didn't need it due to the large amount of fruit in our diet. I believe this qualifies as "junk DNA".
 +
::Jonathan Wells authored a book called "The Myth of Junk DNA" that covers this topic nicely. Basically, any DNA that secular scientists don't know the function of is labelled "junk" until it's purpose is discovered. You can't say that the DNA you mentioned is junk because it may have a function you don't know about. It's the epitome of arogance to assume that something is junk because you don't know it's purpose.
 +
:::The problem is that when science is proven wrong, they update the theory. When they find the purpose of a sequence of DNA, which they are always looking for, they change it so that it is no longer "Junk DNA". Even if all "Junk DNA" has purpose, you haven't dis proven evolution. Creationist claims are not scientific because there is no way to prove them wrong, much like there is no way to prove unicorns don't exist. Its not that they couldn't, its just that science doesn't care. Useful "Junk DNA" is still possible under evolutionary theory. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 13:01, 1 December 2011 (EST)
 +
 
 +
--[[User:Scochran4|Scochran4]] 22:42, 29 November 2011 (EST)
 +
 
 +
"For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going."
 +
They did. More specifically, they evolved with an entire population of females to mate with and other males to compete with. Evolution occurs at the level of the population, not the individual. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:52, 19 November 2011 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== wisdom teeth ==
 +
 
 +
Why do so many of us need to have them removed if we have the "perfect" number of teeth? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:08, 27 November 2011 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:For aesthetic purposes, and perhaps many of the removals are unnecessary.  The wisdom teeth are not needed to consume modern food, but have the potential to increase pressure on the front teeth, which can make them look crooked on television.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 27 November 2011 (EST)
 +
 
 +
::Well said. We should keep in mind, when dealing with issues of medicine (in this case dental work), that the human body was designed for the Garden of Eden, and the diet and lifestyle associated with it. After [[the fall]], mutations built up in the genetic code leading to many modern ailments. --[[User:Scochran4|Scochran4]] 20:47, 28 November 2011 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Autumn foliage ==
 +
This is caused by the chlorophyll (which makes the leaves green) fading away, and other pigments becoming more prominent and displaying the reds, oranges, and yellows. The purpose is not beauty; it is simply a natural consequence of the chlorophyll fading away as the air gets cooler. More detail can be found [http://www.ozarkmtns.com/foliage/funfacts.asp here.] Maybe this example should be removed. [[User:CWest|CWest]] 09:14, 6 June 2012 (EDT)
 +
== Birds from Dinosaurs?....Not! ==
 +
 
 +
I had added the following entry as a counter example to Evolution. It was removed at some stage. I wonder what was the reason. I thought it was a good point.
 +
   
 +
# Evolutionary scientists claim that birds are evolved from dinosaurs.''Longisquama insignis'' is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the dinosaurs.
 +
 
 +
--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O&#39;Connor]] 14:54, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Can I please add it again as there is no objection?
 +
 
 +
--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O&#39;Connor]] 09:29, 10 June 2013 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Blind beetles ==
 +
 
 +
How do I add this? http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-adelaide-researchers-find-species-of-blind-predatory-water-beetles-that-have-vision-genes-challenging-evolution/story-fnjwl2dr-1227199535965
 +
 
 +
== probability ==
 +
 
 +
The probabilities in the intro make no sense. They should be removed. (unsigned edit by User:YoGabbaGabba)
 +
 
 +
:You have a negative attitude. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 20:59, 9 November 2015 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Language ==
 +
 
 +
''"Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages."''
 +
 
 +
Ancestral languages were only spoken and not written, so it is very hard to reconstruct them. Writing was invented much later. However is there any proof that linguists accept that there was no common ancestral language?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 13:17, 13 February 2016 (EST)
 +
 
 +
== Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics ==
 +
 
 +
The second law is a statistical law and says that entropy tends to increase, not that it always increases, so already this particular argument against evolution is flawed. Furthermore, it only applies to a closed system, the earth is not a closed system as the sun pours energy onto the earth. Also some systems can become more ordered, but you have to do work. For example, if you cool a glass of water in a refrigerator, it's entropy decreases.
 +
 
 +
This isn't to say evolution is true, rather that this argument is not. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 11:57, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:This argument is quite correct.  Entropy means ''"lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder."''[https://www.google.com/search?q=entropy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8]  The 2nd Law states that everything goes from order to disorder, from complex to simple; you cannot avoid it.  And if the earth is not a closed system, as you and too many others harp on, then why is the 2nd Law so observable everywhere you go?  Does an apple get better or worse if you slice one open and leave it on the counter for a month?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 14:08, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::To answer your question, a I would expect the apple to get worse and rot. However I feel reading my earlier comment, I was not very clear. Let's talk about closed systems since you mention it, and let's simplify matters by neglecting the statistical nature, so that we can assume entropy '''never''' decreases.
 +
 
 +
My point is that the second law only applies to closed systems and can easily be disproven if one tries to apply it to an open system.
 +
 
 +
For example, suppose you make a cup of coffee, and leave it on the table. Let's says the coffee is at 60°C and the room at 20°C. You will agree that the coffee is an open system, it can exchange heat with its surroundings. So let's take the coffee (but not the cup to make it easier later on) as our system. What happens?
 +
 
 +
Well over time the coffee will cool down, i.e. its temperature will decrease and there will be a flow of heat out of the cup of coffee and into the room.
 +
 
 +
So what has happened to the entropy of the cup of coffee? Given that the entropy change <math> \Delta S</math>, is given by:
 +
 
 +
<math> \Delta S = \int_1^2 \frac{dQ}{T}</math>
 +
 
 +
Where <math> Q </math> is heat, <math> T </math> is the temperature and 1 and 2 represent the initial and final states. Since we can express the heat lost as
 +
 
 +
<math> dQ = mc dT</math>
 +
 
 +
Where <math> m</math> mass of coffee and <math> c</math> is its specific heat capacity. We can substitute this in and so
 +
 
 +
<math> \Delta S = \int^{T_2}_{T_1} \frac{mc}{T} dT = mc (\ln{T_2}-  \ln{T_1})</math>
 +
 
 +
Where <math> T_1</math> and <math> T_2 </math> are the initial and final temperatures respectively. Hence we can see that the entropy of the coffee must '''decrease'''.
 +
 
 +
So I hope you can see my point that the second law simply isn't valid for an open system. I'm not saying that in an open system, entropy can't increase.
 +
 
 +
Also, disorder is a good starting point when thinking about entropy, but it is not a perfect description of entropy, so some you have to careful when thinking about it in that way. Though I believe your example to be correct. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 12:48, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
:But you said above ''"Furthermore, it only applies to a closed system, the earth is not a closed system as the sun pours energy onto the earth."''  You're saying that the earth is an '''''open''''' system, that the 2nd Law '''''isn't valid''''' for an open system.  If that's the case, then how do you get that coffee to cool down like you described?
 +
:The 2nd Law is happening to this open system on earth; we see it every day.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:25, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
::You are right in that I'm saying the earth is an open system and the second law is not valid for an open system.
 +
 
 +
::The second law talks about entropy. I'm not sure how you are relating it to how the coffee cools down.
 +
 
 +
::I feel I might be repeating myself, but I'll try to rephrase my point. I feel we are each missing subtleties of each others arguments.
 +
 
 +
::My point with the coffee example is the if we try apply the law to open systems, we find it easy to come up with a scenario where it does not hold. It is not valid in the same way as neglecting quantum effects when looking at particle physics.
 +
 
 +
::Please could you expand on what your problem with the coffee is. Thank you [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 13:48, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:::The overall point about the 2nd Law was proven, in part, by the coffee, which is a cooling down once the heat is turned off.  But since we're dealing with coffee, there is an additional factor that also follows this law to the letter.  When left to itself, coffee will start to taste bad after a few hours...and you probably had a bad cup of coffee at some point.  I never did; I can't stand the stuff! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 14:11, 19 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Let me simplify my example. The coffee tasting bad has nothing to do with entropy.
 +
 
 +
OK, lets replace the coffee with pure water and add a lid to the cup so that nothing can get in or out. Let's make our container completely unreactive so that it cannot affect the water, but let it still be partially conductive. Hence '''nothing''' can happen to our water, except its temperature changing. (Assume normal pressures so there aren't phase changes. even if there were, it would be vapour condensing which would be a decrease of entropy anyway)
 +
 
 +
My example still holds, I think. The entropy of the water decreases and the water is an open system.
 +
 
 +
Also, the equation for the change in entropy above is a precise mathematical equation that '''defines''' the change of entropy. There is no other contribution from the coffee/water.
 +
 
 +
In fact, we could replace this with a lump of some material (a sphere with a radius of 10 cm for example) in space. We heat the material up and surround it in a perfectly insulating sphere of material to shield it from us, let's say this sphere is 1 light-year in radius (so that in the time frame of our experiment, the lump of material and insulation cannot interact). If we watch the sphere for 10 minutes, it cools down via radiation and so its entropy decreases. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 14:24, 19 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:I don't you have had time to read my comment, so I will wait, but if you have do you want to amend the page or shall I? (This of assumes you have not come up with a counter-argument. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 12:20, 21 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
::A "counter-argument" does not constitute proof.  Need proof here before the page gets changed.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 08:47, 23 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Ok, I thought I had proved that the second law does not apply to an open system, which forms the basis of the counterexample to evolution in the article. If you can tell me what the mistake is in my example above, we can proceed further. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 09:22, 23 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
:As you said, the 2nd Law does not apply to an open system; for such a statement to be correct, then the 2nd Law cannot function at all anywhere there is an open system.  If the earth is an open system as you said above, ''then the 2nd Law should not exist''; you would never, ever, see entropy of any kind.  Unfortunately, such a belief flies in the face of direct observation, which happens to be the first step of the Scientific Method. 
 +
:That is the point of the argument you are missing when it comes to evolution.  This open/closed system argument was made when it was discovered that entropy exists in life; we are born, we age, we wither away, we die, and our bodies turn back into dust.  That is entropy.  The heart of evolution states that as species evolve they get better and better, and that is the opposite of what is actually observed.  So, for this strikeout to happen on the article page, I require absolute proof that the 2nd Law cannot function anywhere for any reason in an open system.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
I have a problem with this part of your argument:
 +
 
 +
"As you said, the 2nd Law does not apply to an open system; for such a statement to be correct, then the 2nd Law cannot function at all anywhere there is an open system. If the earth is an open system as you said above, then the 2nd Law should not exist; you would never, ever, see entropy of any kind."
 +
 
 +
I assume where you say "see entropy of" is just a typo and you mean "see entropy increase of". My understanding of your reasoning is as follows:
 +
 
 +
let us assume the second law (entropy of a system does not decrease) does not apply to an open system.
 +
 
 +
implies
 +
 
 +
second law (entropy of a system does not decrease) is '''false''' for an open system.
 +
 
 +
hence
 +
 
 +
entropy of an open system must not (not decrease) = entropy of an open system must not increase
 +
 
 +
The implies statement is incorrect. A law not applying to a system is '''not''' the same as the law being '''false''' for that system. If a law does not apply, we cannot say anything.
 +
 
 +
The second law says "the entropy in a closed system does not decrease". It does not specify what happens in an open system. For example, suppose that if I don't win the lottery tomorrow, I shall buy some milk. It would be wrong to conclude that if I do win, I will '''not''' buy any milk. Hence it is wrong to conclude that entropy cannot increase in an open system.
 +
 
 +
I am not denying that entropy can increase in an open system, just that it can easily '''decrease'''. My example above shows an open system in which I have shown using '''mathematics''' that entropy decreases, hence we cannot gerenalise the second law to include open systems as well. Why does that not constitute a proof? [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 12:19, 23 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Here is my proof that the second law does not apply to open systems. If we say it does, then we are saying "entropy never decreases in an open system"
 +
 
 +
Let <math>P</math> be the proposition that "entropy never decreases in an open system"
 +
 
 +
<math>P</math> must be true for '''all''' open systems for the second law to apply to open systems
 +
 
 +
My example above shows '''mathematically''' an open system in which entropy '''decreases'''
 +
 
 +
Hence it does not apply to '''all''' open systems.
 +
 
 +
Hence the second law does not apply to open systems.
 +
 
 +
If you have a problem with my proof, then please point it out. Otherwise I shall amend the page in a few days.
 +
If you are busy, then I would appreciate it if you say, so that we settle it on the talk page and don't keep changing the article page back and forth. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 07:41, 25 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Is this a true statement:
 +
<center><big><math>\Delta E + d-T = hc</math></big></center>
 +
:Where <math>E</math> is an elephant, <math>h</math> is the act of the elephant hanging off <math>c</math> (a cliff) while gripping <math>d</math> (a dandelion) with <math>t</math> (its trunk).  Math can "prove" just about anything; if you want to balance a battleship on the spout of a tea kettle, math will "prove" to the world it can be done.  But actually seeing it is something else.  The battleship's anchor alone would crush that tea kettle, and the elephant will fall to the bottom of the cliff, taking the dandelion with it.  Your math is not matching up with what everyone is actually seeing on a daily basis.  You are not correct.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 08:52, 26 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
I have no idea what your equation means. Maths works by making some assumptions and proceed from there. For example, you never specified the gravitational field strength. On an asteroid, you could probably balance a typical anchor on a typical kettle with no problems.
 +
 
