https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=DavidZa 2026-11-01T03:30:55Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=923114 2011-09-29T23:32:41Z

<p>DavidZa: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]<br /> The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that&lt;ref&gt;Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.&lt;/ref&gt;), then the odds that these 24 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 29%.<br /> ==Counterexamples==<br /> ===Logical examples===<br /> # 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]&lt;/small&gt;]] <br /> <br /> ===Lack of mechanism===<br /> [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation&lt;ref&gt;[[migration]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a &quot;code&quot; or &quot;language,&quot; as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.<br /> # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably &quot;grown&quot; from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.&lt;ref&gt;http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])&lt;/small&gt;]]<br /> # Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.<br /> # Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.<br /> <br /> ===Maladaptation===<br /> [[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]<br /> # Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”&lt;ref&gt;''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.<br /> # Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Wrong predictions===<br /> [[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&lt;ref&gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are &quot;[[junk DNA]]&quot; and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called &quot;junk DNA&quot; has been shown to be useful.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of &quot;[[argument from poor design|bad design]]&quot; in the bodies of many organisms, such as &quot;flaws&quot; in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such &quot;flaws&quot; are actually &quot;a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Missing fossils===<br /> [[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]<br /> # The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.<br /> # No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record&lt;ref&gt;[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of &quot;On the Origin of Species&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.<br /> # Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === Irreducible Complexity===<br /> # The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] <br /> # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.<br /> # The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.<br /> # The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.&lt;ref&gt;[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]&lt;/ref&gt; Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.<br /> # Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.<br /> # &quot;Social insects&quot; such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.<br /> <br /> ===Uncategorized===<br /> <br /> # Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Logical Conclusion ==<br /> As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.<br /> <br /> {{evolution}}<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Atheism]]<br /> *[[Evolution and atheism]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Answers to Question evolution!]]<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[category:Evolution]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=923104 2011-09-29T23:13:52Z

<p>DavidZa: evolutionary theory argues religion is a means of social cohesion</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]<br /> The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that&lt;ref&gt;Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.&lt;/ref&gt;), then the odds that these 29 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.<br /> ==Counterexamples==<br /> ===Logical examples===<br /> # 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]&lt;/small&gt;]] <br /> <br /> ===Lack of mechanism===<br /> [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation&lt;ref&gt;[[migration]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a &quot;code&quot; or &quot;language,&quot; as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.<br /> # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably &quot;grown&quot; from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.&lt;ref&gt;http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])&lt;/small&gt;]]<br /> # Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.<br /> # Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.<br /> <br /> ===Maladaptation===<br /> [[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]<br /> # Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”&lt;ref&gt;''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.<br /> # Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Wrong predictions===<br /> [[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&lt;ref&gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are &quot;[[junk DNA]]&quot; and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called &quot;junk DNA&quot; has been shown to be useful.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of &quot;[[argument from poor design|bad design]]&quot; in the bodies of many organisms, such as &quot;flaws&quot; in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such &quot;flaws&quot; are actually &quot;a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Missing fossils===<br /> [[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]<br /> # The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.<br /> # No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record&lt;ref&gt;[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of &quot;On the Origin of Species&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.<br /> # Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === Irreducible Complexity===<br /> # The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] <br /> # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.<br /> # The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.<br /> # The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.&lt;ref&gt;[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]&lt;/ref&gt; Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.<br /> # Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.<br /> # &quot;Social insects&quot; such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.<br /> <br /> ===Uncategorized===<br /> <br /> # Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Logical Conclusion ==<br /> As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.<br /> <br /> {{evolution}}<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Atheism]]<br /> *[[Evolution and atheism]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Answers to Question evolution!]]<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[category:Evolution]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Redshift&diff=923065 2011-09-29T21:21:14Z

<p>DavidZa: That sort of claim requires a citation</p> <hr /> <div>The '''redshift''' of a given object is a measure of the amount that the wavelength of its emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation has increased. This increase in wavelength is due to the relative motion of a source with respect to an observer; a light emitting source moving away from an observer will have its spectrum shifted toward longer (in optical light, redder) wavelengths. In practice this is analogous to the Doppler shifting of sound waves emitted from a moving source. Light emitted from a source moving towards an observer will experience a blueshift. In the case of redshift, however, most of the redshift is believed to be due not to the object moving through space, but to the expansion of space itself.<br /> <br /> == Support for the Big Bang theory ==<br /> <br /> The Hubble redshift in absorption and emission lines in the spectra of distant cosmic objects, discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929, is claimed as a source of evidence for the [[Big Bang theory]].&lt;ref&gt;Edwin Hubble (1929). [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/3/168/ &quot;A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae&quot;]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 168–173.&lt;/ref&gt; The redshift, the expanded wavelength of light, suggests that these objects are moving away from Earth due to the expansion of the universe. It also suggests that the universe is undergoing accelerating expansion for an unknown reason.<br /> <br /> Actually the reason is known and confirmed by Supernova Cosmology Project team in 1998 with accuracy to one standard deviation (the second term of Taylor series of Hubble &quot;constant&quot; as function of time is causing the illusion of accelerating expansion of space with <br /> :&lt;math&gt;dH/dt=-H_o^2/2&lt;/math&gt;,<br /> where &lt;math&gt;dH/dt&lt;/math&gt; is apparent acceleration of expansion of space, <br /> :&lt;math&gt;H_o=c/R_E&lt;/math&gt;,<br /> is Hubble constant, &lt;math&gt;c&lt;/math&gt; is speed of light in vacuum, and &lt;math&gt;R_E&lt;/math&gt; is &quot;Einstein radius&quot;, or radius of curvature of space, about 13 billion light years).<br /> <br /> [[Category: Astronomy]]<br /> [[Category: Cosmology]]<br /> [[Category: Physics]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Astronomy]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Video_game_industry&diff=923011 2011-09-29T16:43:46Z

<p>DavidZa: That game is about Ancient Greeks, nothing to do with Christianity whatsoever</p> <hr /> <div>The '''video game industry''' is a major entertainment industry that has over $20 billion in annual sales.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100114.html&lt;/ref&gt; Video game sales surpassed [[Hollywood]] revenue in the year 2007.&lt;ref name=&quot;Video&quot;&gt;http://seekingalpha.com/article/89124-the-video-game-industry-an-18-billion-entertainment-juggernaut&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Video Games and the Spreading of Liberal Values==<br /> The video game industry has a long history of unintentionally spreading liberal values and extremist ideals to children.<br /> <br /> ====Examples====<br /> *Overusing profanity (Many games rated &quot;T&quot; for &quot;teen&quot;)<br /> *Meticulous designs of blood and gore (Virtually every game rated for 17+ players)<br /> *Allowing players to be terrorists and perform terrorism (''Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2'')<br /> *Allowing players to have fornication with prostitutes (All ''Grand Theft Auto'' video games)<br /> *Welcoming to more violence, such as providing bonus points for extra murders (''Grand Theft Auto IV'')<br /> *Over reliance on violence than story (''Gears of War'')<br /> *Overtones of [[Hollywood Values]] (''Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony'')<br /> *Godless protagonists, religious antagonists. (''Sins of a Solar Empire'')<br /> *Encourages radical terrorism (''Red Faction: Guerrilla'')<br /> *Promotes idolatry (''Black and White'') <br /> *Communist themes (''Red Alert'')<br /> <br /> {{Liberalism}}<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:video Games]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:DavidZa&diff=922989 2011-09-29T14:17:45Z

<p>DavidZa: Undo revision 922988 by CPDisabilities (talk) vandalism</p> <hr /> <div>DavidZa<br /> <br /> thorondor@hotmail.co.uk</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:DavidZa&diff=922987 2011-09-29T14:16:40Z

<p>DavidZa: Undo revision 922984 by CPDisabilities (talk) vandalism</p> <hr /> <div>DavidZa<br /> <br /> thorondor@hotmail.co.uk</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:DavidZa&diff=922986 2011-09-29T14:16:24Z

<p>DavidZa: Undo revision 922985 by CPDisabilities (talk) vandalism</p> <hr /> <div>Hi I am one of the many non-American parodists from RW right trying to change this site with rationality!</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=922980 2011-09-29T14:13:40Z

<p>DavidZa: Undo revision 922978 by CPDisabilities (talk) vandalism</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;center&gt;''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''&lt;/center&gt;<br /> __NEWSECTIONLINK__<br /> [[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> ==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==<br /> <br /> I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] (&quot;pervades the inner city culture greatly&quot;) and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==<br /> <br /> Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:<br /> <br /> 1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].<br /> <br /> 2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic. <br /> <br /> 3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being &quot;demonic&quot; offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair &quot;exorcist&quot; commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights. <br /> <br /> Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was &quot;demonic&quot; I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.<br /> <br /> 4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past. <br /> <br /> 5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics. <br /> <br /> 6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]]. <br /> <br /> 7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says &quot;Atheism is true because I say so&quot; or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''<br /> :Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]]. <br /> :Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in &quot;Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)....&quot;? <br /> :*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''<br /> :I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=888699]<br /> :*''suggested a blocking review board ''<br /> :You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have. <br /> :*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''<br /> :And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''<br /> :::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it. <br /> :::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.<br /> :::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Rude and insulting behaviour ==<br /> <br /> Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> Max you wrote at this wiki: &quot;Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''&quot; (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: &quot;Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called &quot;Uncircumcision &quot; by the so-called &quot;Circumcision,&quot; which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.&quot; Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]<br /> ::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==<br /> Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is &quot;sysops playing the bully&quot;, yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.<br /> :::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception. <br /> :::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.<br /> :::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> (unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, &quot;a vulgar&quot; comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou &amp; User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the &quot;thin skinned&quot; comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents. <br /> :::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.