Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrentH (Talk | contribs) at 03:42, 29 September 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 Archive 2

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)

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 I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious.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)
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)


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)


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,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."[1] 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: 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)


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.


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.


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 Email me at --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)

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)


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 DePallier who made, 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)