 +
Maths is based on logic. Maths won't allow you to 'prove' anything you want unless you make a logical contradiction. For example, you cannot 'prove' that 7 is a solution to the equation <math>2x=4</math>, interpreting that equation in standard notation.
 +
 
 +
A mathematical proof works either from a set of axioms (e.g. Euclid's axioms for space) or already something already derived from axioms and proceeding from there in a series of logical steps to derive something new or show something is true or false for example.
 +
 
 +
I am arguing that the second law does not apply to open systems. This:
 +
 
 +
<math> \Delta S = \int_1^2 \frac{dQ}{T}</math>
 +
 
 +
is a mathematical '''definition''' of the change in entropy in classical thermodynamics. I have started from here and calculated the entropy change for the system above. Since it is an open system and I have found the change to be negative, it follows that the statement "entropy cannot decrease in an open system" is false for that system.
 +
 
 +
I am '''not''' denying that entropy can increase in an open system. If you look at my maths, you can see that if we heated the coffee instead of allowing to to cool its entropy would '''increase'''.
 +
 
 +
If you disagree with my maths, please point out the step where I have made an error. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 09:50, 26 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:You did make an error, and I'm going to repeat what I have said, because I don't think you understand the situation.
 +
::1. You stated above ''"I am arguing that the second law does not apply to open systems."''  You claimed above that the earth is an open system.  The earth gets its energy from one source: the sun.  Turn the earth away from the sun, and what happens?  It's called ''entropy'', something you are denying is happening in an open system.
 +
::2.  It's a proven fact that heat always goes from warm to cold, and not the other way around; to do the opposite, to get cold to flow to warm, requires an energy source, i.e. the sun reheating that side of the earth when night turns to day.  Entropy will never ever decrease unless that energy source happens.  The same thing happens in a refrigerator; you can use the heat generated by the machinery inside it to send that cold air throughout it, ''but you gotta plug the thing into a wall socket to give it some power first!''
 +
:You have to stick with the facts.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 12:32, 26 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
Note that entropy is a quantity like distance not a process.
 +
 
 +
I am going to go through your points in a table, stating which points I agree/disagree with and why.
 +
 
 +
First Point:
 +
 
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|-
 +
!Sentence
 +
!Agree/Disagree
 +
!Explanation
 +
|-
 +
|You stated above "I am arguing that the second law does not apply to open systems."
 +
|Agree
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|You claimed above that the earth is an open system
 +
|Agree
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|The earth gets its energy from one source: the sun
 +
|Agree
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Turn the earth away from the sun, and what happens? It's called entropy, something you are denying is happening in an open system.
 +
|Disagree
 +
|At the bottom of my comment from earlier I say "I am '''not''' denying that entropy can increase in an open system. If you look at my maths, you can see that if we heated the coffee instead of allowing to to cool its entropy would '''increase'''."
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
Second Point:
 +
 
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|-
 +
!Sentence
 +
!Agree/Disagree
 +
!Explanation
 +
|-
 +
|It's a proven fact that heat always goes from warm to cold, and not the other way around; to do the opposite, to get cold to flow to warm, requires an energy source, i.e. the sun reheating that side of the earth when night turns to day.
 +
|Agree
 +
|
 +
|-
 +
|Entropy will never ever decrease unless that energy source happens.
 +
|Disagree
 +
|My example shows an object radiating heat and its temperature and entropy decreasing. Heat flows out of the object and the surroundings do no work on the object so there is no "energy source" as you have described.
 +
|-
 +
|The same thing happens in a refrigerator; you can use the heat generated by the machinery inside it to send that cold air throughout it, but you gotta plug the thing into a wall socket to give it some power first!
 +
|Agree
 +
|What you are saying actually agrees with me. Consider putting a glass of water (this is our '''open''' system) into the fridge. It cools down and its entropy decreases. Same as my example above.
 +
|}
 +
What you just said above is 1. the sun is not an energy source; and 2. your glass of "open system" water in the fridge cooling down and not increasing its entropy.  The fridge needs power to do that.
 +
 
 +
But my other question is this: why do you feel a need to question the 2nd law of thermodynamics on a page which the subject is "counterexamples to evolution"?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:46, 26 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
I wish to remove it because the physics is incorrect. That all.
 +
 
 +
The sun is outside our system (earth), and releases energy, so I'm not sure why you think it is not an energy source.
 +
 
 +
The water by itself is an open system since it can exchange energy with its surroundings, I'm not sure why you have put it in quotes.
 +
 
 +
It's entropy decreases and I think you are agreeing with me. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 14:48, 26 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:At this time the debate is over with; you are clearly twisting what I'm saying.  It's done.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 05:33, 27 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
I did not intentionally try to twist your words and apologise if I have. I don't understand your previous comment where you say:
 +
 
 +
"What you just said above is 1. the sun is not an energy source; and 2. your glass of "open system" water in the fridge cooling down and not increasing its entropy.  The fridge needs power to do that."
 +
 
 +
[[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 07:42, 27 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==A clearer example I hope==
 +
 
 +
The conservapedia article refers to what I would call a "closed system" as an "isolated system", that is one that exchanges niether matter nor energy with its surroundings. I shall use this terminology from now on.
 +
 
 +
I shall rephrase my argument using another example, perhaps this will be clearer. Suppose we have two systems 1 and 2 which are in thermal contact and thermally isolated with their surroundings. Together they form another system. Each of these systems are open as they can exchange energy with the other, but the combined system is isolated. The two systems look like this:
 +
 
 +
-----------------------------------
 +
|    System 1    |    System 2    |
 +
-----------------------------------
 +
 
 +
The two systems both have the same mass, <math>m</math> and the same specific heat capacity, <math>c</math>. System 1 has an initial temperature <math>T_1</math> and system 2 has an initial temperature <math>T_2</math>. We shall say that system 1 has a greater temperature than system 2 so that <math>T_1 > T_2</math>.
 +
 
 +
We now leave the systems for a while and eventually they reach thermal equilibrium and so have the same temperature <math>T_f</math>.
 +
 
 +
Considering that the heat transfer into or out of a system, <math>Q</math>, can be related to the temperature difference, <math>\Delta T</math>, as <math>q=mc \, \Delta T</math> we can relate the two temperatures as:
 +
 
 +
<math>
 +
mc \, (T_1 - T_f) = mc \, (T_f-T_2)
 +
</math>
 +
 
 +
since system 1 loses <math>mc \, (T_1 - T_f)</math> energy and system two gain <math>mc \, (T_f-T_2)</math>. Rearranging, we find it no surprise that the final temperature is the average of the two initial temperatures:
 +
 
 +
<math>
 +
T_f = \frac{T_1+T_2}{2}
 +
</math>
 +
 
 +
I am arguing that the entropy of an open system '''can''' decrease. I am '''not''' saying that it '''cannot''' increase. So let's consider the entropy of each system, <math>\Delta S_1</math> and <math>\Delta S_2</math> respectively, and of the combined system (the overall change in entropy), <math>\Delta S_t</math>.
 +
The entropy <math>\Delta S_t = \Delta S_1 + \Delta S_2</math> so we find each entropy first individually. Let us consider system 1 first. The entropy change <math>\Delta S_1</math> is:
 +
 
 +
<math>
 +
\Delta S_1 = \int^{final state}_{initial state} \frac{dq}{T}
 +
</math>
 +
 
 +
We can use the equation for specific heat capacity to derive a substitution to produce an integral that we can evaluate. This substitution is <math>dQ = mc \, dT</math>, where <math>dQ</math> is the infinitesimal flow of heat, <math>m</math> is the mass, <math>c</math> is the specific heat capacity and <math>dT</math> is the infinitesimal change in temperature. Hence:
 +
 
 +
<math>
 +
\Delta S_1 = \int^{T_f}_{T_1} \frac{mc}{T} \, dT
 +
</math>
 +
 
 +
with an upper limit of <math>T_f</math> as this is the final temperature and a lower limit of <math>T_1</math> as this is the initial temperature. Similarly, the change of entropy of system 2, <math>\Delta S_2</math>, can be expressed as:
 +
 
 +
<math>
 +
\Delta S_2 = \int^{T_f}_{T_2} \frac{mc}{T} \, dT
 +
</math>
 +
 
 +
Performing the integration one finds:
 +
 
 +
<math>
 +
\Delta S_1 = mc \, \ln{\frac{T_f}{T_1}} = mc \, (\ln{T_f} - \ln{T_1})
 +
</math>
 +
 
 +
<math>
 +
\Delta S_2 = mc \, \ln{\frac{T_f}{T_2}} = mc \, (\ln{T_f} - \ln{T_2})
 +
</math>
 +
 
 +
Since <math>T_1 > T_f > T_2</math>, it is clear that <math>\Delta S_1 < 0</math> and <math>\Delta S_2</math> (remember that <math>\ln{a} > \ln{b}</math> for any real numbers <math>a>b</math>)
 +
 
 +
Hence we have two open systems, the entropy of one (system 1) has '''decreased''' and the other (system 2) has '''increased'''. Hence you can see that I am '''not''' denying that the entropy of an open system can increase as system 2 does exactly that.
 +
 
 +
What about the combined system?
 +
 
 +
<math>
 +
\Delta S_t = \Delta S_1 + \Delta S_2 = mc \, \ln{\frac{T_f}{T_1 T_2}}
 +
</math>
 +
 
 +
Substituting in for <math>T_f</math> as above we find:
 +
 
 +
<math>
 +
\Delta S_t = mc \left( \ln{\left( \frac{T_1}{T_2} + \frac{T_2}{T_1} + 2 \right)} - \ln{4} \right)
 +
</math>
 +
 
 +
Expressing <math>T_2</math> as <math>cT_1</math> for some real constant <math>c</math>, we see:
 +
 
 +
<math>
 +
\frac{T_1}{T_2} + \frac{T_2}{T_1} + 2 = \frac{1}{c} + c + 2 > 4 \text{ for } c > 0
 +
</math>
 +
 
 +
This can be seen here [http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/657706/prove-that-a1-a-%E2%89%A5-2-and-a1-a-%E2%89%A42]. Since temperatures are always greater than 0 :
 +
 
 +
<math>
 +
\frac{T_1}{T_2} + \frac{T_2}{T_1} + 2 > 4
 +
</math>
 +
 
 +
Hence the overall change in entropy is greater than zero.
 +
 
 +
So we can conclude that the second law is '''not''' valid for an open system (i.e. we cannot say "for any open system its entropy cannot decrease") as in the example there is a system that entropy decreases. However for the overall, isolated system we see the second law holds true in this case.
 +
 
 +
Since entropy of an open system can decrease, this argument in the article using the second law is invalid and should be removed.
 +
 
 +
I shall change the page if I receive no response in the next day or two. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 14:20, 29 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Note to AlecT ==
 +
 
 +
I was about to obliterate your recent edit, though I see that Cons has done so more thoroughly than I can.  And I was about to chastise you for using the crude language that you used&mdash;a crude sexual word and a word that wrongly disparages people with mental handicaps.  And I was going to do it right here, rather than on your talk page, in the expectation that that talk page would soon be deleted.
 +
 
 +
I believe that the discussions of thermodynamics, evolution, cosmology, relativity, and similar topics, are being adequately handled by the competent people that we have here at Conservapedia. Notably myself, Richardm, AugustO, and a few others.  None of those people are potty-mouths.  We can always use more people to help with producing high-quality expositions of these topics.  For all I know, you might have been a good candidate for such, if you weren't such a jerk.  It's too bad.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:56, 28 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== Would people please stop trashing this page? ==
 +
 
 +
It's very distracting.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Some observations by [[User:Conservative]]==
 +
On a personal page at Conservapedia, I posted a recent ''Scientific American'' article entitled ''Creationism invades Europe''.  It's arriving on the backs of evangelical Christian and Muslim immigrants to Europe and as a consequence of evangelicals/Muslims having more children.
 +
 
 +
With immigrants flooding into London and British native white flight out of London, I suspect increasing challenges to the evolutionary indoctrination of children in London. In 5-15 years British evolutionists could face stiff opposition to evolutionism in London. In 2011, about 44% of Londoners were white British. [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4bd95562-4379-11e2-a48c-00144feabdc0.html]
 +
 
 +
Since Britain is the birthplace of Darwinism and Europe is a stronghold of evolutionism that is being chipped away at, this does not bode well for evolutionism.
 +
 
 +
Evolutionism being under siege may partly explain the anger of this particular evolutionist.
 +
 
 +
The evolutionary paradigm is being propped up by politics. Namely, at the present time, there are more European voters wanting public schools to teach evolution than there are opposing this matter. But the demographics of various European areas/cities is changing rapidly and causing an increase in creationism. And the 21st century demographic changes happening to Europe as a whole is favorable to the creationists as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:51, 29 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:The ''Scientific American'' article to which you refer is presumably http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eurocreationism/.  Though I don't know why you would be promoting an article with a subtitle "An antiscience movement once limited mostly to the U.S. is gaining ground on the eastern side of the Atlantic".  I assume you support science.  Also, I couldn't find any reference to that article on anyone's personal page at CP, or any page at all.  In any case, it's posted now.
 +
 