<br /> :::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say &quot;Thank you, we're not interested,&quot; and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying &quot;Goodbye&quot; and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking &quot;no&quot; for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' &quot;our&quot; is also &quot;me&quot; because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states, <br /> :::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,'' <br /> ::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states, <br /> :::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==a perspective from a pianist==<br /> MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.<br /> <br /> But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only &quot;original&quot; content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical &quot;parody&quot; pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop &quot;community,&quot; if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.<br /> <br /> My whole time here, I've heard it argued, &quot;well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism.&quot; In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call &quot;the best of the public,&quot; and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.<br /> <br /> My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them &quot;faux&quot; answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not &quot;serious accusations&quot; these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a &quot;dig at conservative&quot; i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me &quot;demonic&quot; at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> (unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was &quot;Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind.&quot; Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is <br /> :'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''<br /> But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==And end to this==<br /> <br /> Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==<br /> <br /> TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, &quot;the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi&quot;, is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my &quot;castle&quot; and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of &quot;pesterfesting&quot;.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you<br /> ::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...<br /> ::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*<br /> ::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking &quot;View full log&quot;. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> (unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == User:Conservative ==<br /> <br /> I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.<br /> <br /> Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.<br /> <br /> I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.<br /> <br /> A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc. <br /> <br /> User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.<br /> <br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.<br /> <br /> Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.<br /> <br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==<br /> <br /> I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.<br /> <br /> Here are my suggestions: <br /> <br /> 1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this. <br /> <br /> 2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel. <br /> <br /> 3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling. <br /> <br /> 4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product. <br /> <br /> Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:<br /> <br /> *[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]<br /> <br /> *[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I sent an email to Iduan to find out when his vacation is over. I expect to receive a reply within 2-7 days. In the meantime, people who are going to be on the blocking policy refinement panel may want to look at these two pages: [[User:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] and [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::The panel is convening on 8/17/11: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==<br /> <br /> Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Yes votes:'''<br /> <br /> Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''No votes:'''<br /> <br /> (EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and &quot;archiving&quot; the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this &quot;vote&quot;. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> === A question for the ''ayes'' ===<br /> Would you have voted for '''deleting''' the archives, too? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Yes. While there might have been some good points in those discussions, the vast majority was name-calling by troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets. Keeping it around gives a false impression of the site, which is exactly what the troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets want. If any of the discussion in those archives was worthwhile, I'm sure it'll be brought up again in a more orderly fashion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> == Why were the archives deleted? ==<br /> <br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I second that question. &quot;Starting off with a clean slate&quot; should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==On archiving==<br /> By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean &quot;yes, go ahead with it?&quot; [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was &quot;it does not matter&quot;. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]<br /> :::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-<br /> *it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)<br /> *To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative! <br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were &quot;archived&quot; without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.<br /> *And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''<br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive to which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your &quot;expert&quot; opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?<br /> :# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?<br /> :# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy'' That may be a very promising development...<br /> :# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.<br /> :By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks<br /> :[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite to the panel so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall ==<br /> <br /> A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:<br /> <br /> *[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]<br /> <br /> *[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] <br /> <br /> I am sending an email to [[User:Iduan]] to determine when he is returning from his vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I have blocking rights. May I join?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:10, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I added you to list. I don't think there will be any objections to me doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Response to Karajou==<br /> I told Andy yesterday I would respond to these baseless charges today, but spent the better part of the last nine hours blocked after User:Conservative flip-flopped, reverted himself, and unblocked me (I'll accept your apology later, User:Conservative, for inconveniencing me). But to Mr. Karajou: you seem to be of the opinion that,<br /> :'''A little leven leveneth the whole lump.'''<br /> That would be true, if Conservapedia were a monolith, requiring ideological conformity. But it's not, and never has been. Let's not forget the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares,<br /> :'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares#Narrative An enemy hath done this]. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.''' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:29, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> Here is the evidence that I am aware of:<br /> <br /> 1. Both RobS and TracyS edited from the same IP address. After Karajou pointed this out, I personally confirmed this matter. <br /> <br /> 2. Both were somewhat obsessed with my talk page design in an annoying way despite the fact that Conservapedia says a user's talk page is his/her castle. At the time, I had a system for leaving messages to me. I have since closes my talk page for leaving messages due to RobS and his atheist pals use of pestering tactics. <br /> <br /> 3. Both were dishonest. For example, RobS claiming he referred to me as demonic at Conservapedia which he never did as he knows the charge was baseless plus he didn't have the guts to do this at Conservapedia, but instead chose to do this at an atheist gutter website that is filled with obscenity and gossip. TracyS claimed he/she was not trying to annoy me about my talk despite using language purposely meant to annoy. <br /> <br /> 4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative. <br /> <br /> 5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter. <br /> <br /> RobS is still an egotist and has learned nothing. It would be a big mistake at this time to give him back his Sysop/Admin rights. He would just foment a lot of useless drama and nonsense. Conservapedia doesn't need RobS the egotist to change its blocking policy and a panel of which he is not a part to refine its blocking policy is far better suited to the task. I invited people to take part in such a panel and some have accepted my invitation to take part in the panel. <br /> <br /> I did block RobS earlier for a short spell due to him being disruptive to me posting a notice in this room that would be more constructive than much of the current content which I archived. However, with another Sysops's assistance I was able to send out invitations to the appropriate parties so the notice at the community portal was no longer needed so I unblocked RobS and de-archived the material. Given his past behavior, I see no reason to apologize for any inconvenience this caused RobS. <br /> <br /> I will now let RobS give his empty sales pitch on how his desysoping was all a misunderstanding and a mistake on Aschlafly's part. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :User:Conservative, I told Andy yesterday I would respond here, but was prevented by you and the whole day was wasted. Also, I see the whole page &amp; its Archives have been vandalized, as well as other users private user space, so I hesitate in wasting anymore time here. I will however, respond with this:<br /> :'''&quot;pesterfesting&quot;''': this is the term User:Conservative uses for what is commonly refereed to in the outside world as '''&quot;[[Advocacy]]&quot;'''. An advocate is a person who acts on behalf of others who are incapable, or have been prevented from acting on their own behalf. Two examples of advocates would be, (1) [[Andrew Schlafly]], noted attorney, and (2) [[Jesus Christ]], [[savior]] of the [[planet]]. Advocacy is very common in the world of wikis, but I can see where you would have difficultly with the idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:57, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RobS, in retrospect, I believe your &quot;pesterfesting&quot; was just a petty and narcissistic post TK power grab which tried to show others that you were the &quot;big man on campus&quot;. Second, I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find other things to do besides edit Conservapedia and that your whole day was wasted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==<br /> <br /> The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Android App? ==<br /> <br /> Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. [[User:JacobSmith|JacobSmith]] 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == My Testimony ==<br /> <br /> I was a liberal atheist. About two weeks ago, I was talking to a Conservative friend of mine and she pointed me to the site conservapedia.com. So I came here and read a few articles. Then read a few more. Then when I noticed registration was open, I signed up, but didn't contribute right away, but I kept reading. I read [[Christian apologetics]], [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]] and some wonderful essays too numerous to list. While reading, I felt...something. Something I haven't felt since I was a child. Yesterday, Sunday Morning, I did something I haven't done in nearly 30 years: I went to church. It was wonderful and I do believe I felt the Holy Spirit. I don't believe I deserve to call myself a Christian yet, but I'm looking forward to next Sunday. :-) Thank you all. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Summer Paper Gone Bad ==<br /> <br /> Summer is drawing to a close and school is beginning again. I have decided to write my essay on the origin of the moon, citing Conservapedia several times. When my teacher (this is a public school) gave me my paper back with the grade an all, he gave me a 62. In addition, he gave me a &quot;good talking to&quot; on not using Wikipedia. I tried to explain him that Conservapedia is different, he just wouldn't listen! He gave me the opportunity to do the paper again using different sources. I don't want to use different sources, because they are most often plagued with bias. My question is simple- how do we separate ourselves from Wikipedia to the general public, and how to we improve our reputation? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Wikis are not normally considered good sources for research as they are generally open and can be edited by anyone. And any decent teacher (public school or not) probably won't accept an encyclopedia of any kind (hard copy or online) as a source for a research paper, as they normally want the student to actually do some research. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:06, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::William, the good news is you were docked points for your sources and not for content. That implies that your teacher has an open mind. I'd suggest Answers in Genesis, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Creation Ministries International or look at some of Ray Comfort's books. Of course, these sources are all the work of man and are therefore always biased and flawed. For the truth, you'll want to turn to the Bible. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly ==<br /> <br /> I was [[User:WalterS]] and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by [[User:Karajou]] for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to [[User:Aschlafly]] and [[User:Conservative]]. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Your sentiments are appreciated. With the being said, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlafly is the sole owner of the website. My articles tend to receive web traffic, but for the most part I create articles and I have blocked some vandals as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Banned user ==<br /> <br /> Conservative recently banned SamCoulter for &quot;putting garbage into article&quot;. However, the 'garbage' was a legitimate point backed up by a valid reference. Indeed, the same reference has been cited by Conservative on the main page. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :This is a non-starter. Conservative is a senior admin with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of quality edits. This is a meritocracy, David. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Almost 5% of his &quot;tens of thousands&quot; of quality edits are minor edits. He also created 4 different articles all with the same information as a main article. From what it seemed, SamCoulter was just trying to bring more facts to the table. Three months seems too excessive for something that wasn't even explained as to &quot;why it doesn't belong&quot;. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I don't agree with Conservative's articles on this topic. That said, I did not get the impression that SamCoulter meant what he posted as a serious contribution, but rather simply as an attempt to &quot;prove a point&quot;. He basically [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamCoulter&amp;curid=114914&amp;diff=920263&amp;oldid=920262 admitted the same himself, and called himself &quot;juvenile&quot;]. One should consider those facts before drawing any conclusions. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:14, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Nice job taking things out of context. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:32, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::I do not see how I am doing so. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:55, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::It's like people who quote verses from the Bible (specifically Leviticus). They quote what they want and not its entirety. He admitted what he did was juvenile, but he felt he had to do it that way to bring attention to a topic that Aschlafly appeared to be ignoring. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:04, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::SamCoulter behaved in a manner which, by his own admission, was juvenile, and as a result was blocked. That is the topic being addressed in this section. The issue of those articles, and what position Mr. Schlafly takes or ought to take with respect to them, is a separate discussion which does not belong in this section. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:17, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> Getting back to the point; Conservative banned SamCoulter specifically for &quot;putting garbage into article&quot;. However, the 'garbage' in question was fully-referenced material, indeed it used the same reference as Conservative had on the main page, and SamCoulter was pretty much quoting what the referenced article stated. The number of edits an admin has made is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a particular block was justified. A block must be judged according to the specific circumstances of the case, not the past activities of the admin doing the blocking. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 09:26, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == re: User: LeonardS wanting to debate User: Conservative ==<br /> <br /> Don't you have ANYTHING to say about my challenge? There's no need to run away; if you don't want to debate a simple &quot;No thank you, I'd rather not&quot; will be quite sufficient. I mean, it's not like I'm some sort of power-crazed vindictive bigot or anything. '''voiceoftruth2006''' --[[User:LeonardS|LeonardS]] 03:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Have you read [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] yet? There is hope and healing available. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:27, 27 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Interesting article. But it is not necessary to be obsessed with you, dear User:Conservative, to spot some inconsistencies between some of your statements and your actions: one can look into the logs of Conservapedia (your log-entries can be found [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;type=&amp;user=Conservative&amp;page=&amp;year=&amp;month=-1 here]). E.g., you stated on 31 July 2011 (and repeatedly after this date):<br /> :::'''''I am not going to be very active at Conservapedia for the near term. '''''<br /> :On the other hand, you performed more than 5,200 logged actions after that date - as many as the next three busiest sysops (Aschlafly, Karajou and Jpatt) '''''together'''''. Generally your behavior doesn't change, whether you announce to have ''a full schedule in the following 90 days'' or not.<br /> <br /> :You achieve this remarkable output by contributing to Conservapedia without much pause: over the last three days I couldn't find a period where you have been away from the computer form more than 6 1/2 h: you should try to avoid to have this lack of sleep to have an influence on the quality of your contributions.<br /> <br /> :But this is not to uncommon for you: you can go for a nearly a whole day making pauses of half an hour, or for a couple of days without resting for six hours at a time. The only other sysop at Conservapedia who would do the same was TK. Now, it's clear why he showed this pattern - his illness didn't allow him to sleep for more than a precious two, three hours. <br /> <br /> :Your fellow sysops failed to spot TK's problems. I'm afraid they keep up this habit of ignoring disturbing signs in other editors...<br /> <br /> :[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 27 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Ronlar, I don't think it's very appropriate for you to be bringing up medical conditions in a public place. --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:16, 27 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Sorry, I didn't want to bring up ''medical conditions'', I just made some - as I hope helpful - observations, without offering a diagnosis. BTW: is [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] a medical condition?<br /> :::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:25, 27 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Definitely not in the DSM --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 09:50, 27 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::RonLar, setting aside whether your observations are correct about my sleep patterns and your apparent obsessiveness about my editing and sleep patterns, I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep and a cursory knowledge of history is all that is needed to know this. But I will make the allowance that perhaps you are an atheist that went to public schools and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself. With that being said, here is a list of famous people in history who didn't need a lot of sleep: [http://amolife.com/personality/great-people-sleep-less.html Famous people who didn't need a lot of sleep]. So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia (see: [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]), you certainly have to take that into account. Plus, to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account. Just out of curiosity why do you think there are some atheists who are very obsessed with myself and Conservapedia? I can assure you the obsession is not one that is mutually shared as the lives of obscure atheist vandal community members are not exactly riveting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::''you maybe an atheist who want to public school and didn't learn much about history because you didn't apply yourself.'' I have had enough of your insults Conservative. Just cease it and be respectful of others as commanded: ''And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all ... (2 Timothy 2:24)''. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:15, 29 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> User:Conservative, thanks for reacting to my comment. Let's have a look a it - I hope just answering to you won't get me blocked:<br /> *''to my knowledge, there is no rule at Conservapedia indicating that people cannot share an account'' No, there isn't, and there have been examples of this practice: [[User:History]] and [[User:CPanel]] spring to mind. Of course, you could be many - and this would explain you turning down even an audio debate. But you look more honorable seen as a single person:<br /> **in all your challenges you use the ''1st person '''singular''''': ''my articles'', ''my work'', etc. It would be deceitful to create this impression when asking Dawkins, Jillette (and others) to a debate, who must assume that you are a single person. And you won't be that deceptive, I hope?<br /> **it would be lovely to read your ''manual of style'' which would be necessary to keep up your profile. This could be an excerpt:<br /> ::{|class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |style &quot;background: lightgrey&quot;|<br /> #Don't use the preview button!<br /> #phrase of the month: '''&lt;s&gt;with regards to&lt;/s&gt; &lt;s&gt;obese&lt;/s&gt; bestiality''' Use it often!<br /> #Really, don't use the preview button!<br /> …<br /> |}<br /> *''I will point out to you that some people don't need a lot of sleep'' An interesting list of famous people you are giving there. But keep in mind that ''sleeping'' is not the only thing which prevents you from editing Conservapedia. Even living today, those celebrities would have difficulties to keep up a 18-hours-a-day pattern of editing, as they would have ''jobs'' (''you certainly have to take that into account'') - Frankly, could Thomas Edison have invented anything if he would have been detracted by the Internet for most of his waking time?<br /> *''So even if you did obsessively log my time at Conservapedia […] '' That's the fun of the WikiMedia software - I don't have to log your time, it's done automatically for me...<br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:22, 29 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Atheists from a vandal website want to debate User: Conservative ==<br /> <br /> Adding cowardice characteristics:<br /> <br /> I've just found out 2 major characteristics for cowardice:<br /> *Trying to discredit opponents in view to avoid the confrontation<br /> *Asking for unreasonable conditions and refusing the confrontation if those conditions are not fulfilled.<br /> Would this be acceptable characteristics ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:57, 27 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::One thing I do know is that obscure atheists who are members of vandal sites have to actually make a substantial donation to a Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability certified Christian relief organization and have a Bible believing pastor do the transaction for them before I would consider debating them since atheists have a penchant for deception (see: [[Atheism and deception]]). Oh by the way, I may challenge another well known atheist to a debate such as [[Penn Jillette]]. Given that there are 300 less atheists in the world every day and 80,000 more people everyday calling themselves Christian (see: [[Global Christianity]]) and that the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will no doubt create ex-atheists and/or prevent people from becoming atheists in the first place[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I], perhaps it is better to wait so I get more favorable debate terms (I do realize that prominent atheists are often too chicken to debate and of course this trend may continue though (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). :) On the other hand, after the atheist population has been whittled down through conversion to theism, perhaps prominent atheists may be desperate to debate anyone in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:37, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Is it a matter of them being too chicken to debate, or do they simply fail to see why they should make a &quot;substantial donation&quot; before debating an anonymous blogger? No offence, but if someone told ME that I'd have to hand over a few thousand dollars before he'd debate me, I'd think he was making excuses. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 14:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Also I don't really get the thing about deception. I mean, I see some guy challenged you to an audio debate. If you arrange the audio hookup then he doesn't appear, that's a victory and it proves your point. If he DOES appear then you get to beat him in the debate. The whole thing with the money does sort of look like a way to get out of challenges, if you look at it from their point of view. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::And what do fat Christians need to do in order to debate you about how CP treats people with weight issues? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:59, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :See my response to you at: [[Talk:Atheism and obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:55, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Just to confirm - you refuse to discuss with me the way CP demeans obese people by linking them to everything a conservative Christian finds negative (atheism, homosexuality, feminism, etc.) and refuses to present anyone who is obese in a positive light. (Don't throw health issues into the mix: we both agree with the information on those.) --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:11, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> User:Conservative, you asked for '''17,000$''' (or even '''20,000$''') to be donated to a charity. For this money, one could get a celebrity like R. Dawkins to speak on this matter, in person. Getting this money for a written debate (though not given to you, but to a charity), you most certainly could enter the [[Guinness Book of Records]]! So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::If obscure internet atheists who are part of a vandal website don't want to meet my terms, I have no problem with that. The atheism and evolution articles that I largely created (which they cannot find one factual error in) certainly do not want of readership so I am certainly not desperate. I would ask though that they do not whine about the matter like typical socially challenged internet atheist nerds. :) ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men. In short, quarrelsome nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Do you honestly think it's reasonable to expect people to pay $20,000 to debate - in writing, not even live - an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for deciding that they'd rather have a new car? Sorry, I disagree. If you really wanted to debate atheists you wouldn't be doing all this nonsense with the money, and you'd jump at the chance when it was offered. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:53, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> Thomas, would you like some cheese with that whine? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :You didn't answer my question. Do you think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then accuse them of cowardice for declining to do so? I don't think you actually want to debate atheists, or you'd have taken up the offer from that voiceoftruth guy. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 15:58, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Did I not challenge the atheist Penn Jillette to a debate? I may challenge other non-obscure atheist as well (see comments above). :) By the way, if you could resist the temptation to engage in further whining, I would appreciate it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:04, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Penn Jillette is, as you have pointed out, not obscure. Do you expect him to reply to a challenge from an anonymous blogger? He's WAY above needing to worry about that. As far as I can tell here you're the one that's whining, because yet again you've ignored my question about exactly how reasonable it is to demand that people pay $20,000 for a written debate with an anonymous blogger, then call them cowards when they don't feel like throwing their money away. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::I am a Christian and I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:09, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::Have not other Christians challenged Penn Jillette to a debate? Has Penn Jillette ever debated a Bible believing Christian? Face it, he evolved into a chicken! (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> Max, I still think you are an atheist and an evolutionist. You certainly whine when I post material unflattering to atheism/atheist community and evolutionism enough. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Stop changing the subject. We're not talking about Penn Jillette; we're talking about YOU. Why do you make such unreasonable demands then accuse people of cowardice for refusing to meet them? To demand $20,000 for a written debate with an obscure blogger is absurd, and it's also dishonest, because even when offered the money you still declined. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Jesus Christ is my savior, Conservative. Whether you believe me or not is not a concern because ''He'' knows it true. I whine about poor scholarship, I don't care what anyone says about athesits but it must be grounded in ''fact''. Hence I will debate you on the topic of Atheism and Obesity right now, right here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:18, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::That sounds like a fair and reasonable debate offer to me. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:19, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Is all of this really necessary? Yes, it is rather unusual for Conservative to request compensation for engaging in a debate given his lack of celebrity status, but you should still take into account that he's asking for the money to be donated to charity, not paid directly to him. He won't actually gain anything from the offer. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::It's not a matter of where the money GOES; it's the fact that it has to be paid in the first place. User:Conservative is not a prominent figure; he's just an anonymous blogger. The idea that anyone would pay $20,000 to debate him is laughable. Well, ALMOST laughable - an offer has actually been made, which he refused after quickly changing his rules. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:34, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::I think it's fairly obvious why he wishes to remain anonymous. This page alone shows how much harassment he would face from trolls were he to reveal his identity. The internet isn't a nice place, and people are always on the look out for ways to have fun at another's expense. I believe the term is 'lulz'. He has every right to protect himself from that. [[User:RyanK|RyanK]] 16:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Then he should expect others to do the same and not label them as 'chicken'.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::And he should also accept the fact that if he insists on remaining anonymous nobody's going to be stupid enough to hand over $20,000 to debate him. After all, what recourse do they then have if he fails to participate? If someone's paying that much for a debate it's perfectly reasonable for them to demand a proper contract laying down the conditions, and you can't do that if you don't know who you're meant to be debating. No, it's just a ploy to let him CLAIM he's willing to debate without ever actually having to do it. This was demonstrated when Jeeves at RW offered to pay the money, and User:Conservative still refused to debate him. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 16:51, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> Conservative, I am willing to debate with you if you agree to give $20,000 to charity. If you are going to refuse my offer, you may be a chicken. I would as well agree that you do not reveal your identity. (No whining in this offer)--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Setting aside the matter of how desirable it is to be a celebrity, it does appear that some people are forgetting the press have quoted/cited my work (Chicago Tribune, St. Peterburg Times, LA Times, etc.). Of course, the Chicago Tribune and St. Petersburg Times quoted my work in a much more favorable light than more liberal press outlets being they are more conservative publications than many press outlets. In addition, gentlemen with doctorates in relevant fields have linked to my work. Of course, many of my atheist detractors are very aware of the press quoting my work, but being jealous, obscure, quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] they certainly are reluctant to admit this fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Can you link to these press outlets and people with doctorates citing your work? I am curious to read them. Also, what about my debate offer on Atheism and Obesity? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::First, I hope the 'atheist nerd' does not refer to me. Second, can you provide the links to these press articles ? Third, I think I am neither jealous, obscure nor quarrelsome... So why would you refuse to debate me ? Unfortunately, I am not wealthy enough to spare $20,000 for a debate but you will agree that lack of money is not a sin.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Irrelevant. We're not talking about press coverage of your work (do you have any links to support that, by the way?) but about the ludicrous conditions you attach to debates, while at the same time claiming that atheists are too scared to debate you. Well they aren't - you've had two offers from atheists in the last 48 hours, plus two more from fellow Christians, all of which you've avoided or refused - and it is dishonest of you to make this claim. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:05, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Max, Veritas48 was a kind and thoughtful Christian apologists at YouTube who was harassed in very inappropriate ways by atheists. [[JP Holding]] had an obsessive atheist call his wife at work. If you think I am going to allow some obscure, socially challenged atheist nerds (see: [[Atheism and women]]) to needlessly hassle people with doctorates who like my work and have cited it, that is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Harassment like continually calling them chickens, mocking their weight and farcical accusations bestiality? What about newspapers that have cited your work? How about my offer of a debate? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Again, that's not relevant unless you're saying that you're refusing to debate because you insist on anonymity. I don't see how an audio debate is going to affect that, so why did you refuse? And surely you realise that to ask people to pay $20,000 when they have no legal recourse if you don't attend the debate is completely unreasonable?--[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:17, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::Thomas, bring some non-obscure atheists to debate me with reasonable offers to debate me via written debate or pony up the $20,000 to be given to a ECFA certified Christian relief charity that is requested of me to debate obscure atheists who are part of vandal websites. It's that simple. Deal with it and stop whining. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Conservative, people won't pay $20,000 to debate with an obscure christian nerd. No whining here.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::Yet AGAIN you have avoided the question: why do you impose such ludicrous conditions for a debate then accuse people of cowardice for not meeting them? If you genuinely want to debate atheists why don't you - as an obscure blogger - do so without demanding that they hand over $20,000 with no assurance other than your word that the debate will ever happen? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::Oy, Reminder, Keep the discussion civil.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:29, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::I'm certainly willing to avoid the word &quot;ludicrous&quot; in future if other participants stop calling people cowards, quarrelsome nerds or socially challenged, and agree to stop questioning the faith of the Christian participants here. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::::Agreed to avoid calling others 'obscure nerds'--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:35, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::By the way, given that: 1) each day there are 300 less atheists in the world and 80,000 additional people who call themselves Christian each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]) 2) The [[Question evolution! campaign]] will cull the atheists population further.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] - I certainly may up the amount obscure atheists who are part of a vandal website must donate to a Christian relief organization in order for me to debate them. :) And of course, given the way that [[Ben Bernanke]] prints money, inflation is certainly a consideration as well. Also, I do realize it is often difficult to find non-obscure atheists who are willing to debate (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]), but I certainly would look at reasonable debate offers from such individuals. :) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::::::I am offering you a reasonable debate on the topic of Atheism and Obesity. I am not a &quot;quarrelsome atheist&quot; or anything else. We can have a written debate here on conservapedia right now or at an agreed time. Why are you avoiding this offer yet calling everyone else a coward? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT) <br /> :::::::::::::::For the same reason as he avoided the offers from Jeeves, Ace McWicked and voiceoftruth2006, I imagine. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::::::::I don't know who those people are...? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::::::::Jeeves and Ace McWicked are two members of RW who each offered to pay the required $20,000 for a debate with User:Conservative; even so, he declined. voiceoftruth2006 is a YouTube atheist who offered to debate him two days ago; he ignored the offer. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::::::::::Gee, if I had a spare $20,000 I certainly wouldn't be offering it up for an internet debate! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:01, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::::::::::It's probably quite safe to offer it to Ken; after all, if history is anything to go by he's not going to accept. --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:03, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::::Excellent response, Conservative! Your intelligence level is obviously very, very high. [[User:AverageJoe|AverageJoe]] 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::::How long do you intend to continue avoiding my question? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 17:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Oh I give up, it just doesn't make any sense...--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Conservative, do you think your comments on this page give a promising preview of your debating skills? Frankly, after reading your non-answers I have difficulties to imagine someone to pony up 2$ for the pleasure to have a written debate with you. But perhaps you can increase your market value by answering my question above:<br /> ::''So, could you link to a debate here at a talk page at Conservapedia showing your debating skills? To prove that you a worth this kind of money? Just link us to a discussion where you think that you did exceptionally well!''<br /> Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Jeeves and Ace never showed that they had a trustworthy Christian to make the donation which certainly was a condition to debate. I did suggest giving the money to a Bible believing pastor of their choosing, but of course, that never happened. I understand that obscure atheists who are part of a vandal site don't like my debate conditions, but I think it is safe to say that this does not keep me up at nights. :) My back is not against the wall - it is the atheist population that is shrinking the world each day while the conservative Christian population appears to be exploding in numbers each day (see: [[Global Christianity]]). :) Keep squabbling amongst yourselves quarrelsome [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|atheist nerds]] (see: [[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]] and [[Elevatorgate]] and [[Atheism and women]]), while God keeps expanding the Christian population! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::So Aschlafly isn't a trustworthy Christian? I mean, they DID offer to give the money to him. Anyway you still haven't answered my question, have you? Do you really think it's reasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate an obscure blogger, with no legal assurance that the debate will actually take place even after they've paid, then call them cowards when they decline to do so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:32, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Hi Conservative, my comments may have been lost on this page so please see [[Talk:Atheism_and_obesity#Reasonable_debate_offer|here]]. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:33, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I'd just like to say that I think Conservative is not a coward and that he would debate if he could find a worthy opponent. Also, it is inappropriate to discuss this issue in public. --[[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] 18:45, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :That's your opinion, of course, and you're entitled to it. However as Conservative frequently discusses the cowardice of atheists on this site he can hardly complain when his own willingness (or otherwise) to debate crops up, can he? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 18:49, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Thomas, what was stopping Jeeves and Ace from giving the donation to Bible believing pastor of their choosing to give to a Christian relief organization? Were they unable to find Bible believing pastors? Are there no Bible believing pastors in their country or in the world? I am sorry, but their bluff was called and shown to be the farce that it was. Please feel free to blather on today, but don't be surprised if I disregard your blather. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::What was stopping them giving the money to Andy Schlafly? I'll tell you what was stopping them giving it to a vicar; they didn't trust you and they wanted a properly witnessed and signed contract that legally committed you to doing the debate once the money had been paid. And you STILL haven't answered my question! You're just an obscure, anonymous blogger; don't you think it's utterly unreasonable to demand that people pay $20,000 to debate you, with no assurance that you'll even attend, then call them cowards for not doing so? --[[User:ThomasMacD|ThomasMacD]] 19:02, 28 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::User:Conservative, if you have the courage of your conviction then debating anyone about what you are sure is right then should be easy. Yet you avoid. Harding filling those who are watching this with confidence. I believe this to be an Encyclopedia where getting to the truth should be paramount. This can only be done by debate and a free exchange of ideas. Not be nit-picking the motives of those who wish to discuss things and come to a valid and provable conclusion[[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 03:04, 29 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> I am going to be frank. The idea of debating obscure atheist members of a vandal site is repugnant to me and I don't see much value in it. It would be the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists which I think is generally a bad practice and to be avoided if possible. I would need to see a lot of good come out of it, hence the requirement that these people donate $20,000 to a Christian relief organization. I also see a lot of trends that don't bode well for atheism both in the Western World and Eastern World so I think the [[decline of atheism]] will continue (deficits causing budget cuts to liberal Western public universities, further decline of the liberal mainstream press audience, tough economic times causing individuals to turn back to God, [[Question evolution! campaign]], explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], etc. etc.). Of course, this further reduces my incentive to want to debate obscure atheists. Lastly, there are some personal things which I put off doing that I wish to attend to. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 29 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Strange. I thought that converting these atheist by using your superior debating skills would be a kind of reward in itself. How do you intend to help to cut the ''squeak'' of atheists in half if you are unwilling to engage them? Is this the reason that the [[Question Evolution!]] campaign is oriented to churches - which are the most unlikely places to find a atheist to convert him (or her)? And surprisingly, you are willing to speak with the ring-leaders, the ''top terrorists''! If you don't think yourself to be fit to move the heart - and brains - of the ''obscure atheists'', what do you think you can accomplish by speaking to the more famous ones? Oh wait: do you have a secret rhetorical device which can be used only once - and you try to optimize its impact? Sorry, those things work only in the fantasy of little boys plotting in their super-secret tree-houses...<br /> <br /> :[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:01, 29 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> RonLar, I think the type of atheists who are part of vandal websites or the type of atheists who harassed Veritas48 at YouTube are the bottom of the barrel and are not the type of people who are good candidates for engagement. Jesus advised Christians not to cast pearls before swine. Second, I have always claimed that due to the weakness of atheism and the strength of the Christian position that it doesn't take exceptional debating skills to prevail and that is why a 15 year old boy can win debates with adult atheists as can be seen [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSo9hW2dOBo HERE]. Next, in most cases there is a reason why obscure internet atheists from vandal websites are obscure. Few people are interested in what they have to say. Lastly, tracts are designed to be evangelical and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] tracts are no different. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 29 September 2011 (EDT)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922971 2011-09-29T14:08:51Z

<p>DavidZa: Undo revision 922968 by CPDisabilities (talk) vandalism</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]<br /> The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that&lt;ref&gt;Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.&lt;/ref&gt;), then the odds that these 29 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.<br /> ==Counterexamples==<br /> ===Logical examples===<br /> # 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]&lt;/small&gt;]] <br /> # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Lack of mechanism===<br /> [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation&lt;ref&gt;[[migration]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a &quot;code&quot; or &quot;language,&quot; as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.<br /> # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably &quot;grown&quot; from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.&lt;ref&gt;http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])&lt;/small&gt;]]<br /> # Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.<br /> # Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.<br /> <br /> ===Maladaptation===<br /> [[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]<br /> # Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”&lt;ref&gt;''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.<br /> # Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Wrong predictions===<br /> [[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&lt;ref&gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are &quot;[[junk DNA]]&quot; and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called &quot;junk DNA&quot; has been shown to be useful.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of &quot;[[argument from poor design|bad design]]&quot; in the bodies of many organisms, such as &quot;flaws&quot; in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such &quot;flaws&quot; are actually &quot;a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Missing fossils===<br /> [[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]<br /> # The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.<br /> # No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record&lt;ref&gt;[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of &quot;On the Origin of Species&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.<br /> # Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === Irreducible Complexity===<br /> # The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] <br /> # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.<br /> # The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.<br /> # The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.&lt;ref&gt;[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]&lt;/ref&gt; Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.<br /> # Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.<br /> # &quot;Social insects&quot; such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.<br /> <br /> ===Uncategorized===<br /> <br /> # No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.<br /> # Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Logical Conclusion ==<br /> As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.<br /> <br /> {{evolution}}<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Atheism]]<br /> *[[Evolution and atheism]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Answers to Question evolution!]]<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[category:Evolution]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_of_America&diff=922969 2011-09-29T14:07:03Z

<p>DavidZa: Undo revision 922966 by CPDisabilities (talk) vandalism</p> <hr /> <div>{{Country<br /> |name =''United States of America''<br /> |map =US map.PNG<br /> |map2 =Loc of United States.png<br /> |established=1776<br /> |flag =50 star flag.png<br /> |arms =United States arms.png<br /> |capital =Washington, D.C.<br /> |government =Constitutional Republic<br /> |language =English<br /> |official =n<br /> |president =Barack Hussein Obama<br /> |area =3,718,695 sq mi<br /> |pop =301,554,000 (2007)<br /> |gdp-year = $15 trillion (2011)<br /> |gdp-pc =$48,029 (2011)<br /> |currency =United States Dollar (USD)<br /> }}<br /> The '''United States of America''' (''conventional short form'': '''United States'''; ''abbreviation'': '''US''' or '''USA'''; sometimes also referred to as '''the States''' or simply as '''America''') is a [[North America|North American]] nation that consists of a federal union of fifty individual states, along with territories and a capital district. Founded originally as 13 colonies in the [[British Empire]], Britain's American colonies broke with the mother country on July 4, 1776 with the [[Declaration of Independence]].&lt;ref&gt;IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776. [http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America], ushistory.org, (Accessed August 2010).&lt;/ref&gt; The new nation became recognized as the United States of America following the [[American Revolutionary War|War of Independence]] in 1783. Shortly thereafter, in 1787, the [[United States Constitution]] was written; grounded on [[Republican form of government|republican]] political principles, but [[Treaty of Tripoli|not on Christian religious principles]], the constitution remains in effect today. The Americans created the world's first political parties and, since abolishing [[slavery]] in a bloody [[American Civil War|civil war]] (1861-65), instituted a form of government guided by the rule of law rather than the desires of a majority of voters. According to the U.S. Constitution written by America's [[Founding Fathers]], the United States is a [[Constitutional Republic]]. It is not a [[Democracy|democracy]]. <br /> <br /> America's capitalist economy grew rapidly, becoming the largest in the world by the 1870s. During the 19th and 20th centuries, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions. After defeating Communism in the [[Cold War]], the U.S. emerged as the world's only [[superpower]], boasting the largest economy and most powerful military. It exerts enormous cultural and intellectual influence worldwide, and in return is the target of the enemies of democracy and [[capitalism]].<br /> <br /> The capital of the United States of America is [[Washington, DC]].<br /> <br /> == People ==<br /> [[File:Php3sfokfPM.jpg|220px|left|At Washington, DC.]]<br /> Population: 310,232,863 (July 2010 est.) Population growth rate: 0.97% (2010 est.) Labor force: 153.9 million (2010 est.).<br /> <br /> Ethnic groups: white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate) note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic &lt;ref&gt; [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA - The World Factbook.] &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> In 2010, around 400,000 [[illegal immigrants]] were deported. The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, estimates 11.5 million to 12 million &quot;unauthorized migrants&quot; live in the US today. &lt;ref&gt; [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s02-ussc.html Illegal immigrants in the US: How many are there?] &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Geography==<br /> <br /> [[File:Colorado.jpg|thumb|[[Colorado]].]]<br /> North America, bordering both the North [[Atlantic Ocean]] and the North [[Pacific Ocean]], is between [[Canada]] and [[Mexico]]. In addition to the boundaries of the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, the United States is otherwise bounded by the Bering Sea, the Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Two of the fifty states, Alaska and Hawaii (an archipelago), are not contiguous with any of the other states. Puerto Rico, which is largely self governing, is part of the U.S., as are several smaller territories in the Pacific Ocean, such as Guam. Each of the 50 states has a large degree of sovereignty, but the boundaries are debated and shift slightly every year. <br /> <br /> At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.6 million km²), the U.S. (including its non-contiguous and overseas states and territories) is the third largest country by total area (after Russia and Canada). It is the world's third most populous nation, with over 350 million people (after China and India). <br /> <br /> Mt. McKinley is highest point in North America and Death Valley the lowest point on the continent. &lt;ref&gt;[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA World Factbook], ''North America :: United States'', Updated on February 23, 2011, (Accessed on February 23, 2011).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> ===American Revolution===<br /> {{main|American Revolution}}<br /> [[File:Washington-deleware.jpg|thumb|left|Washington, Chief of the Continental Army, is shown crossing the Delaware River.]]<br /> The American Revolution exploded from fears the British Empire was trying to restrict the historic rights and liberties of Americans. The British victory in the French and Indian War ended the threat that foreign powers might attack the colonies; Britain's protection was no longer needed. At the same time Britain decided to assert its powers by imposing [[taxes]]. The taxes (as on stamps, sugar, and tea) were not large but the principle was simple: Americans insisted their own [[Legislature|legislatures]] could impose taxes but not [[Parliament]], because Americans were not represented there. &quot;No taxation without representation!&quot; and &quot;[[Don't tread on me]]&quot; became common phrases in America by the American people, but the British refused over and over again to accept it. London sent in troops when Boston protested vehemently, and Americans organized shadow governments in every colony. <br /> <br /> The Americans were adopting a new political philosophy, called [[republicanism]], which stressed civic virtue, fear of corruption, and disdain for [[aristocracy]] (there were no aristocrats in America apart from occasional British visitors). Republicanism alerted Americans to their constitutional rights as Englishmen – one right was that the people, through their elected officials, set the taxes and upheld law. Constitutionally, to Americans their &quot;elected officials&quot; were not represented in the British Parliament, it meant having their own colonial legislatures. The British replied haughtily toward this desire from the Americans, going so far as to suggest America was &quot;virtually represented&quot; by the British Parliament in some way or form. <br /> <br /> ====Boston Tea Party====<br /> {{main|Boston Tea Party}}<br /> <br /> The British Parliaments idea of representation in America fueled their desire to increase taxes on the Americans. The tax on stamps in 1765 incited near rebellion, as the 13 separate colonies began meeting together and sharing their grievances. The stamp tax was repealed but others followed, especially the tax on tea. In response, Americans boycotted tea and merchants refused to order it, except in Boston. There, a well-organized group of patriots dumped the tea in the harbor, historically known as the [[Boston Tea Party]]. These events infuriated London, so they sent troops to North America and stripped [[Massachusetts]] of its self government and suspended the historic rights the colonists were so proud of. <br /> <br /> ====Thirteen Colonies====<br /> {{main|Thirteen Colonies}} [[Image:Pop1750.jpg|right|thumb|400px]]<br /> <br /> The thirteen original colonies began organizing shadow governments, called &quot;Committees of Correspondence,&quot; which prepared the Americans for the day &quot;patriots&quot; (or &quot;Whigs,&quot; as they called themselves) could assume all functions of local government. That day came when the British sent troops from Boston to seize gunpowder in attempt to dismantle a potential revolt, and the American patriots gathered there to defend their liberty. These patriots were known as the American &quot;Minute men,&quot; a well trained militia, and had planned for this day at Lexington and Concord. When the militia clashed with the elite British troops they soundly defeated them, prompting an historic backlash from Britain. The American Revolution had begun. <br /> <br /> The thirteen colonies, organized as the &quot;[[First Continental Congress]],&quot; became a national government as the shadow governments in each colony took control and ousted all royal officials. Congress set up a [[Continental Army]] and gave command to an American hero and Virginia's leader, [[George Washington]]. George Washington took charge in Boston, and he forced the British to leave in the spring of 1776. All 13 colonies were at this point in control of the American Patriots, and they listened as [[Tom Paine]] explained ''Common Sense'' principles, proudly boasting of America's strength and its power as a new nation. America, in its own right as an individual nation no longer needed nor wanted a foreign [[King]]. Congress called on the colonies to become States and to write new State constitutions. On July 4, 1776, Congress unanimously declared the independence of a new nation, the United States of America.