 +
:And I don't know who "this particular evolutionist" is.  It couldn't be AlecT; all we know about him is that he is a potty-mouth who uses crude language, like the "f" word.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:26, 30 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
::SamHB, I mentioned the article not because I wholly agree with it, but because it does make some valid points.
 +
 
 +
::You don't have to agree with everything someone says or some book/article says before you cite them. That would be illogical. In courts of law, attorneys commonly call opposing witnesses and get them to make admissions favoring their client.
 +
 
 +
::Evolutionists are in the best position to give statistics about creationism growing in Europe. They are worried about this and are in the midst of studying it via pro-evolution academics. If you want to read about creationism in Europe, here is a synopsis: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253954841_Creationism_in_Europe_Facts_Gaps_and_Prospects Creationism in Europe: Facts, Gaps, and Prospects]. 
 +
 
 +
::But my guess is that the prospects of creationism is understated by academics as they have not taken into account sound scholarship about [[desecularization]] such as the research done by [[Eric Kaufmann]]. In addition, they are not privy to the plans of the leading creationist organizations and moderately successful creationist organizations nor have they taken the time to interview their leaders. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:33, 30 September 2016 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
== A few weak arguments to address ==
 +
 
 +
Hey, I found a few arguments that I believe are too weak to combat against the liberal propaganda. The first was the argument from beauty. Clearly, evolution talks more about practicality and function rather than what is appealing to the eye. As the old saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and I believe that Schally would agree with that. The next one is #12 in Logical examples. By definition, evolution is merely about changes to an organism, and not whether it benefits an organism. Yes, "survival of the fittest" applies, but many animals "evolved", and many practice infanticide. One more issue is #4 in Uncategorized. The left-wing scientists can disprove your argument by saying Africans and whites were "reproductively isolated" and yet interracial marriages produce viable children. And by definition, a species is when 2 organisms can produce young that can also produce young, so mules are off the cards.
 +
 
 +
I am a creationist and I am tired how the liberal bastards are ruining the truth, but I want you to use airtight arguments or else liberals can freely resort to the "you're so stupid" card.
 +
 
 +
== Possible new counterexample about viruses ==
 +
 
 +
I was just reading counterexample 14 in the logical counterexamples section, where it says "The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria". I then thought if that were true, how could viruses have evolved. After a quick look on the internet, I found [http://www.icr.org/article/were-viruses-created-or-evolved/ this], which ends saying viruses are consistent with creationism, not evolution. I don't really understand the article, so was wondering what other people think and whether it should be added as a counterexample. [[User:FredericBernard|FredericBernard]] ([[User talk:FredericBernard|talk]]) 12:03, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
:I don't really understand it either. I think what it's saying is that there is good evidence that God created viruses, but for a different, positive purpose (and became what they are as a result of sin), rather than gradually forming through evolution. I encourage you to add this evidence. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 12:36, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
::I recommend against it.  I don't think the notion that all life started with bacteria is accepted by the scientific community.  Biogenesis is, to say the least, not a well-understood topic.  In any case, the cited article makes religious arguments, stating, for example, that viruses only started being destructive because of mankind's sin.  Considering that viruses and other primitive life forms long predate mankind, this doesn't seem to be a well-founded assertion.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:02, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::First, I don't think the article stated that evolutionists believe all life came from bacteria, unless I didn't read properly. Also, your arguments against adding this article are based on your presupposition that evolution and long ages are true (''"Considering that viruses and other primitive life forms long predate mankind..."''). This article is showing that the evolutionary view that retroviruses came from DNA mutations does not hold up. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 13:19, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::::OK.  First, I'm not an expert in any of this, from either a scientific or creationist standpoint.  So I'll bow out of the discussion.  My "all life started with bacteria" comment was not about the cited ICR article, but about the comment at the start of this section, which presumably was from the CP article.  It just struck me as odd that viruses were considered by creationists to have predated humans, but then retroactively changed their behavior as a result of human activity.  But it's not for me to say.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:52, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::OK, how about adding this:
 +
:::::"Retroviruses" are a type of [[virus]]. An article in ''Science'' claims that a retrovirus can be formed by two "protoviruses" in a process called "recombination". In regards to evolution, both humans and chimpanzees have retrovirus-like [[DNA]] and this is claimed to be evidence for [[evolution]]. But this ignores the fact that evolutionary theory says that chimpanzees and humans diverged of 6 million years ago, in which case these retrovirus sequences should have mutated to the point where they would be completely different. Furthermore, it assumes viruses existed before animals where as the ''Science'' article says animals existed first to produce the retrovirus.
 +
::::I'm not sure what the best section to put it in would be and I can't add it as the page is currently protected. [[User:FredericBernard|FredericBernard]] ([[User talk:FredericBernard|talk]]) 11:45, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Altruistic behaviour in animals and humans==
 +
This article could mention altruistic behaviour and how  - as noted by [[Richard Dawkins]] in his book [[The Selfish Gene]]  - according to the theory of evolution, it should not have evolved.

Latest revision as of 13:50, 29 March 2019

Archive 1 Archive 2

Cavemen and wolves

"If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false" Cavemen did NOT create a new species; dogs and wolves are the same species, as they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Recently, scientists have domesticated foxes, and they have developed dog-like characteristics, like changes in colouration and an increased affection and trust towards humans. --Samsonnn 12:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --FergusE 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --HarabecW 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --FergusE 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of microevolution, not "true" macroevolution. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. NickP 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

That is because macroevolution takes a lot longer, within the magnitude of at least millions of years. Evolution does not imply that it would be possible to directly observe one species changing to another. That is why fossil records are used. These clearly show that microevolution gradually builds up to macroevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution follow exactly the same principle. If you say that microevolution has been observed, then the only thing that would stop macroevolution from occuring would be a very young earth (which several areas of science have independently disproven)--Samsonnn 12:18, 13 November 2011 (EST)

If dogs and wolves are the same species, then the domestic dog had to have come from the gray wolf, exactly as scientists have been stating for years. Before the edit gets reverted again, someone here is going to provide proof of a scientific experiment in which a dog has been bred from a pair of wolves. Karajou 22:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Please define "Dog", you definition is far to vague for any scientific purpose.FCapra 22:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Basic logic?

"Species are groups of animals that can freely interbreed. A group of animals that can freely interbreed are C. lupus (dogs and wolves). Thus, dogs and wolves are same species. Basic logic." Fine, FCapra. Now you show me a male and a female wolf that mated together and produced a basset hound. Karajou 22:46, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Explain to me how two wolves can breed together and produce a wolf genetically identical to a third, unrelated wolf. When you can do this, I will see your point.FCapra 22:53, 13 November 2011 (EST)
You're missing the point here, FCapra. Evolutionists have stated for years that the domestic dog was created by the breeding of wolves, and done by cavemen. You're stating that both animals are the same species. Yet, if I breed wolves, all I'm going to get are wolf pups. If I breed German shepherds, I'm not going to get St. Bernards, I'm not going to get Boston terriers, and I'm not going to get chihuahuas. Strange as it may seem I'm going to go out on a scientific limb here and hypothesize that if I breed German shepherds, I'm going to end up with a litter of German shepherd pups. That is called logic.
And it's also proven that dogs can interbreed with coyotes (Canis latrans), the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis), and the golden jackal (Canis aureus), as well as several other members of Canis. Does that mean that those other Canids must be regarded as the same species? Or did a lawyer representing the big bad wolf file a copyright-infringement lawsuit? Karajou 23:16, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Coyotes/wolf hybrids show a marked decrease in offspring viability after several generations, and jackal hybrids don't occur in the wild and also suffer reduced fertility and genetic abnormailties. Wolfdogs have no decrease in viability or fertility, and occur (relatively)commonly where feral dog and wolf populations overlap. FCapra 23:26, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Then start breeding wolves. Show me the dogs that come out of it. If it's so easy a caveman can do it, then so can you. Karajou 23:31, 13 November 2011 (EST)
I can't breed wolf A and wolf B together to get wolf C, I get wolf AB. Sometimes, I might get a mutant wolf AB+, but it will never be wolf C. Eventually, I could get a domestic pack canine, but it wouldn't be a dog.FCapra 23:52, 13 November 2011 (EST)
And if you get those mutants, and eventually kept breeding to a hoped-for critter you can call "Rover", you would have proved beyond all doubt the fact of intelligent design. Karajou 23:54, 13 November 2011 (EST)
"Beyond all doubt" is extremely strong language. In fact, it's more like "have done absolutely nothing to prove or disprove intelligent design", because I am still working with natural mechanisms. Intelligent design relies on non-materialistic explanations to natural phenomena. Also, 1 singular case does not constitute enough evidence to support something "beyond all doubt". I would however, provide evidence that mutations can produce meaningful changes in organisms which help them survive in certain circumstances, such as a symbiotic relationship with a human. And just FYI, wild wolf puppies can be domesticated by humans.[1] FCapra 12:26, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Also, while wolves haven't been bred into dogs yet, it only took 40 years of selective breeding to produce domesticated, dog-like foxes[2]. It's logical that the same would apply to wolves.
Thor Heyerdahl proved it was possible for South American natives to sail to south Pacific islands; he did not prove that this had in fact happened. Current scientific consensus is that domestic dogs are descended from wolves, and as you and many others have said, they should belong to the same species - Canis lupus. I don't see a fox's bushy tail in those two Latin words. Karajou 13:11, 14 November 2011 (EST)
Do you have any evidence that it didn't and couldn't happen? Then you have a reasonable counterexample. All the mechanisms for domestication exist in wolves and foxes, wolves can be trained by humans, foxes have been domesticated, and foxes and wolves are similar genetically (both are in the Canidae family). There is no evidence that domestication of wolves is impossible, but in theory, it is entirely possible over the course of a few thousand years. Is there any evidence that human domestication of wolves is literally impossible, and not just unlikely? If not, than human domestication of wolves is a possibility, and can't really be used as a counterexample against evolution. FCapra 13:23, 14 November 2011 (EST)

PZ Meyers Photo

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --MRellek 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --MRellek 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Improving article

Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --SamCoulter 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --JMairs 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. Jcw 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --JMairs 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. Jcw 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --JMairs 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --JMairs 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. Jcw 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
OK, I took it out. I think we achieved a concensus on it, even if it was only a concensus of two. Nobody else seems to object so far. --JMairs 20:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

(unindent) This article seems to have been pretty lively over the last few days, for all sorts of wrong reasons. I'm new here, but I have to say something pretty blunt: it's not a good article. There seems to be an emphasis on quantity over quality. A lot of the arguments presented are so weak that I have to suspect they're strawmen or parodies inserted by evolutionists. We have about ten really good arguments that are more than enough to refute evolutionism, but we have hardly any detail on them: irreducible complexity only has a few sentences, for example. On the other hand there are a lot of EXTREMELY poor arguments, such as the old chestnut about males and females of a species having to coincidentally evolve together. I'm sorry, but present that argument to any evolutionist and he's going to laugh in your face then take you to pieces. Their theory CAN explain that, and within the naturalist framework they restrict science to they can explain it extremely well. Evolution is a scientific theory and it stands or falls on the evidence. We HAVE the evidence to defeat it, so why do we need to expose ourselves to ridicule by talking unscientific rubbish about the order in which chickens return to their coops? Sorry for the rant, but the latest troll really annoyed me. Not because what he said was wrong, but because so much of it wasn't. Why do we have this compulsion to make ourselves easy targets? --SamCoulter 02:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Does anybody have a problem if I return this article to SamCoulter's last edit? I've done some reading and I think he's on the right track as far as improving it goes, even if he's sadly not able to be with us right now. --JMairs 21:20, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Perfect number of teeth?

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth do get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. MaxFletcher 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --JMairs 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. Jcw 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. MaxFletcher 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. Jcw 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --JMairs 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. Jcw 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. MaxFletcher 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Seems like science has proven that we most certainly do not have the perfect number of teeth for a civilized lifestyle, as changes in our diet have lead to jaw shortening and crooked teeth as a result[3]. FCapra 00:38, 22 November 2011 (EST)

I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --JMairs 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. MaxFletcher 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. Jcw 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth. when in the majority of people the the teeth are over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. MaxFletcher 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. Jcw 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --JMairs 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
If we take what you have said above as read then the entry still needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. MaxFletcher 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the jaw that is too small for the number of teeth. MaxFletcher 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --JMairs 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better. As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--Andy Schlafly 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --JMairs 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. MaxFletcher 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. KarenWu 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Raptorex

I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --JMairs 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes, it's pretty much rejected. It does seem to be a juvenile tyrannosaurid rather than a separate species. I think this one should come out. --SamCoulter 11:03, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Bats

I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --JMairs 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --JMairs 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. FCapra 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --JMairs 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. MaxFletcher 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
OK thanks, will do! --JMairs 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --SamCoulter 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits.