<br /> <br /> ====France in the American Revolutionary War====<br /> [[File:Marquis de Lafayette.jpg|thumb|[[Marquis de Lafayette]].]]<br /> King [[George III]] could not abide the insolent Americans and he sent his small army and large navy to America in attempt to reconquer his lost colonies. They were able to recapture [[New York City]], but the King's failure to spread elsewhere greatly outweighed this small victory. The powerful Royal navy gave the British command of the seas and the ability to land troops anywhere and capture any specific place, but the shortage of British soldiers, and the very long 3000 mile supply line, meant that the British could only hold a few points at any one time. Hiring German soldiers (Hessians) was necessary, but they were not enough, for the Patriots always had more available soldiers. The British expectations that Loyalist would rise up and overthrow the Patriots was a [[chimera]]; the Loyalists did provide some help to British invasion forces, but were never strong enough to operate on their own or control any territory.<br /> <br /> [[France]], humiliated by Britain in the 1760s, was stronger in the late 1770's than it was a decade earlier and wanted revenge against the British for their past woes. Thus, the French secretly armed and financed the Americans. Lafayette, a French general in the American Revolutionary War, served in the Continental Army under George Washington. He convinced France to send their first naval and land forces to the Americas and participated in defending Richmond, Virginia from Benedict Arnold and in the battle of Yorktown, Virginia; Lafayette contributed in no slight degree toward the grand result. <br /> <br /> In 1777, the British sent a large army to invade [[New York]] and cut off the revolutionary states of [[New England]]. The plan was a disaster as the American militia captured the entire British invasion force at Saratoga. Encouraged by diplomat [[Benjamin Franklin]], the French recognized the United States as an independent nation, signed a treaty of alliance, and entered the war against Britain. Later, the treaty extended to [[Spain]] and the [[Netherlands]] as allies to America; Britain's diplomacy was disjointed that it had no allies at all, and was militarily matched or surpassed by America and its new allies. The British invasion of the South in 1780-81 was designed to bring out Loyalist support, but it failed and the second major British army was captured at the [[Battle of Yorktown]]. The British Parliament revolted at their reckless king and his incompetent government and sued for peace, which was achieved on terms favorable to the U.S. in 1783. About 20% of the Loyalists moved to [[Canada]], but many stayed in America, and the new peaceful nation resumed its rapid growth.<br /> <br /> ===New Nation===<br /> <br /> In 1783, when the Treaty of Paris concluded the war of independence, the American population totalled some three million citizens and slaves living on about one million square miles of land. Tens of thousands of [[Native Americans]] also lived in the [[Northwest Territory]] and the Southwest. <br /> <br /> The Thirteen original states are [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Maryland]], [[Massachusetts]] (including [[maine]]), [[New Hampshire]], [[New Jersey]], [[New York]], [[North Carolina]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Rhode Island]], [[South Carolina]] and [[Virginia]]. In 1790, an agreement between supporters of Jefferson and those of [[Alexander Hamilton]] resulted in the creation of the [[District of Columbia]] from part of [[Maryland]]; it has served as the national capital since 1800. The remainder of the 1783 territory was eventually organized as the states of [[Ohio]], [[Indiana]], [[Michigan]], [[Illinois]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Kentucky]], [[Tennessee]], [[Mississippi]] and [[Alabama]].<br /> <br /> ===Expansion===<br /> [[File:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions PD WC.jpg|thumb|left|Territorial acquisitions such as the Thirteen Colonies, the Louisiana Purchase, and British and Spanish Cession.]]<br /> In 1803, [[French]] emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] took advantage of a lull in his war with Great Britain to sell the [[Louisiana Territory]] to the United States, more than doubling the nation's land area. This territory would later be organized as the states of [[Minnesota]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Montana]], [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Iowa]], [[Missouri]], [[Arkansas]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], and [[Louisiana]] proper. President Jefferson commissioned [[Lewis and Clark]] to explore the new territory from 1802 to 1804.<br /> <br /> The U.S. seized, then purchased [[Florida]] from Spain in 1819. [[Texas]] joined the United States in 1845 after winning its revolution against Mexico. <br /> [[File:Map Leading Group by County US.jpg|thumb|Map Leading Group by County, 2000.]]<br /> After victory the [[Mexican American War]] of 1846-48, the U.S. purchased via the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]] territory that became the states of [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]] and [[Arizona]]. In 1846 the U.S. and Britain agreed that the 49th Parallel (degree of latitude) would serve as the boundary between the U. S. and [[British Columbia]] (now part of Canada). The American portion became the states of [[Washington]], [[Oregon]] and [[Idaho]].<br /> <br /> In 1867, the U.S. purchased [[Alaska]] from [[Russia]]. It became a state in 1959.<br /> <br /> Hawaii became an independent republic in 1894 and voluntarily joined the U.S. in 1898, becoming a state in 1960. <br /> <br /> As a result of the [[Spanish-American War]], the United States took control of the [[Philippines]] and annexed [[Puerto Rico]] and [[Guam]]. The Philippines became independent in 1946, after the U.S. reconquered the islands from Japan in World War II. [[Puerto Rico]] has occasionally held referendum that ratified its continuing unique &quot;Commonwealth&quot; status as part of the United States. The residents of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens. Guam continues as a U.S. owned territory with full citizenship for its inhabitants. The people of Puerto Rico and Guam have a vote in presidential primaries and a voice, but not a vote, in Congress.<br /> <br /> ==The Constitution and Politics in the United States==<br /> <br /> [[Image:76485685i79.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The drafting committee presenting the [[Declaration of Independence]] to the [[Continental Congress]], painted by John Trumbull 1817–1819.]]<br /> <br /> Between 1776 and 1788, the United States was governed according to the [[Articles of Confederation]]. The Founding Fathers formally established the current structure of the United States by ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1788. Since 1789, that constitution has been the basic governing document. America's Founding Fathers understood that a democracy is always in flux and given to “mob rule,”&lt;ref&gt;[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/27/the-coming-g20-riots-the-spread-of-mob-rule/comment-page-1/ The coming G20 riots &amp; the spread of mob rule], ''Michelle Malkin'', March 27, 2009.&lt;/ref&gt; while a republic is fixed and stable, resting on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Because of the uncertainty of democracy, [[Benjamin Rush]] — a signer of the Declaration of Independence — wrote: “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.”&lt;ref&gt;AWR Hawkins. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/america-a-republic-not-a-democracy/ America: A Republic, Not a Democracy], ''Pajamas Media'', September 03, 2009.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Sovereignty in America comes from the citizenry, and the basic political values are called &quot;[[republicanism]],&quot; (not to be confused with the [[Republican Party]],) especially the commitment to civic virtue and civic duty, and opposition to corruption and aristocracy. Popular political parties emerged in the United States in the 1790s; currently the two major political parties are the [[Democratic Party]], and the [[Republican Party]]. Minor parties are of little importance overall but can be useful in pushing certain topics to the public eye. <br /> <br /> === The Role of Religion in Government ===<br /> {{main|Religion and U.S. Government}}<br /> <br /> ==Government==<br /> {{main|United States Federal Government}}<br /> <br /> [[Image:56eugyjnm.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[White House]], the official home and workplace of the [[President of the United States]] of America.]]<br /> <br /> ===Executive Branch===<br /> <br /> *Chief of state: The [[President of the United States]] is both the chief of state and head of government<br /> *Head of government: President of the United States; [[Vice President of the United States]]<br /> *Cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the president with Senate approval<br /> *Elections: The president and vice president serve four-year terms (eligible for a second term)<br /> <br /> ===Legislative Branch===<br /> <br /> The United States legislative branch of government is a [[bicameral]] Congress, which consists of the [[United States Senate|Senate]] (100 seats, 2 members are elected from each state by popular vote to serve six-year terms; one-third are elected every two years) and the [[House of Representatives]] (435 seats; members are directly elected by popular vote to serve two-year terms).<br /> <br /> ===Judicial Branch===<br /> {{main|Supreme Court of the United States}}<br /> <br /> The United States [[Supreme Court]] consists of nine justices, nominated by the president and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Members of the Supreme Court are appointed to serve for life; the judicial branch extends to the United States Courts of Appeal, the United States District Courts, and State and County Courts. The primary role of the nine justices of the Supreme Court is to assure the United States government does not attempt to surrender, sell or transfer the people's unalienable rights given by [[God]]. The Supreme Court has the power to consider the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.<br /> <br /> == Economy ==<br /> <br /> The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $47,400. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to enter their rivals' home markets than foreign firms face entering US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a &quot;two-tier labor market&quot; in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The war in March-April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. Soaring oil prices between 2005 and the first half of 2008 threatened inflation and unemployment, as higher gasoline prices ate into consumers' budgets. Imported oil accounts for about 60% of US consumption. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. The merchandise trade deficit reached a record $840 billion in 2008 before shrinking to $506 billion in 2009, and ramping back up to $630 billion in 2010. The global economic downturn, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, investment bank failures, falling home prices, and tight credit pushed the United States into a recession by mid-2008. GDP contracted until the third quarter of 2009, making this the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression. To help stabilize financial markets, the US Congress established a $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in October 2008. The government used some of these funds to purchase equity in US banks and other industrial corporations, much of which had been returned to the government by early 2011. In January 2009 the US Congress passed and President Barack OBAMA signed a bill providing an additional $787 billion fiscal stimulus to be used over 10 years - two-thirds on additional spending and one-third on tax cuts - to create jobs and to help the economy recover. Approximately two-thirds of these funds were injected into the economy by the end of 2010. In March 2010, President OBAMA signed a health insurance reform bill into law that will extend coverage to an additional 32 million American citizens by 2016, through private health insurance for the general population and Medicaid for the impoverished. In July 2010, the president signed the DODD-FRANK Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a bill designed to promote financial stability by protecting consumers from financial abuses, ending taxpayer bailouts of financial firms, dealing with troubled banks that are &quot;too big to fail,&quot; and improving accountability and transparency in the financial system - in particular, by requiring certain financial derivatives to be traded in markets that are subject to government regulation and oversight. In November 2010, in an attempt to keep interest rates from rising and snuffing out the nascent recovery, the US Federal Reserve Bank (The Fed) announced that it would purchase $600 billion worth of US Government bonds by June 2011.<br /> <br /> Leading industrial power in the world, highly diversified and technologically advanced; [[petroleum]], [[steel]], motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, [[electronics]], food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA - The world Factbook]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Flag Description==<br /> [[Image:50 star flag.png|left|thumb|150px|The [[Flag of the United States of America]]]]<br /> {{main|Flag of the United States of America}}<br /> <br /> Thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white; there is a blue rectangle in the upper hoist-side corner bearing 50 small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars; the 50 stars represent the 50 states, the 13 stripes represent the 13 original colonies; known as Old Glory; the design and colors have been the basis for a number of other flags, including [[Chile]], [[Liberia]], [[Malaysia]], and [[Puerto Rico]].<br /> <br /> {{Clear}}<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> == See also==<br /> [[File:Lawrence The Migration of the Negro.jpg|thumb|The Migration of the Negro by [[Jacob Lawrence]], 1940-1941.]]<br /> *[[Pledge of Allegiance]]<br /> *[[Famous American artists]]<br /> *[[List of 50 states]]<br /> *[[Americas]]<br /> *[[America (continent)]]<br /> *[[Columbia]]<br /> *[[Gallery of American Masterpieces]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[[CIA]] - [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html The World FactBook]<br /> *[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/616563/United-States United States.]