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. Conservative 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --SamCoulter 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out "Broken arrow" yesterday. :) Conservative 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Artistic beauty argument

Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --SamCoulter 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm sorry, "death didn't exist before the fall"?
So in the days, months or years before the fall not a single leaf from a single tree ever worked it's way loose from its parent and fell to the ground?
If "death didn't exist" for plants (of all things) then all the "green things" G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook?
You may want to re-examine your logic here. AsherL 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined "life." Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that "life" is usually equated to "having the breath of life.") Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no "death" as conceptualized at the time. --Benp 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was "no death before the fall" hence no autumnal foliage. If trees weren't things that were alive to the writer(s) of the Creation texts then how could the effects have been wrought by things (G-d created things, no less) such as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (or the Tree of Life, for that matter)?
Nice try, Benp, but we know that we once had much more knowledge than we currently do...the writers of the Creation history knew better than us that trees are "alive".
No. Better that we should re-examine our dogmas than to succumb to metaphysical gymnastic logics to prop them up. AsherL 19:19, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
But were there seasons in the garden of Eden? From what I understand before the fall it was a constant, perfect temperature and climate. MaxFletcher 17:04, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
That's always been my understanding too, so I wouldn't have expected leaves to fall. The definition of life is a tricky one though. Perhaps the animals only ate enough of the plant that it could keep growing, so didn't die? I know that when cows graze they don't eat the roots of the grass, so it can grow again. Of course that argument would also apply to falling leaves, wouldn't it? The leaves die but the tree itself doesn't. OK, I'll have to rethink that one! --SamCoulter 19:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Regardless, evolution cannot explain artistic beauty in nature, whether it existed before man or not. Indeed, most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature, which is one reason why it becomes such a dreary, negative belief system.--Andy Schlafly 19:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
As an aside though, were there seasons in the Garden of Eden? If not there would never have been autumn leaves which means there artistic beauty comes not from Gods perfect handy work but from the flaws in the post -fall world. An interesting idea and I am sure there is much discussion to be had. MaxFletcher 19:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
"most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature" Andy, I can't believe you get away with bald assertions like that. It's pretty solid rhetoric, though. Just keep challenging dissenters with assumptions and dismiss counter-examples as outliers. I'm positive the statement could not be disproved to your satisfaction. Never mind that you never proved it. That's why most people have trouble taking Conservapedia seriously. BradB 19:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Brad, the existence of artistic beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of functional evolution. If you know of any evolutionists who accept the existence of artistic beauty in nature, then please do post some examples.--Andy Schlafly 22:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Atheists like Stephen Hawking, David Attenborough and, more recently, Brian Cox go to great pains to extol the beauty and rhythm of the universe and nature. MaxFletcher 22:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
I disagree that the existence of beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionists have written about the role of beautiful plumage in birds and how evolution could produce this beauty. I think some have even proposed that we evolved to find the world beautiful because those who thought it ugly were more prone to depression and less likely to survive. We all know they're wrong, but their argument is valid if you only allow naturalistic explanations, which is what their whole model is based on. --SamCoulter 22:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
"Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature." Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: "After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life." - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" his enthusiasm for the beauty of nature is very obvious; it's debatable whether Sagan was an atheist or not, but he was most certainly an evolutionist. Exactly the same can be said for Brian Cox's recent productions. My personal experience is that most evolutionists DO see beauty in nature; they just don't believe it was designed. --JMairs 20:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
Your quote does not say the world is beautiful. Evolution is a theory based on functionality. How would an evolutionist explain how beauty arose?--Andy Schlafly 23:47, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
Dawkins doesn't actually use the word "beautiful" in that quote, but he uses it several times in an interview with Der Spiegel, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,748673,00.html. Evolutionists also argue that the universe wasn't made to be beautiful so much as we evolved to find it beautiful, simply because we live in it. I don't believe that's true, but within the evolutionary framework it's a valid argument and they can ue it as an effective counter. --JMairs 09:50, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee

SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer this information and this information and this information before I let you work out matters with other editors.

Also this:

"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[4] Conservative 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --SamCoulter 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

It's funny you should bring up Richard Dawkins. Are you interested in creating a Elevatorgate article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.

Here are some sources:


http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ Conservative 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Ha ha, I hadn't heard about that! I've read some other stuff on it as well now, including PZ Myers' comments, and it seems they're all at each other's throats. That could make a pretty good article, and I might have a shot at it as soon as I work out how. --SamCoulter 19:28, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Altruism

I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book "The selfish gene" from the argument on altruism, because in fact Dawkins doesn't deny altruism in animals and the book has a whole chapter discussing it. Dawkins regularly makes a fool of himself talking about evolution and religion, and the reason is that he's not qualified in either subject. What he actually is, is an ethologist (studies animal behaviour) and I have to grudgingly admit that he's quite good at that, so he's not really in a position to deny altruism because it obviously exists. --SamCoulter 19:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

The Devil's Advocate

I'd like to spark some discussion on this article by pointing out which arguments can be easily countered by evolutionists (yes, many of them can, unfortunately) and which ones are definite refutations of evolutionary theory (yes, we have plenty of those too.) What I plan to do is list every example with its evolutionist refutation if applicable and my opinion on what we should do with it. Please contribute as much as you can. Anyway here's the list (apologies for the massive edit):

Logical examples

1. This example assumes that the rate of extinctions has remained constant. While the theory of evolution doesn't make any statements on this, it incorporates data from other sciences such as paleontology that claim there have been massive spikes in extinction rates, including one that's happening now. Weak argument - should be removed.

2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed.

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

4. Evolution can explain this and would point out that the eyes found in species they claim to be closely related tend to be similar while those found in species they claim to be distantly related are much less similar, e.g. vertebrates and cephalopods have different eye structures. They also claim that eyes have clear survival benefits and are likely to evolve. This is a dubious argument and needs discussion.

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

9. Based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (and, to some extent, on arguments between evolutionists.) What LEVEL are traits benefitting? Lying might not benefit the human race as a whole but it can certainly benefit the liar. Dubious and needs more discussion.

10. Based on a factual error. The dog is NOT a separate species; it's Canis lupus familiaris, a sub-species of the wolf. Dubious and needs discussed.


Lack of mechanism

1. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and many animals have a demonstrated ability to sense imminent earthquakes. A bit dubious and needs to be expanded.

2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of "information" you use, for a start. Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with disorder; it refers to energy available for work. Ice is much more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. This is a common misunderstanding and one that evolutionists like to jump all over. The information part needs to be expanded; the entropy bit needs to go.

3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?

4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.

Evolution can explain why animals migrate but not how they are able to navigate by instinct. They can give a believable explanation for how an animal might evolve a mechanism capable of finding its way over long distances, but not how information is already loaded into that system when the animal is born. I agree it's not the strongest example in the world, but I don't think it's as weak as you seem to. --SamCoulter 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps?

8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.

9. Should be merged with 8 and not emphasised so much. Evolutionists can put forward MANY explanations for why these things would be favoured, but what they can't explain is how we're able to do them in the first place.

10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.

11. This is factually inaccurate. Birds don't even HAVE X and Y chromosomes (they have Z and W) and the evolutionary argument would be that if two groups evolved sexual reproduction separately there's no reason why their chromosomes should follow the same pattern. This needs to be cleaned up and focused on the fact that the alleged common ancestor of birds and mammals was ALREADY reproducing sexually, which evolutionists can't explain.

12. This one is easily answered. An evolutionist would say that the fish gradually colonised colder water as they evolved resistance to low temperatures. Weak and should be removed.

13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?

14. Animals like isolated places because they tend to be safe, and lots of them can climb better than we can. Very weak and should be removed.


Maladaptation

1. This only applies to box jellyfish and the reason they come close to the beach at this time is well understood: that's when they spawn. Fallacious example and should be removed.

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

3. Can anyone name any benefits of the prostate surrounding the urethra? The theory of evolution actually states that there are many examples of poor design that natural selection CAN'T eliminate because it can't go back and start again. Dubious and needs discussion.

4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed.

5. Strong example.

6. This assumes that HIV and other pathogens aren't evolving too. Evolutionists say that they are, and it's obvious that they do undergo adaptation. A fairly weak example that should probably be removed.

7. Does schizophrenia make people less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? If not there is no reason why natural selection would eliminate it. Potentially interesting but needs some discussion.

8. Very, very dubious. Male pattern baldness HAS been observed in other species - orangs and chimps - and does it actually make men less likely to find a mate? Does it tend to appear after the reproductive peak has already passed? This should PROBABLY go, but may benefit from more information.

9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.


Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

4. Again, the theory of evolution states that natural selection can't work backwards and therefore often has to make the best of a bad job rather than produce a perfect design. Weak and should be removed.

5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.

6. Possibly false and certainly irrelevant; evolution doesn't necessarily predict human improvement and the short timeline claim assumes very strict uniformitarianism. Weak and should go.

7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.

8. True but irrelevant; evolutionary theory doesn't recognise devolution, just evolution in different directions. They will say that if an organism becomes more adapted by losing genetic information, it's evolved. Pretty weak and should perhaps go.


Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.

3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and the vast majority of fossils, even claimed transitionals, are NOT frauds. Not especially strong but should probably stay.

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

6. See 3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. Also this is vergin on being a duplicate. Should be merged with 3.

7. There are lots of hominid fossils that are clearly genuine. Those beings existed. The big question is, were they actually human ancestors or not? Evolutionists say yes; we say no. Potentially strong but needs expansion.


Paradoxical fossils

1. Is Raptorex actually questioning any evolutionary assumptions? It seems like most palaeontologists reject the Raptorex classification and say it's a juvenile tyrannosaurid. Weak and should probably go, unless anyone can add anything.


Irreducible Complexity

1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.

Evolutionists have lots of examples for intermediate wings in mammals, such as sugar gliders, but not in birds. It looks to me like they can give an evolutionary explanation for bats but not birds. I think this example should stay if that's clarified. --SamCoulter 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
Ostriches use their wings for balance when running at high speed. Obviously that's not proof of evolution, but it's a demonstrable use of wings that aren't capable of flight. I still think this one just leaves us open to attack and should be removed. --JMairs 21:48, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

5. The eye isn't. Even a non-imaging eye has lots of uses and are found in many species. If they didn't help the organism they wouldn't have been designed in. This is another example that evolutionists love.

6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.

9. Social insects; a very good example but the argument about workers not reproducing should be removed. They share their entire genome with the queen, so by helping her reproduce they ARE reproducing their own DNA.


Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?

3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.

4. Without a definition of "kind" this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.

5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.

6. I don't think a 24-hour circadian cycle defies materialistic explanations at all; in fact it makes perfect sense on a planet with a 24-hour rotation. On the other hand if someone can come up with examples of a WEEKLY cycle in non-humans that would be very strong.

7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.


I realise that I'm proposing removing a majority of the examples, but the ones that I think should go are ones that I've seen evolutionists give plausible answers to in a materialist framework (which is, after all, where they're working and therefore where we need to combat them to win over their followers) and I don't think they should be used. In compensation, the remaining examples are all inarguable and many of them can be expanded, so in my opinion the article would be a lot more solid and informative. Anyway, please let me know what you think and contribute any specialist knowledge you have. Thanks. --JMairs 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I plan to study each of your points carefully, and will respond to the first ten now (the logical counterexamples):
  1. It seems implausible that the rate of extinction would vary enormously, but even if it did, it would still exceed the rate of the generation of new species.
  2. Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.
  3. Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
  4. But the eye is remarkably similar across species that have no direct evolutionary connection, such as humans and cats and eagles. The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!
  5. Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
  6. Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
  7. This is a valid point. Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary manner. It's like lightening striking twice at the same place, at the same time of day, etc. Doesn't happen, and certainly not repeatedly so (for many species).
  8. Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
  9. Evolution does have a problem explaining why so many self-destructive people and personalities exist. A liar typically ends up hurting himself as well as others. An addict is even worse. They should not exist under evolution.
  10. You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.
Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--Andy Schlafly 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:
4. According to evolutionary theory humans, cats and eagles actually have a very close connection: they're all vertebrates, and all vertebrates have the same basic design of eye right down to the same features that evolutionists describe as flaws, such as the inverted retina. On the other hand no NON-vertebrate has the same basic design; cephalopods have a very similar eye in almost every respect, but the retina isn't inverted. Within the naturalistic model, they can explain this very well.
7. Evolutionists would argue that males and females aren't evolving separately, because they're all part of the same population. Changes between generations would be very small, so it's unlikely that incompatibility would emerge with such a small change. Honestly, they LIKE it when people use this as a counter-argument because they're all over it. It would be better to focus on how sexual reproduction evolved in the first place, because they can't answer that. They can explain WHY it would evolve, because it has all sorts of advantages, but not HOW. The question of males and females of a species evolving together, though, is something they see as trivial and often amusing, and anyone reading it here and using it in a debate is likely to emerge feeling quite battered.
9. Game theory has a lot of explanations of how lying can be a benefit. Addiction is an interesting one: it's been argued that addiction to certain things - fat and sugar, mostly - was a survival benefit for early man, because these were scarce high-value foods and people who went to the effort of finding them were more likely to survive. Current obesity epidemics have been blamed on humans retaining a low-level addiction to them now that they're widely available. Addiction to things that are simply harmful is probably more difficult for them to explain though. Anyway I'll revise my position on this one and say that it's not as clear as I initially thought.
10. Dogs are classified as a sub-species of wolf (Canis lupus,) not as a separate species. They're often referred to as Canis familiaris, but the correct names are C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo, with the species remaining C. lupus.
My experience is that of a creationist who grew up in the UK and spent most of my adult life in the British Army, which is a pretty aggressively secular environment. Evolution is much more widely believed and there are very few creationists (I don't know where the BBC got their poll figures from; every other poll puts belief in evolution at about 80% and "don't knows" as half the rest) and evolution is taught in a lot of detail in schools. I've had some fairly bruising experiences when I've used what I thought were good arguments and then promptly been beaten down. As a result I've studied evolutionary theory quite a bit, just to find out what it says; lots of creationists sadly have a pretty shallow knowledge of it, which makes it easy for them to allege straw man tactics on our part. Even Michael Behe fell victim to this at the Dover trial; he's done a lot of excellent work on something that really is irreducibly complex (the flagellum) but when he concluded that the immune system was also irreducibly complex he didn't read deeply enough, and he fell down quite badly; the evolutionists stacked up a huge pile of research showing that it isn't, and this terminally damaged his credibility with the judge. There really ARE fatal flaws in the theory of evolution, but a lot of them aren't quite what we think they are. I'm very wary of putting forward arguments that can be countered, because it may make them question the reliability of the site where they found those arguments - which is us. --JMairs 10:31, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' "explanations" are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.
As to the specific points:
4 - the point is that a very broad and diverse range of species have virtually identical eyes that could only have evolved long after the existence of their supposedly common ancestor. That's simply implausible for the same thing of enormous complexity to evolve independently in very different species.
7 - yes, evolutionists try to answer tough questions by saying that populations, not individuals, evolve, but that does not solve the dilemma. It reminds me of how evolutionists will inject the passage of more time to try to fix the implausibility of some of their arguments, when more time often does not help. Moreover, once evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve did not originate as individuals, but only as some type of population, then the theory directly conflicts with Christianity and is even forbidden by the Catholic Church. So evolutionists typically avoid admitting that their theory denies the existence of Adam and Eve.
9 - again, this is an issue of plausibility. Let evolutionists claim implausibly that addiction is part of survival of the fittest, with addicts surviving, and watch them lose any persuasive effect they had.
10 - I'll check with an expert on dogs and wolves. I think there may be disagreement about their classification. If so, then this could be omitted from the list.--Andy Schlafly 01:37, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
I REALLY have to disagree with you on that one! Most evolutionists don't avoid mentioning that their theory says Adam and Eve didn't exist, and the rest even use it as a joke, such as "Mitochondrial Eve." I'm not sure what the USA is like but in the UK it's quite routine to deny that Adam and Eve existed, even among most christians. --JMairs 12:52, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
The "joke" may be a way of avoiding the issue. Can you link to clear statements by evolutionists that Adam and Eve could not have existed as first humans under the theory of evolution? You might have a hard time finding such statements by leading evolutionists, because it conflicts directly with Christianity.--Andy Schlafly 20:54, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
"Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all." - Richard Dawkins, "The root of all evil?" "There was no Adam. There was no Eve." - PZ Myers, "Pharyngula," 22 Jun 10. The fact is that no published scientific paper is even going to mention them because they're outside the naturalistic framework, but in public statements most evolutionists are quite happy to deny the existence of Adam and Eve and couldn't care less that it contradicts the bible. This even applies to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago and evolutionists claim that modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, so the idea that they were real people and the ancestors of us all is ruled out from the start. --JMairs 21:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--Andy Schlafly 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
I can't find a direct quote from Miller denying the existence of Adam and Eve (although I didn't have much time to search last night) but there MAY be one in his book "Finding Darwin's God." That (as well as many of his public speeches) certainly contains several denials of the literal truth of Genesis and numerous statements of his belief that humans evolved. I'll try to have another look later. --JMairs 01:14, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

This is like boxing against dough. JMairs seems to have put a lot of work in here, along the lines I was planning to do before the Fun Police stamped on me. What's the response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It seems like nobody cares about this article until somebody has the temerity to try to improve it, at which point they'll be immediately blocked and forced to grovel and ritually humiliate themselves just to be allowed the privilege of RESTRICTED editing rights again. You know what? I'm PROUD to be a Conservative! Yes, PROUD! I actually kissed Margaret Thatcher's hand once. But trying to contribute to this site is like slamming my fists pointlessly into a sack full of wet, yeast-impregnated wet flour. It's like kicking sandbags. It's like headbutting a dead walrus. Whatever I do, I step on someone's toes and get blocked for it. Andy Schlafly has responded positively to my ideas, even if we don't agree about everything, but what do the sysadmins do? Block, revert, revert, block. Trying to achieve anything here is like suffocating inside a giant squid. --SamCoulter 23:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Sam, I responded in detail to JMairs' first ten points, and discussed them further. I plan to get to the remaining points once we're through discussing the first ten.
No offence, but you didn't go into very much detail on any of his points and you were pretty dismissive on a couple of them where there is real grounds for debate. Separate evolution of males and females for example. Any evolutionary biologist WILL stamp all over that argument. Their theory doesn't require separate evolution at all, and insisting that it does just makes us slow fat ducks. I KNOW the theory - I studied it for four excrutiating years - and they really do not see an issue with this. --SamCoulter 00:24, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
JMairs, Christianity is based on one Adam and Eve. So I wouldn't be surprised if Miller lacks an express, public denial of their existence, because it's virtually impossible to make sense of the Gospels and the Crucifixion without the original sin by Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids teaching that Adam and Eve somehow did not exist.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Vestigial organs

I'd like to make a small edit to the example on vestigial organs. While it is true that every organ in the human body serves a purpose, the evolutionist meaning of "vestigial" is NOT useless; it merely means no longer used for its original purpose. For example the appendix is part of the immune system in human infants; most evolutionists acknowledge this, but claim that it's still vestigial because in their opinion it used to be a caecum, used for digesting cellulose. Clearly there is no evidence for this, but the inclusion of an incorrect statement (i.e. Vestigial = Useless) in this counterexample leaves it open to attack on the grounds of creating a strawman. Unfortunately the Fun Police have told me that I'm not allowed to edit this article but I hereby ask for permission to make this change. --SamCoulter 18:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Don't bother, this page is so hopelessly divorced from scientific reasoning, it really can't be salvaged. Most the the examples are either completely false or hopelessly divorced from actual evolution theory. The "Fun Police" know that if they actually let people correct the counter-examples, there would be about 3 examples left. Just for example, male nipples are completely vestigial, as are your ear muscles and the plica semilunaris (third eyelid). And even though the appendix is not completely useless, it still fits within the theory of evolution. FCapra 20:21, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
This is my concern. I'm guessing that you're probably an evolutionist. Well I'm not, but I do have a BSc in evolutionary biology from Glasgow University, and I'm not so demented as to think evolution is a liberal plot aimed at turning Christians into homosexual CNN presenters. Most evolutionists are good, honest scientists who sincerely believe that their theory is correct, and within the naturalist worldview they follow they have flawed but coherent arguments. Similarly most atheists aren't maniacs who want to convert children into drug-addicted Satanist male prostitutes. Sure they want to turn people away from Jesus and his offer of salvation, but they think they're doing the right thing. I disagree with evolutionists and atheists (and yes, I know the two aren't equivalent) but I've learned to respect their sincerity. I want Conservapedia to be a resource that will convince them that we DO have a valid worldview. This article should be reduced to about a dozen good, solid examples that Neo-Darwinism really can't explain, and it should present them in depth. 80% of the examples on here now just make us look like window lickers on the Sunshine Bus. --SamCoulter 20:36, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
Vestigial does mean useless supposedly due to evolution. Look it up in a good dictionary. Of course evolutionists try to change the meaning of words to avoid admitting they're wrong. That doesn't change the fact they are wrong.
Nobody claims that most atheists are "maniacs", but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--Andy Schlafly 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
No, "vestigial" does NOT mean useless according to evolutionary theory. Yes, they have an agenda: they have a worldview that they honestly believe is correct, and they want everyone to accept what they see as the truth. To that extent, they are exactly the same as us and they are JUST AS SINCERE as we are. The way to reach them is not by calling them Neo-Stalinist queer-promoting loons who're too stupid to accept Ray Comfort's banana argument; that just provokes them into a violent defence that is winning the argument in my country and, "Question Evolution!" campaign and all, is at least holding its own in yours. We need to engage them on the level of real scientific arguments that they can't answer, of which we have a good supply. --SamCoulter 00:36, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
No, it's not symmetric. Some atheists are opposed to free speech by Christians, and even claim offense at Christian speech as a way to censor it. The converse is virtually never true.--Andy Schlafly 00:40, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Isn't it? I hate to hear blasphemy, but how can we prevent it without censoring the free speech of atheists? There's a Commandment against blasphemy, but can we realistically demand that they follow that Commandment? --SamCoulter 02:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Vanadium and tunicates

While the blood of tunicates MAY contain high levels of vanadium (the only research indicating this dates back to 1911 and nobody has been able to replicate the results since) it does not replace iron as an oxygen carrier; haemovanadin does not appear to carry any oxygen at all, and it is likely (though not confirmed) that tunicate blood also contains haemoglobin and haemocyanin. Therefore this example is at best unsubstantiated and at worst wrong. --SamCoulter 12:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

Waste of time, Sam. You SHOULD be writing hard-hitting articles on atheism and machismo, illustrated with pictures of rabbits. You're good at science: you should get out of here and start editing at http://astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page. Email me at john_mairs@hotmail.com. --JMairs 16:52, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

HIV and Evolution

The HIV example is terrible evidence against evolution, as HIV is a relatively new disease in humans and the genetic mutation that provides immunity is rare. Additionally, HIV affects a relatively small proportion of the population. There is no way for universal immunity to HIV to develop in a few generations. This counterexample is extremely weak, and undermines the integrity of the article.FCapra 01:52, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Rate of extinction

"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."
This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.
Evolutionists say that there was period of history when extinction rate was far higher than speciation (generation of species) rate and other period when it was the opposite. We are just currently in one of those times when extinction rate is higher (mostly because of human activity).
I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--ARamis 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--Andy Schlafly 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --DrDean 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--ARamis 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
It seems that to you, Mr Schlafly, the rates of processes are either fixed for all eternity (e.g. extinction) or are variable (e.g. rate of C-14 decay) depending upon which best supports your pre-formed conclusion. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that extinction rates vary over time (the asteroid and the dinosaurs being perhaps the most blindingly obvious example of a huge spike in the rate of extinction). DavidZa 17:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
There is evidence of the meteor impact too, in the form of a rock layer with an relatively massive amount of iridium, the enormous crater in Mexico, and the fact that there isn't a single true dinosaur fossil found above this rock layer. FCapra 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --DrDean 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Birds are the only exception, although whether they are true dinosaurs is a hotly debated topic of taxonomy.FCapra 20:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Well we're moving off topic slightly, but the point about birds is that if they did evolve from dinosaurs, as is the favoured theory among scientists, then by the time of the asteroid impact they had evolved physiological or behavioural features that enabled most of them to survive. DavidZa 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Trilobites and Evolution

Saying that the lack of arthropods prior to trilobites disproves evolution forces one to make the assumption that all arthropods had chitinous exoskeletons. It is quite possible that early arthropods lacked an exoskeleton, explaining their absence in the fossil record. The development of this exoskeleton led to the explosive success of the trilobite and made it much easier for them to be fossilized compared to earlier, soft bodied arthropods, who were much less abundant. FCapra 13:26, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Isn't the DEFINITION of an arthropod an invertebrate with a segmented body, jointed legs and an exoskeleton? --SamCoulter 13:44, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
Nope, it is just the definition of modern arthropods. It is entirely possible that the ancestor of the trilobite had a much softer exoskeleton, limiting its ecological success. Whether or not it was an arthropod is literally a matter of semantics, not a matter of biology.FCapra 18:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
Proto-arthropods do exist. They're called "lobopods". They are reasonably well-documented in the fossil record and can still be found today if you know how to look (e.g. digging through sponges with dissecting probes). --JHunter 12:47, 21 January 2012 (EST)

Chimpanzees and Gorillas

The article currently states, without a reference, that there is greater genetic similarity between gorillas and humans than between chimpanzees and humans. This is false. (see page 6) DavidZa 15:58, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

You're right; there is NOT greater similarity between humans and gorillas than humans and chimps, and the article isn't intended to say that; the point is that there are SOME SEQUENCES that are more similar, which contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis that we have a mmore recent LCA with chimps than with gorillas. The confusion is my fault and I'll fix it. --SamCoulter 16:05, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
It still doesn't contradict evolution at all. Say we start with 4 genes, A, B, C, D. The gorilla branches off earliest and takes with it A, B but has evolved two new ones, W, X. The chimpanzee branches off from the original line later on, but takes with it A, C, D and evolves Y. Humans on the other hand branch off last taking B, C, D and evolving a new one, Z. Now, humans share only one gene with gorillas but two with chimpanzees. However, it so happens that the one they share with gorillas is not also shared with chimpanzees.
Obviously this is a ridiculously simplistic analogy, but it demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for one species to be more closely related to humans, with a more distantly related species still sharing DNA sequences only with humans. Even if you don't accept the concept of evolution, there is no contradiction with its internal logic. DavidZa 16:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Declining human fertility

While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context "fertility" is a measure of birthrate, and the decline is due to social factors and increased life expectancy. There is an issue of a decline in male sperm count, but this appears to be linked to water pollution and is recent; there was no evidence of a decline before 1960. The most likely culprit is residual DDT breakdown products, which have also been linked to feminisation in freshwater fish. This is not evidence for a young Earth. --SamCoulter 20:24, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