<br /> *[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/america.htm America]<br /> *[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/flags_of_us_states.htm Flags of the U.S. States]<br /> *[http://www.pibmug.com/files/map_test.swf Interactive map test of the 50 U.S. states]<br /> *[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h445.html U.S. History]<br /> *[http://www.theroot.com/buzz/who-owns-united-states Who Owns the United States?]<br /> *[http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Wealth, Income, and Power.] by G. William Domhoff, University of California Santa Cruz.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{USstates}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:North American Countries]]<br /> [[Category:United States of America]]<br /> [[Category:Geography]]<br /> [[Category:NATO members]]<br /> [[Category:United States History]]<br /> [[Category:Featured articles]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922967 2011-09-29T14:04:48Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Trichinella spiralis */ silly me ;)</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and &quot;old Earth&quot; 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> == Fossils ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trichinella spiralis ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Deletions will be restored ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :The &quot;teeth in mouth&quot; 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)<br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&amp;met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&amp;idim=country:GBR&amp;dl=en&amp;hl=en&amp;q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&amp;strail=false&amp;nselm=h&amp;met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&amp;scale_y=lin&amp;ind_y=false&amp;rdim=country&amp;idim=country:USA&amp;ifdim=country&amp;hl=en&amp;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?) <br /> <br /> ::::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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922860 2011-09-29T04:20:58Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Deletions will be restored */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and &quot;old Earth&quot; 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> == Fossils ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trichinella spiralis ==<br /> <br /> According to Dickson DePallier 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)<br /> <br /> == Deletions will be restored ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :The &quot;teeth in mouth&quot; 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)<br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&amp;met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&amp;idim=country:GBR&amp;dl=en&amp;hl=en&amp;q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&amp;strail=false&amp;nselm=h&amp;met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&amp;scale_y=lin&amp;ind_y=false&amp;rdim=country&amp;idim=country:USA&amp;ifdim=country&amp;hl=en&amp;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?) <br /> <br /> ::::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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922854 2011-09-29T04:13:21Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Deletions will be restored */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and &quot;old Earth&quot; 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> == Fossils ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trichinella spiralis ==<br /> <br /> According to Dickson DePallier 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)<br /> <br /> == Deletions will be restored ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :The &quot;teeth in mouth&quot; 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)<br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&amp;met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&amp;idim=country:GBR&amp;dl=en&amp;hl=en&amp;q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&amp;strail=false&amp;nselm=h&amp;met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&amp;scale_y=lin&amp;ind_y=false&amp;rdim=country&amp;idim=country:USA&amp;ifdim=country&amp;hl=en&amp;dl=en last 50 years alone!] Go back further and the increase is even more remarkable. 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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922841 2011-09-29T03:52:23Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Deletions will be restored */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and &quot;old Earth&quot; 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> == Fossils ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trichinella spiralis ==<br /> <br /> According to Dickson DePallier 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)<br /> <br /> == Deletions will be restored ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :The &quot;teeth in mouth&quot; 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)<br /> ::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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922806 2011-09-29T02:45:47Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Maladaptation */ studies have shown it is associated with perceptions of age and seniority</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]<br /> The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that&lt;ref&gt;Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.&lt;/ref&gt;), then the odds that these 32 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.<br /> ==Counterexamples==<br /> ===Logical examples===<br /> # 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]&lt;/small&gt;]] <br /> # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Lack of mechanism===<br /> [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation&lt;ref&gt;[[migration]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a &quot;code&quot; or &quot;language,&quot; as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.<br /> # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably &quot;grown&quot; from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.&lt;ref&gt;http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])&lt;/small&gt;]]<br /> # Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.<br /> # Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.<br /> <br /> ===Maladaptation===<br /> [[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]<br /> # Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”&lt;ref&gt;''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.<br /> # Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Wrong predictions===<br /> [[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&lt;ref&gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.<br /> # Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are &quot;[[junk DNA]]&quot; and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called &quot;junk DNA&quot; has been shown to be useful.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of &quot;[[argument from poor design|bad design]]&quot; in the bodies of many organisms, such as &quot;flaws&quot; in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such &quot;flaws&quot; are actually &quot;a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.<br /> <br /> ===Missing fossils===<br /> [[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]<br /> # The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.<br /> # No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record&lt;ref&gt;[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of &quot;On the Origin of Species&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.<br /> # Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.<br /> <br /> === Irreducible Complexity===<br /> # The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] <br /> # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.<br /> # The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.<br /> # The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.&lt;ref&gt;[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]&lt;/ref&gt; Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.<br /> # Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.<br /> # &quot;Social insects&quot; such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.<br /> <br /> ===Uncategorized===<br /> <br /> # No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.<br /> # Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Logical Conclusion ==<br /> As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.<br /> <br /> {{evolution}}<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Atheism]]<br /> *[[Evolution and atheism]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Answers to Question evolution!]]<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[category:Evolution]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922805 2011-09-29T02:44:53Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Trichinella spiralis */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and &quot;old Earth&quot; 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> == Fossils ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trichinella spiralis ==<br /> <br /> According to Dickson DePallier 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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922804 2011-09-29T02:43:45Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Trichinella spiralis */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and &quot;old Earth&quot; 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> == Fossils ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trichinella spiralis ==<br /> <br /> According to Dickson DePallier 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. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:DavidZa&diff=922794 2011-09-29T01:51:18Z

<p>DavidZa: </p> <hr /> <div>DavidZa<br /> <br /> thorondor@hotmail.co.uk</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922792 2011-09-29T01:26:54Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Maladaptation */ see talk page</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]<br /> The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that&lt;ref&gt;Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.&lt;/ref&gt;), then the odds that these 33 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.<br /> ==Counterexamples==<br /> ===Logical examples===<br /> # 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]&lt;/small&gt;]] <br /> # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Lack of mechanism===<br /> [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation&lt;ref&gt;[[migration]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a &quot;code&quot; or &quot;language,&quot; as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.<br /> # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably &quot;grown&quot; from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.&lt;ref&gt;http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])&lt;/small&gt;]]<br /> # Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.<br /> # Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.<br /> <br /> ===Maladaptation===<br /> [[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]<br /> # Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”&lt;ref&gt;''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.<br /> # Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.<br /> # Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-primate species&lt;ref&gt;[http://web.archive.org/web/20080801031525/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0857/is_n6_v12/ai_16395133 Male pattern baldness] Baldness seen in male Chimps and Orangutans&lt;/ref&gt;, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.<br /> <br /> ===Wrong predictions===<br /> [[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&lt;ref&gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.<br /> # Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are &quot;[[junk DNA]]&quot; and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called &quot;junk DNA&quot; has been shown to be useful.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of &quot;[[argument from poor design|bad design]]&quot; in the bodies of many organisms, such as &quot;flaws&quot; in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such &quot;flaws&quot; are actually &quot;a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.<br /> <br /> ===Missing fossils===<br /> [[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]<br /> # The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.<br /> # No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record&lt;ref&gt;[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of &quot;On the Origin of Species&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.<br /> # Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.<br /> <br /> === Irreducible Complexity===<br /> # The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] <br /> # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.<br /> # The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.<br /> # The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.&lt;ref&gt;[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]&lt;/ref&gt; Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.<br /> # Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.<br /> # &quot;Social insects&quot; such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.<br /> <br /> ===Uncategorized===<br /> <br /> # No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.<br /> # Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Logical Conclusion ==<br /> As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.<br /> <br /> {{evolution}}<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Atheism]]<br /> *[[Evolution and atheism]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Answers to Question evolution!]]<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[category:Evolution]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922790 2011-09-29T01:26:39Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Trichinella spiralis */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and &quot;old Earth&quot; 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> == Fossils ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trichinella spiralis ==<br /> <br /> I will once again remove this 'counterexample' as the person who inserted it appears to have misunderstood the referenced article. Trichinella spiralis actually suppresses the immune response of its host under normal conditions. The immuno-suppression is only broken down when Trichinella spiralis happens to associate with other nurse-cell forming species of Trichinella, ''and'' when the host is then repeatedly exposed to infective L1 larvae via the oral route. These are very specific conditions and more to the point are not a normal part of Trichinella spiralis' life cycle; it involves interaction with other species. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922759 2011-09-29T00:01:37Z