The key point here is that to be valid the counterexample presumes that the rate of the process has been consistent throughout history. However, as with this case, for all counterexamples resting upon this assumption there is no reason to believe that this is true; indeed for some it is perfectly obvious that it is not so. As such, I propose that all counterexamples that are dependent on this assumption be removed. DavidZa 21:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and "old Earth" geology, and CP shouldn't (and doesn't need to) use it. If you're interested I have a couple of articles (peer-reviewed, not from AiG or any Hovindite loons) questioning this assumption; email me if you want them. My address is on my user page. --SamCoulter 21:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
When using the term uniformitarianism it is extremely important to specify the definition being used. The idea of uniform rates of processes is one such specific definition, but one that has long since been rejected by mainstream science, including evolutionists and geologists. Take the theory of punctuated equilibrium for example, which basically argues that evolution occurred via long periods of very gradual change, punctuated by shorter periods of relatively rapid change. DavidZa 21:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --SamCoulter 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Vestigial organs

There is a great deal of debate over whether certain features/organs are vestigial in certain species or whether they still retain a useful function. However, while it may be true that in the past scientists have believed certain features to be vestigial, only for it later to be discovered to have a function still, this does not provide a counterexample to evolution. Evolution merely argues that vestigial features are theoretically possible, not that they must exist for evolution to be true. To point out that incorrect predictions have been made is merely to point out that science progresses by making predictions which are then tested. This is therefore not a counterexample and I therefore believe I was justified in deleting it. DavidZa 21:56, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. FCapra 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
Ear muscles in humans have many important functions, such as providing the ability to close the ears when presented with an argument you don't like. --SamCoulter 22:01, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
This is a very controversial article and the feeling in the CP community is that editors shouldn't delete information from it without adding other information to compensate. If you would just email me I can explain this to you. --SamCoulter 21:59, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. DavidZa 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
If a statement is untrue it should be removed irrespective of how many counterexamples are wanted. Perhaps we could mark any refuted counterexamples with the appropriate explanation? DavidZa 22:02, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps you could. Perhaps somebody would even listen. Are you going to listen to me or not? If you want to keep editing at CP it would be in your interests to do so. I can give you some advice on what provokes the sysops to use their favourite surgical implement, the banhammer. --SamCoulter 22:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

Fossils

In response to the undoing of FCapra's edit, I believe FCapra is right. The article is about 'counterexamples'. The example in question merely argues that there is a lack of evidence; a counterexample must be actual evidence that contradicts the proposition, not simply a lack of evidence for it. DavidZa 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Trichinella spiralis

According to Dickson Despommier who made Trichinella.org, the referenced website, the immune response is driven up in the animal after the animal is infected and that this is probably to reduce competition and increase the probability that the host will meet its end in a predation situation, thus enabling Trichinella spiralis to be transferred to a new host. DavidZa 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Deletions will be restored

The repeated deletions will be restored unless there are well-supported, fully explained, and justified reasons for the deletions.--Andy Schlafly 23:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

The "teeth in mouth" example: Many if not most adults need to have their wisdom teeth removed. The balding example: Baldness is not necessarily undesirable. Some women--like my wife, find it attractive. Moreover, it often manifests long after a man has reproduced, passed on the trait, and is out of the mating pool. The schizophrenia example: Schizophrenics can reproduce before they demonstrate any symptoms and become undesirable mates, thus allowing the condition to perpetuate even if it is undesirable. BrentH 23:42, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
To shed further light on the removal of the balding example; studies have shown that bald men are perceived as being older and thus more senior, giving them an advantage within social groups. Therefore it is deemed to be somewhat advantageous. The fact that historically humans have had much shorter life-spans also means that most men died before experiencing it, meaning that it never even became a significant factor in terms of evolution, either as an advantage or disadvantage. DavidZa 23:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Lifespan for healthy people has not changed much, and it's absurd to claim that balding is desirable. An implausible argument such as claiming that balding is a desirable trait does not warrant deletion of a counterexample.--Andy Schlafly 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the last 50 years alone! Go back further and the increase is even more remarkable. (Indeed, you should welcome this point, for if we apply your argument about the rate of extinction and assume that this rate of increase is constant, then we soon find that human life expectancy was 0 sometime in the 16th century. A possible addition for 'counterexamples to and old earth' perhaps?)
You are mistaking 'aesthetically desirable' (which is subjective, and obviously different people with have different views), with desirable in terms of evolution. Studies have shown that whether or not people 'like' the appearance of bald men, they nonetheless perceive them to be older and thus more senior than men of the same age with a full head of hair[5]. It has been shown that MPB is equated with seniority within social hierarchies of other primates. Whether you deem it implausible or not, the evidence is there. DavidZa 00:13, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
As an older woman, I don't find bald men any less attractive then men with a full head of hair. My friends would agree with me. I believe we know more about male attractiveness than you, Mr. Schlafly. FCapra 13:20, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Evolution of whales

The theoretical phylogeny of whales is well documented, [6], so the "counterexample" about whales should be removed.

That article hardly justifies deleting the counterexample. The counterexample is being restored.--Andy Schlafly 13:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
If you could explain to me what parts of the counterexample it fails to address, I'd be more than happy to find an alternate article. I dont see what points about whale evolution are not addressed within the article, however. Perhaps you missed one of the charts? FCapra 13:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Based on its abstract, I don't think the article even comes close to addressing the many unique attributes of a whale that defy any evolutionary explanation. If you'd like to explain here what you find so persuasive about the article, then feel free to do so. But the counterexample is not going to be deleted unless and until a much more persuasive showing of an evolutionary path is made.--Andy Schlafly 00:05, 9 October 2011 (EDT)
Based on the title, "Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and Character Evolution", the article does indeed address many of the "unique attributes" of Ceteca. The section titled "Selected Character Optimizations for Cetancodonta", in particular, explains how whales are expected to have evolved within a clade filled with terrestrial herbavores. Whether you accept the research or not, scientists have mapped out and have an explanation for the evolution of whales, and everything they have concluded fits within the theory of evolution.FCapra 19:28, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Wait...what?

I have honestly never heard the following arguments used as counter-examples for evolution and I'm not sure I follow:


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


Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying atheistic explanations


How do these prove evolution doesn't exist? GiveMeLiberty 18:51, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

The theory of evolution is based exclusively on materialism. Those observations confound the theory, because there is no materialistic explanation. If materialism does not drive animal behavior, then evolution falls apart.--Andy Schlafly 13:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

Reasons why the Artistic Beauty Argument Fails as a Counterexample

Artistic Beauty is subjective, and any objective means of describing beauty are usually based on patterns such as symmetry or the Fibonacci sequence, which have many evolutionary advantages. Within the framework established by science, beauty has no inherent meaning, it is up to individual organisms to interpret a meaning from the stimuli they are presented with. In addition, organisms that seem impractically beautiful, such as the peacock, evolved that way to attract mates, as the increased mating attractiveness was more useful than any disadvantages brought about by the peacocks impressive plumage. Trees seem beautiful because they often branch in the Fibonacci sequence, as it results in the most efficient absorption of light. The bright colors are a result of secondary pigments which allowed for a wider spectrum of light to be absorbed. In nature, the most beautiful trees are the most successful, so they have an evolutionary advantage over uglier trees with poor light absorption and awful branch layout. FCapra 00:22, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

Kidney donor

I'm not arguing whether this should be in the article, but someone needs to re-read one of the quotes included in this section "...mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" - as far as I know, most deceased donors don't need either kidney. Most often, the patient wasn't healthy enough at the time of death to use their organs, or the family refused to allow the procedure.

Also, getting listed for kidney transplantation is rather complex - a lot of dialysis patients don't qualify for a transplant because of health or financial reasons. They can miss out on an available kidney because they have a cold, and die before another one is available. They could have had health insurance when placed on the transplant list, but not have it when the kidney becomes available and can't afford the medication needed afterward, thus losing the kidney.

Most people don't donate kidneys because they're scared - of the surgery, of the cost, or of the chance they will suffer kidney failure themselves. The US population is not well-educated about the subject. For instance, most people don't know that if a donor does suffer from kidney failure later on (and I have actually met several), they are automatically placed at the top of the transplant list. One man I met waited a whole 2 days for his kidney. Another one waited a week.

A patient who isn't on dialysis yet tends to be transplanted ahead of a person who has already reached ESKD and is on dialysis because it is healthier for the patient to receive a transplant before undergoing dialysis. Thus, the sicker patients often have to wait longer, and most of them have additional conditions that worsen their situation. Dialysis is extremely hard on the heart, and the average life expectancy of a 40-45 year old patient is around 6 years.

I really think this section needs rewording, because the situation is a lot more complex than merely misinformation about evolution. --SharonW 19:29, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

You make good points, Sharon, and I did remove the quote (although the quote was accurate, but tended to be confusing). Still, the bottom line for how the "US population is not well-educated about the subject" is simply this: Americans are taught to believe in evolution, and makes them think both kidneys are needed. It's a false belief resulting from a false teaching, and the consequences are tragic for those who need kidney donors.--Andy Schlafly 22:23, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
The evolutionary explanation of having multiple kidneys was that the resource cost of possessing two fully developed, equally functional kidneys was slightly less than the risks of only having one kidney in case of injury or disease. Additionally, all vertebrates posses two kidneys, as all vertebrates posses bilateral symmetry, an ancient animal characteristic that is only broken in extremely rare instances[7], such as in flatfish (which are symmetrical as larva). Indeed, it is almost impossible to violate bilateral symmetry, which is why humans still posses two kidneys. Our ancient animals ancestors needed two kidneys, but now that we don't need both our kidneys anymore, it will take a lot more than a few million years of evolution to get rid of them.
Also, if evolutionary belief is having an impact on kidney donor-ship, the numbers certainly don't show it. In the past 20 years, kidney donations have almost tripled and the ratio of living donations to deceased donations has rapidly diminished [8]. Evolutionary teachings certainly haven't become less common in America, so unless there is concrete evidence that an education in comprehensive, evolutionary biology actually has a negative impact on donations, your statement on donor-ship can't really be justified. FCapra 14:07, 16 November 2011 (EST)
We do actually need both kidneys. With only one kidney, such as after donating one, you become significantly more likely to develop renal diseases such as FSGS. --JHunter 13:39, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

Weak Arguments/Logical Fallacies in this Article

I am a student studying Neuroscience. In the process, I have been through several courses in the undergrad and graduate level studying biology and evolution, and I can tell you that many, if not all, of the arguments on this page are quite fallacious in nature and would not hold up to any sort of scientific scrutiny.

Let's get one thing straight here - I personally do not believe that the Theory of Evolution can explain everything about the development of life, but proving it completely incorrect will be quite a hassle if it is even possible.

I see scientists often characterized on here as being "dogmatic" and "driven by faith" to be atheists and defend evolution over the alternative of creation. I can't imagine how you can be any further from the truth, which is why I want to help you get your own story straight. If you can prove the Theory of Evolution incorrect, you will not be hated; in fact, you will start quite the revolution in thought.

With just a quick glance, here is my opinion on the arguments on this page

"Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[1]), then the odds that these 27 counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is only 25%." - Extreme misuse of probability and statistics; very laughable.

"1. 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." - There have been many points throughout the history of the world where extinction spikes have been seen, and it is often unknown why they are caused. Just as there are extinction spikes, there were also spikes in population growth and speciation. Google "Cambrain Explosion" for an example.

"2. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation." - This is very well addressed by another user on this talk page. In addition to that explanation, remember that what we perceive as "good" was evolved in response to the environment. If a fruit is bright and colorful, chances are that it is not poisonous. Likewise, If a food is sugary or fatty, it will taste appealing to us; as these were the most energy-rich foods and the ones that were most beneficial for us to eat when we came by them back when we were hunter-gatherers. Just to give a couple examples.

"3. Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[2] Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.[3]" - First of all, the theory of evolution cannot explain something that it is not established to explain. This is like saying that since one is weightless out in space, that the Law of Gravity cannot be true. Secondly, what this point fails to take into account is that: (1) Apes have one more pair of chromosomes than humans do, and therefore more genetic room for genetic diversity. The reason: The 2nd chromosome of our species is actually two chromosomes fused together, which existed separately in our ancestors. (2) Humans did originate from a small population in Africa, but this is neither a subject of debate nor a pressing question to anthropologists, as the reasons for our smaller genetic variance than apes are well-known.

"4. The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation[5]" - Once again, this is not a phenomena that the Theory of Evolution was established to explain and the fact that it can not explain this on its own does not make this a counterexample. There are many hypotheses about migratory patterns as well as ongoing studies in this area.

"5. Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome.[...]having a functional protein are too great." -This argument, once again, has nothing to do with the process of evolution, but is instead making the claim that life is too improbable to have occurred without a creator. While this argument is a great philosophical argument for believing in God, it is not scientific. From a scientific perspective, life has occurred, despite how improbable, and it is the mission of scientists to discover the natural processes through which complex life came about. Maybe these processes were put in place and performed by God. Maybe they were not. This is not a question that science seeks to answer, however.

Clearly Invalid Counterexamples

If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.

No, this is a teleological argument that assumes that humans are evolving towards some higher goal or purpose, which evolution never concludes. Teleology is rejected by most Biologists and Anthropologists, because it does not reflect evolution. Murdering psychopaths are just as capable of reproducing as other human, and liars can be even better at reproducing than others. Please explain how evolution could possibly select against personality types which are still perfectly capable of reproduction and don't have a solid, well defined genetic link.
The theory of evolution predicts that natural selection will remove maladaptive, hereditary traits from the gene pool. History shows that social behavior is most adaptive while anti-social behavior would result in isolation from the general population, thereby lowering that person's chances of reproduction significantly. Over the "millions of years" that evolution has had to remove these anti-social characteristics, there should be none left by now because social individuals would have had more children, thereby dominating the gene pool and driving the anti-social people to extinction. A look at America's prison population will show that this is not the case.
Populations have a certain carrying capacity for those who cheat the system, such as sociopaths. When there are very few sociopaths, sociopaths will thrive and be very successful. When there are a lot of sociopaths, they will be less successful and population levels will fall. Thus, society will maintain a constant level of psychopathy, as the benefits of psychopathy outweigh the cons of psychoopathy as fewer sociopaths exist in a population. Also, America's prison population is a factor of population growth too, violent crimes are at their lowest level since the mid-twentieth century.

There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.

In the past, humans had no idea evolution and speciation was possible, so we never would have tracked animals over thousands upon thousands of year, especially because civilizations tend to not last very long. Evolution takes a long time, and is very gradual. Thus, because history can only record so much, tiny changes in population phenotype were largely ignored by ancient humans. This does not disprove evolution, since evolution could still have been happening. Nobody cared enough to observe it over thousands of years.
Historical records of ancient animals have survived and we find that they are the same animals as today. For example, the ancient Egyptians venerated the domestic cat thousands of years ago. The descendants of those same cats exist today, entirely unchanged. Perhaps if ancient Egyptians had venerated a half-reptile, half-cat creature we could say that evolution is possible, but this is definitely not the case.
Actually, cat domestication is well recorded, and resulted in significant genetic alteration from the wild type. since then, cats have diversified into a variety of breeds. Ancient historical records for animals are very few and far between, written before the existence of modern biology (cell theory, formal anatomy, ecology, ect), and domestic animals are a horrible example, as artificial selection can cause rapid genetic change, followed by genetic stagnation. I would love to see an ancient society that kept detailed records of the mating patterns of wild animals for thousands of years.

Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human genome. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.

The segment of DNA that normally allows mammals to produce vitamin C is completely vestigial in non-lemur primates. We just didn't need it due to the large amount of fruit in our diet. I believe this qualifies as "junk DNA".
Jonathan Wells authored a book called "The Myth of Junk DNA" that covers this topic nicely. Basically, any DNA that secular scientists don't know the function of is labelled "junk" until it's purpose is discovered. You can't say that the DNA you mentioned is junk because it may have a function you don't know about. It's the epitome of arogance to assume that something is junk because you don't know it's purpose.
The problem is that when science is proven wrong, they update the theory. When they find the purpose of a sequence of DNA, which they are always looking for, they change it so that it is no longer "Junk DNA". Even if all "Junk DNA" has purpose, you haven't dis proven evolution. Creationist claims are not scientific because there is no way to prove them wrong, much like there is no way to prove unicorns don't exist. Its not that they couldn't, its just that science doesn't care. Useful "Junk DNA" is still possible under evolutionary theory. FRodgers 13:01, 1 December 2011 (EST)

--Scochran4 22:42, 29 November 2011 (EST)

"For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going." They did. More specifically, they evolved with an entire population of females to mate with and other males to compete with. Evolution occurs at the level of the population, not the individual. FCapra 22:52, 19 November 2011 (EST)

wisdom teeth

Why do so many of us need to have them removed if we have the "perfect" number of teeth? ScottDG 22:08, 27 November 2011 (EST)

For aesthetic purposes, and perhaps many of the removals are unnecessary. The wisdom teeth are not needed to consume modern food, but have the potential to increase pressure on the front teeth, which can make them look crooked on television.--Andy Schlafly 22:14, 27 November 2011 (EST)
Well said. We should keep in mind, when dealing with issues of medicine (in this case dental work), that the human body was designed for the Garden of Eden, and the diet and lifestyle associated with it. After the fall, mutations built up in the genetic code leading to many modern ailments. --Scochran4 20:47, 28 November 2011 (EST)

Autumn foliage

This is caused by the chlorophyll (which makes the leaves green) fading away, and other pigments becoming more prominent and displaying the reds, oranges, and yellows. The purpose is not beauty; it is simply a natural consequence of the chlorophyll fading away as the air gets cooler. More detail can be found here. Maybe this example should be removed. CWest 09:14, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Birds from Dinosaurs?....Not!

I had added the following entry as a counter example to Evolution. It was removed at some stage. I wonder what was the reason. I thought it was a good point.

  1. Evolutionary scientists claim that birds are evolved from dinosaurs.Longisquama insignis is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the dinosaurs.

--Maria O'Connor 14:54, 27 September 2012 (EDT)

Can I please add it again as there is no objection?

--Maria O'Connor 09:29, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Blind beetles

How do I add this? http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-adelaide-researchers-find-species-of-blind-predatory-water-beetles-that-have-vision-genes-challenging-evolution/story-fnjwl2dr-1227199535965

probability

The probabilities in the intro make no sense. They should be removed. (unsigned edit by User:YoGabbaGabba)

You have a negative attitude. VargasMilan (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2015 (EST)

Language

"Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages."

Ancestral languages were only spoken and not written, so it is very hard to reconstruct them. Writing was invented much later. However is there any proof that linguists accept that there was no common ancestral language?--JoeyJ (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics

The second law is a statistical law and says that entropy tends to increase, not that it always increases, so already this particular argument against evolution is flawed. Furthermore, it only applies to a closed system, the earth is not a closed system as the sun pours energy onto the earth. Also some systems can become more ordered, but you have to do work. For example, if you cool a glass of water in a refrigerator, it's entropy decreases.

This isn't to say evolution is true, rather that this argument is not. Richardm (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2016 (EDT)

This argument is quite correct. Entropy means "lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder."[9] The 2nd Law states that everything goes from order to disorder, from complex to simple; you cannot avoid it. And if the earth is not a closed system, as you and too many others harp on, then why is the 2nd Law so observable everywhere you go? Does an apple get better or worse if you slice one open and leave it on the counter for a month? Karajou (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
To answer your question, a I would expect the apple to get worse and rot. However I feel reading my earlier comment, I was not very clear. Let's talk about closed systems since you mention it, and let's simplify matters by neglecting the statistical nature, so that we can assume entropy never decreases.

My point is that the second law only applies to closed systems and can easily be disproven if one tries to apply it to an open system.

For example, suppose you make a cup of coffee, and leave it on the table. Let's says the coffee is at 60°C and the room at 20°C. You will agree that the coffee is an open system, it can exchange heat with its surroundings. So let's take the coffee (but not the cup to make it easier later on) as our system. What happens?

Well over time the coffee will cool down, i.e. its temperature will decrease and there will be a flow of heat out of the cup of coffee and into the room.

So what has happened to the entropy of the cup of coffee? Given that the entropy change , is given by:

Where is heat, is the temperature and 1 and 2 represent the initial and final states. Since we can express the heat lost as

Where mass of coffee and is its specific heat capacity. We can substitute this in and so

Where and are the initial and final temperatures respectively. Hence we can see that the entropy of the coffee must decrease.

So I hope you can see my point that the second law simply isn't valid for an open system. I'm not saying that in an open system, entropy can't increase.

Also, disorder is a good starting point when thinking about entropy, but it is not a perfect description of entropy, so some you have to careful when thinking about it in that way. Though I believe your example to be correct. Richardm (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

But you said above "Furthermore, it only applies to a closed system, the earth is not a closed system as the sun pours energy onto the earth." You're saying that the earth is an open system, that the 2nd Law isn't valid for an open system. If that's the case, then how do you get that coffee to cool down like you described?
The 2nd Law is happening to this open system on earth; we see it every day. Karajou (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
You are right in that I'm saying the earth is an open system and the second law is not valid for an open system.
The second law talks about entropy. I'm not sure how you are relating it to how the coffee cools down.
I feel I might be repeating myself, but I'll try to rephrase my point. I feel we are each missing subtleties of each others arguments.
My point with the coffee example is the if we try apply the law to open systems, we find it easy to come up with a scenario where it does not hold. It is not valid in the same way as neglecting quantum effects when looking at particle physics.
Please could you expand on what your problem with the coffee is. Thank you Richardm (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
The overall point about the 2nd Law was proven, in part, by the coffee, which is a cooling down once the heat is turned off. But since we're dealing with coffee, there is an additional factor that also follows this law to the letter. When left to itself, coffee will start to taste bad after a few hours...and you probably had a bad cup of coffee at some point. I never did; I can't stand the stuff! Karajou (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2016 (EDT)

Let me simplify my example. The coffee tasting bad has nothing to do with entropy.

OK, lets replace the coffee with pure water and add a lid to the cup so that nothing can get in or out. Let's make our container completely unreactive so that it cannot affect the water, but let it still be partially conductive. Hence nothing can happen to our water, except its temperature changing. (Assume normal pressures so there aren't phase changes. even if there were, it would be vapour condensing which would be a decrease of entropy anyway)

My example still holds, I think. The entropy of the water decreases and the water is an open system.

Also, the equation for the change in entropy above is a precise mathematical equation that defines the change of entropy. There is no other contribution from the coffee/water.

In fact, we could replace this with a lump of some material (a sphere with a radius of 10 cm for example) in space. We heat the material up and surround it in a perfectly insulating sphere of material to shield it from us, let's say this sphere is 1 light-year in radius (so that in the time frame of our experiment, the lump of material and insulation cannot interact). If we watch the sphere for 10 minutes, it cools down via radiation and so its entropy decreases. Richardm (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2016 (EDT)

I don't you have had time to read my comment, so I will wait, but if you have do you want to amend the page or shall I? (This of assumes you have not come up with a counter-argument. Richardm (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2016 (EDT)
A "counter-argument" does not constitute proof. Need proof here before the page gets changed. Karajou (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

Ok, I thought I had proved that the second law does not apply to an open system, which forms the basis of the counterexample to evolution in the article. If you can tell me what the mistake is in my example above, we can proceed further. Richardm (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

As you said, the 2nd Law does not apply to an open system; for such a statement to be correct, then the 2nd Law cannot function at all anywhere there is an open system. If the earth is an open system as you said above, then the 2nd Law should not exist; you would never, ever, see entropy of any kind. Unfortunately, such a belief flies in the face of direct observation, which happens to be the first step of the Scientific Method.
That is the point of the argument you are missing when it comes to evolution. This open/closed system argument was made when it was discovered that entropy exists in life; we are born, we age, we wither away, we die, and our bodies turn back into dust. That is entropy. The heart of evolution states that as species evolve they get better and better, and that is the opposite of what is actually observed. So, for this strikeout to happen on the article page, I require absolute proof that the 2nd Law cannot function anywhere for any reason in an open system. Karajou (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

I have a problem with this part of your argument:

"As you said, the 2nd Law does not apply to an open system; for such a statement to be correct, then the 2nd Law cannot function at all anywhere there is an open system. If the earth is an open system as you said above, then the 2nd Law should not exist; you would never, ever, see entropy of any kind."

I assume where you say "see entropy of" is just a typo and you mean "see entropy increase of". My understanding of your reasoning is as follows:

let us assume the second law (entropy of a system does not decrease) does not apply to an open system.

implies

second law (entropy of a system does not decrease) is false for an open system.

hence

entropy of an open system must not (not decrease) = entropy of an open system must not increase

The implies statement is incorrect. A law not applying to a system is not the same as the law being false for that system. If a law does not apply, we cannot say anything.

The second law says "the entropy in a closed system does not decrease". It does not specify what happens in an open system. For example, suppose that if I don't win the lottery tomorrow, I shall buy some milk. It would be wrong to conclude that if I do win, I will not buy any milk. Hence it is wrong to conclude that entropy cannot increase in an open system.

I am not denying that entropy can increase in an open system, just that it can easily decrease. My example above shows an open system in which I have shown using mathematics that entropy decreases, hence we cannot gerenalise the second law to include open systems as well. Why does that not constitute a proof? Richardm (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2016 (EDT)


Here is my proof that the second law does not apply to open systems. If we say it does, then we are saying "entropy never decreases in an open system"

Let be the proposition that "entropy never decreases in an open system"

must be true for all open systems for the second law to apply to open systems

My example above shows mathematically an open system in which entropy decreases

Hence it does not apply to all open systems.

Hence the second law does not apply to open systems.

If you have a problem with my proof, then please point it out. Otherwise I shall amend the page in a few days. If you are busy, then I would appreciate it if you say, so that we settle it on the talk page and don't keep changing the article page back and forth. Richardm (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2016 (EDT)

Is this a true statement:
Where is an elephant, is the act of the elephant hanging off (a cliff) while gripping (a dandelion) with (its trunk). Math can "prove" just about anything; if you want to balance a battleship on the spout of a tea kettle, math will "prove" to the world it can be done. But actually seeing it is something else. The battleship's anchor alone would crush that tea kettle, and the elephant will fall to the bottom of the cliff, taking the dandelion with it. Your math is not matching up with what everyone is actually seeing on a daily basis. You are not correct. Karajou (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

I have no idea what your equation means. Maths works by making some assumptions and proceed from there. For example, you never specified the gravitational field strength. On an asteroid, you could probably balance a typical anchor on a typical kettle with no problems.

Maths is based on logic. Maths won't allow you to 'prove' anything you want unless you make a logical contradiction. For example, you cannot 'prove' that 7 is a solution to the equation , interpreting that equation in standard notation.

A mathematical proof works either from a set of axioms (e.g. Euclid's axioms for space) or already something already derived from axioms and proceeding from there in a series of logical steps to derive something new or show something is true or false for example.

I am arguing that the second law does not apply to open systems. This:

is a mathematical definition of the change in entropy in classical thermodynamics. I have started from here and calculated the entropy change for the system above. Since it is an open system and I have found the change to be negative, it follows that the statement "entropy cannot decrease in an open system" is false for that system.

I am not denying that entropy can increase in an open system. If you look at my maths, you can see that if we heated the coffee instead of allowing to to cool its entropy would increase.

If you disagree with my maths, please point out the step where I have made an error. Richardm (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

You did make an error, and I'm going to repeat what I have said, because I don't think you understand the situation.
1. You stated above "I am arguing that the second law does not apply to open systems." You claimed above that the earth is an open system. The earth gets its energy from one source: the sun. Turn the earth away from the sun, and what happens? It's called entropy, something you are denying is happening in an open system.
2. It's a proven fact that heat always goes from warm to cold, and not the other way around; to do the opposite, to get cold to flow to warm, requires an energy source, i.e. the sun reheating that side of the earth when night turns to day. Entropy will never ever decrease unless that energy source happens. The same thing happens in a refrigerator; you can use the heat generated by the machinery inside it to send that cold air throughout it, but you gotta plug the thing into a wall socket to give it some power first!
You have to stick with the facts. Karajou (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

Note that entropy is a quantity like distance not a process.

I am going to go through your points in a table, stating which points I agree/disagree with and why.

First Point:

Sentence Agree/Disagree Explanation
You stated above "I am arguing that the second law does not apply to open systems." Agree
You claimed above that the earth is an open system Agree
The earth gets its energy from one source: the sun Agree
Turn the earth away from the sun, and what happens? It's called entropy, something you are denying is happening in an open system. Disagree At the bottom of my comment from earlier I say "I am not denying that entropy can increase in an open system. If you look at my maths, you can see that if we heated the coffee instead of allowing to to cool its entropy would increase."

Second Point:

Sentence Agree/Disagree Explanation
It's a proven fact that heat always goes from warm to cold, and not the other way around; to do the opposite, to get cold to flow to warm, requires an energy source, i.e. the sun reheating that side of the earth when night turns to day. Agree
Entropy will never ever decrease unless that energy source happens. Disagree My example shows an object radiating heat and its temperature and entropy decreasing. Heat flows out of the object and the surroundings do no work on the object so there is no "energy source" as you have described.
The same thing happens in a refrigerator; you can use the heat generated by the machinery inside it to send that cold air throughout it, but you gotta plug the thing into a wall socket to give it some power first! Agree What you are saying actually agrees with me. Consider putting a glass of water (this is our open system) into the fridge. It cools down and its entropy decreases. Same as my example above.

What you just said above is 1. the sun is not an energy source; and 2. your glass of "open system" water in the fridge cooling down and not increasing its entropy. The fridge needs power to do that.

But my other question is this: why do you feel a need to question the 2nd law of thermodynamics on a page which the subject is "counterexamples to evolution"? Karajou (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

I wish to remove it because the physics is incorrect. That all.

The sun is outside our system (earth), and releases energy, so I'm not sure why you think it is not an energy source.

The water by itself is an open system since it can exchange energy with its surroundings, I'm not sure why you have put it in quotes.

It's entropy decreases and I think you are agreeing with me. Richardm (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2016 (EDT)

At this time the debate is over with; you are clearly twisting what I'm saying. It's done. Karajou (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2016 (EDT)

I did not intentionally try to twist your words and apologise if I have. I don't understand your previous comment where you say:

"What you just said above is 1. the sun is not an energy source; and 2. your glass of "open system" water in the fridge cooling down and not increasing its entropy. The fridge needs power to do that."

Richardm (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2016 (EDT)

A clearer example I hope

The conservapedia article refers to what I would call a "closed system" as an "isolated system", that is one that exchanges niether matter nor energy with its surroundings. I shall use this terminology from now on.

I shall rephrase my argument using another example, perhaps this will be clearer. Suppose we have two systems 1 and 2 which are in thermal contact and thermally isolated with their surroundings. Together they form another system. Each of these systems are open as they can exchange energy with the other, but the combined system is isolated. The two systems look like this:


| System 1 | System 2 |


The two systems both have the same mass, and the same specific heat capacity, . System 1 has an initial temperature and system 2 has an initial temperature . We shall say that system 1 has a greater temperature than system 2 so that .

We now leave the systems for a while and eventually they reach thermal equilibrium and so have the same temperature .

Considering that the heat transfer into or out of a system, , can be related to the temperature difference, , as we can relate the two temperatures as:

since system 1 loses energy and system two gain . Rearranging, we find it no surprise that the final temperature is the average of the two initial temperatures:

I am arguing that the entropy of an open system can decrease. I am not saying that it cannot increase. So let's consider the entropy of each system, and respectively, and of the combined system (the overall change in entropy), . The entropy so we find each entropy first individually. Let us consider system 1 first. The entropy change is:

We can use the equation for specific heat capacity to derive a substitution to produce an integral that we can evaluate. This substitution is , where is the infinitesimal flow of heat, is the mass, is the specific heat capacity and is the infinitesimal change in temperature. Hence:

with an upper limit of as this is the final temperature and a lower limit of as this is the initial temperature. Similarly, the change of entropy of system 2, , can be expressed as:

Performing the integration one finds:

Since , it is clear that and (remember that for any real numbers )

Hence we have two open systems, the entropy of one (system 1) has decreased and the other (system 2) has increased. Hence you can see that I am not denying that the entropy of an open system can increase as system 2 does exactly that.

What about the combined system?

Substituting in for as above we find:

Expressing as for some real constant , we see:

This can be seen here [10]. Since temperatures are always greater than 0 :

Hence the overall change in entropy is greater than zero.

So we can conclude that the second law is not valid for an open system (i.e. we cannot say "for any open system its entropy cannot decrease") as in the example there is a system that entropy decreases. However for the overall, isolated system we see the second law holds true in this case.

Since entropy of an open system can decrease, this argument in the article using the second law is invalid and should be removed.

I shall change the page if I receive no response in the next day or two. Richardm (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

Note to AlecT

I was about to obliterate your recent edit, though I see that Cons has done so more thoroughly than I can. And I was about to chastise you for using the crude language that you used—a crude sexual word and a word that wrongly disparages people with mental handicaps. And I was going to do it right here, rather than on your talk page, in the expectation that that talk page would soon be deleted.

I believe that the discussions of thermodynamics, evolution, cosmology, relativity, and similar topics, are being adequately handled by the competent people that we have here at Conservapedia. Notably myself, Richardm, AugustO, and a few others. None of those people are potty-mouths. We can always use more people to help with producing high-quality expositions of these topics. For all I know, you might have been a good candidate for such, if you weren't such a jerk. It's too bad. SamHB (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2016 (EDT)

Would people please stop trashing this page?

It's very distracting. SamHB (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (EDT)

Some observations by User:Conservative

On a personal page at Conservapedia, I posted a recent Scientific American article entitled Creationism invades Europe. It's arriving on the backs of evangelical Christian and Muslim immigrants to Europe and as a consequence of evangelicals/Muslims having more children.

With immigrants flooding into London and British native white flight out of London, I suspect increasing challenges to the evolutionary indoctrination of children in London. In 5-15 years British evolutionists could face stiff opposition to evolutionism in London. In 2011, about 44% of Londoners were white British. [11]

Since Britain is the birthplace of Darwinism and Europe is a stronghold of evolutionism that is being chipped away at, this does not bode well for evolutionism.

Evolutionism being under siege may partly explain the anger of this particular evolutionist.

The evolutionary paradigm is being propped up by politics. Namely, at the present time, there are more European voters wanting public schools to teach evolution than there are opposing this matter. But the demographics of various European areas/cities is changing rapidly and causing an increase in creationism. And the 21st century demographic changes happening to Europe as a whole is favorable to the creationists as well. Conservative (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

The Scientific American article to which you refer is presumably http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eurocreationism/. Though I don't know why you would be promoting an article with a subtitle "An antiscience movement once limited mostly to the U.S. is gaining ground on the eastern side of the Atlantic". I assume you support science. Also, I couldn't find any reference to that article on anyone's personal page at CP, or any page at all. In any case, it's posted now.
And I don't know who "this particular evolutionist" is. It couldn't be AlecT; all we know about him is that he is a potty-mouth who uses crude language, like the "f" word. SamHB (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2016 (EDT)
SamHB, I mentioned the article not because I wholly agree with it, but because it does make some valid points.
You don't have to agree with everything someone says or some book/article says before you cite them. That would be illogical. In courts of law, attorneys commonly call opposing witnesses and get them to make admissions favoring their client.
Evolutionists are in the best position to give statistics about creationism growing in Europe. They are worried about this and are in the midst of studying it via pro-evolution academics. If you want to read about creationism in Europe, here is a synopsis: Creationism in Europe: Facts, Gaps, and Prospects.
But my guess is that the prospects of creationism is understated by academics as they have not taken into account sound scholarship about desecularization such as the research done by Eric Kaufmann. In addition, they are not privy to the plans of the leading creationist organizations and moderately successful creationist organizations nor have they taken the time to interview their leaders. Conservative (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2016 (EDT)

A few weak arguments to address

Hey, I found a few arguments that I believe are too weak to combat against the liberal propaganda. The first was the argument from beauty. Clearly, evolution talks more about practicality and function rather than what is appealing to the eye. As the old saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and I believe that Schally would agree with that. The next one is #12 in Logical examples. By definition, evolution is merely about changes to an organism, and not whether it benefits an organism. Yes, "survival of the fittest" applies, but many animals "evolved", and many practice infanticide. One more issue is #4 in Uncategorized. The left-wing scientists can disprove your argument by saying Africans and whites were "reproductively isolated" and yet interracial marriages produce viable children. And by definition, a species is when 2 organisms can produce young that can also produce young, so mules are off the cards.

I am a creationist and I am tired how the liberal bastards are ruining the truth, but I want you to use airtight arguments or else liberals can freely resort to the "you're so stupid" card.

Possible new counterexample about viruses

I was just reading counterexample 14 in the logical counterexamples section, where it says "The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria". I then thought if that were true, how could viruses have evolved. After a quick look on the internet, I found this, which ends saying viruses are consistent with creationism, not evolution. I don't really understand the article, so was wondering what other people think and whether it should be added as a counterexample. FredericBernard (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2017 (EDT)

I don't really understand it either. I think what it's saying is that there is good evidence that God created viruses, but for a different, positive purpose (and became what they are as a result of sin), rather than gradually forming through evolution. I encourage you to add this evidence. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
I recommend against it. I don't think the notion that all life started with bacteria is accepted by the scientific community. Biogenesis is, to say the least, not a well-understood topic. In any case, the cited article makes religious arguments, stating, for example, that viruses only started being destructive because of mankind's sin. Considering that viruses and other primitive life forms long predate mankind, this doesn't seem to be a well-founded assertion. SamHB (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
First, I don't think the article stated that evolutionists believe all life came from bacteria, unless I didn't read properly. Also, your arguments against adding this article are based on your presupposition that evolution and long ages are true ("Considering that viruses and other primitive life forms long predate mankind..."). This article is showing that the evolutionary view that retroviruses came from DNA mutations does not hold up. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
OK. First, I'm not an expert in any of this, from either a scientific or creationist standpoint. So I'll bow out of the discussion. My "all life started with bacteria" comment was not about the cited ICR article, but about the comment at the start of this section, which presumably was from the CP article. It just struck me as odd that viruses were considered by creationists to have predated humans, but then retroactively changed their behavior as a result of human activity. But it's not for me to say. SamHB (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
OK, how about adding this:
"Retroviruses" are a type of virus. An article in Science claims that a retrovirus can be formed by two "protoviruses" in a process called "recombination". In regards to evolution, both humans and chimpanzees have retrovirus-like DNA and this is claimed to be evidence for evolution. But this ignores the fact that evolutionary theory says that chimpanzees and humans diverged of 6 million years ago, in which case these retrovirus sequences should have mutated to the point where they would be completely different. Furthermore, it assumes viruses existed before animals where as the Science article says animals existed first to produce the retrovirus.
I'm not sure what the best section to put it in would be and I can't add it as the page is currently protected. FredericBernard (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2017 (EDT)

Altruistic behaviour in animals and humans

This article could mention altruistic behaviour and how - as noted by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene - according to the theory of evolution, it should not have evolved.