<p>DavidZa: Undo revision 922728 by TennaK (talk) vandalism</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]<br /> The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that&lt;ref&gt;Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.&lt;/ref&gt;), then the odds that these 36 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.<br /> ==Counterexamples==<br /> ===Logical examples===<br /> # 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]&lt;/small&gt;]] <br /> # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Lack of mechanism===<br /> [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation&lt;ref&gt;[[migration]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a &quot;code&quot; or &quot;language,&quot; as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.<br /> # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably &quot;grown&quot; from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.&lt;ref&gt;http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])&lt;/small&gt;]]<br /> # Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.<br /> # Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.<br /> <br /> ===Maladaptation===<br /> [[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]<br /> # Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”&lt;ref&gt;''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.<br /> # Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.<br /> # Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.<br /> <br /> ===Wrong predictions===<br /> [[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&lt;ref&gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.<br /> # Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are &quot;[[junk DNA]]&quot; and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called &quot;junk DNA&quot; has been shown to be useful.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of &quot;[[argument from poor design|bad design]]&quot; in the bodies of many organisms, such as &quot;flaws&quot; in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such &quot;flaws&quot; are actually &quot;a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.<br /> <br /> ===Missing fossils===<br /> [[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]<br /> # The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.<br /> # No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record&lt;ref&gt;[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of &quot;On the Origin of Species&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.<br /> # Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.<br /> <br /> === Irreducible Complexity===<br /> # The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] <br /> # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.<br /> # The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.<br /> # The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.&lt;ref&gt;[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]&lt;/ref&gt; Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.<br /> # Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.<br /> # &quot;Social insects&quot; such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.<br /> <br /> ===Uncategorized===<br /> <br /> # No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.<br /> # Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Logical Conclusion ==<br /> As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.<br /> <br /> {{evolution}}<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Atheism]]<br /> *[[Evolution and atheism]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Answers to Question evolution!]]<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[category:Evolution]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922718 2011-09-28T22:21:02Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Maladaptation */ only if it conferred selective disadvantage</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]<br /> The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that&lt;ref&gt;Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.&lt;/ref&gt;), then the odds that these 36 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.<br /> ==Counterexamples==<br /> ===Logical examples===<br /> # 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]&lt;/small&gt;]] <br /> # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Lack of mechanism===<br /> [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation&lt;ref&gt;[[migration]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a &quot;code&quot; or &quot;language,&quot; as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.<br /> # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably &quot;grown&quot; from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.&lt;ref&gt;http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])&lt;/small&gt;]]<br /> # Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.<br /> # Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.<br /> <br /> ===Maladaptation===<br /> [[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]<br /> # Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”&lt;ref&gt;''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.<br /> # Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.<br /> # Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.<br /> <br /> ===Wrong predictions===<br /> [[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&lt;ref&gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.<br /> # Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are &quot;[[junk DNA]]&quot; and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called &quot;junk DNA&quot; has been shown to be useful.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of &quot;[[argument from poor design|bad design]]&quot; in the bodies of many organisms, such as &quot;flaws&quot; in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such &quot;flaws&quot; are actually &quot;a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.<br /> <br /> ===Missing fossils===<br /> [[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]<br /> # The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.<br /> # No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record&lt;ref&gt;[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of &quot;On the Origin of Species&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.<br /> # Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.<br /> <br /> === Irreducible Complexity===<br /> # The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] <br /> # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.<br /> # The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.<br /> # The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.&lt;ref&gt;[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]&lt;/ref&gt; Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.<br /> # Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.<br /> # &quot;Social insects&quot; such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.<br /> <br /> ===Uncategorized===<br /> <br /> # No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.<br /> # Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Logical Conclusion ==<br /> As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.<br /> <br /> {{evolution}}<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Atheism]]<br /> *[[Evolution and atheism]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Answers to Question evolution!]]<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[category:Evolution]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922632 2011-09-28T20:16:15Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Fossils */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and &quot;old Earth&quot; 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> == Fossils ==<br /> <br /> 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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=922583 2011-09-28T18:18:46Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Logical examples */ pleiotropy doesn't apply to all genes, nor does it mean beneficial effects are impossible</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]<br /> The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that&lt;ref&gt;Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.&lt;/ref&gt;), then the odds that these 36 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.<br /> ==Counterexamples==<br /> ===Logical examples===<br /> # 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]&lt;/small&gt;]] <br /> # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Lack of mechanism===<br /> [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation&lt;ref&gt;[[migration]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a &quot;code&quot; or &quot;language,&quot; as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.<br /> # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably &quot;grown&quot; from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.&lt;ref&gt;http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])&lt;/small&gt;]]<br /> # Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.<br /> # Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.<br /> <br /> ===Maladaptation===<br /> [[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]<br /> # The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.&lt;ref&gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”&lt;ref&gt;''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.<br /> # Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.<br /> # Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.<br /> <br /> ===Wrong predictions===<br /> [[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&lt;ref&gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.<br /> # Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are &quot;[[junk DNA]]&quot; and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called &quot;junk DNA&quot; has been shown to be useful.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of &quot;[[argument from poor design|bad design]]&quot; in the bodies of many organisms, such as &quot;flaws&quot; in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such &quot;flaws&quot; are actually &quot;a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.<br /> <br /> ===Missing fossils===<br /> [[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]<br /> # The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.<br /> # No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record&lt;ref&gt;[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of &quot;On the Origin of Species&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.<br /> # Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === Irreducible Complexity===<br /> # The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] <br /> # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.<br /> # The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.<br /> # The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.&lt;ref&gt;[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]&lt;/ref&gt; Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.<br /> # Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.<br /> # &quot;Social insects&quot; such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.<br /> <br /> ===Uncategorized===<br /> <br /> # No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.<br /> # Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Logical Conclusion ==<br /> As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.<br /> <br /> {{evolution}}<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Atheism]]<br /> *[[Evolution and atheism]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Answers to Question evolution!]]<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[category:Evolution]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Redshift&diff=922521 2011-09-28T14:47:18Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Support for the Big Bang theory */ lacks citation</p> <hr /> <div>The '''redshift''' of a given object is a measure of the amount that the wavelength of its emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation has increased. This increase in wavelength is due to the relative motion of a source with respect to an observer; a light emitting source moving away from an observer will have its spectrum shifted toward longer (in optical light, redder) wavelengths. In practice this is analogous to the Doppler shifting of sound waves emitted from a moving source. Light emitted from a source moving towards an observer will experience a blueshift. In the case of redshift, however, most of the redshift is believed to be due not to the object moving through space, but to the expansion of space itself.<br /> <br /> == Support for the Big Bang theory ==<br /> <br /> The Hubble redshift in atomic spectra of distance cosmic objects, discovered by Edwin Hubble around 1929, is claimed as a source of evidence for the [[Big Bang theory]].&lt;ref&gt;Edwin Hubble (1929). [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/15/3/168/ &quot;A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae&quot;]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15: 168–173.&lt;/ref&gt; The redshift, the expanded wavelength of light, suggests that these objects are moving away from Earth due to the expansion of the universe. It also suggests either that the universe is undergoing accelerating expansion for an unknown reason&lt;ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The reason was proposed in 1985 as the time running slower in deep space galaxis than in our Galaxy from which the those deep space galaxies are observed, due to the coupling between the [[time dilation]] and the [[curvature of space]]. The effect has been confirmed with accuracy to one standard deviation by Supernova Cosmology Project team of astronomers, whose observations produced the relation <br /> :&lt;math&gt;dH/dt=-H_o^2/2&lt;/math&gt;,<br /> where &lt;math&gt;dH/dt&lt;/math&gt; is apparent acceleration of expansion of space, and &lt;math&gt;H_o&lt;/math&gt; is [[Hubble constant]].<br /> <br /> &lt;/ref&gt;, or that there exists [[Hubble time dilation]] causing such an effect in stationary [[Einstein's universe]]. The latter effect is expected by observational predictions of [[Einsteinian gravitation]]. It also complies with the [[perfect cosmological principle]]. <br /> This is a phenomenon predicted by the Big Bang theory.<br /> <br /> ==Redshift according to perfect cosmological principle and &quot;[[gravitation demystified]]&quot;==<br /> <br /> According to the [[Perfect cosmological principle]] that says that the universe looks everywhere and always approximately the same the redshift is a feature of [[curvature of space]] which in general relativity theory is coupled to the rate of time. As a result we see the more redshift the farther we look since the space is also more curved the farther we look. The exact relation between the [[curvature of space]] and rate of flow of time is <br /> :&lt;math&gt;d \tau/dt=exp(-r/R_s)&lt;/math&gt;, <br /> where &lt;math&gt;\tau&lt;/math&gt; is time in observed deep space (proper time of that place), &lt;math&gt;t&lt;/math&gt; is time of observer, &lt;math&gt;r&lt;/math&gt; is distance from observer to the observed point in deep space, and &lt;math&gt;R_s&lt;/math&gt; is radius of curvature of space &lt;ref&gt;See derivation in [[Gravitation demystified]]&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> According to this principle the universe looking always approximately the same is neither expanding nor contracting and existed always and therefore was never created. Furthermore because of such relation between redshift and the distance the universe looks as if it was expanding with accelerating expansion which was noticed in 1998.<br /> <br /> [[Category: Astronomy]]<br /> [[Category: Cosmology]]<br /> [[Category: Physics]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> [[Category:Astronomy]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=922116 2011-09-28T00:09:51Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Geology */ &quot;amazon.com&quot; is not an appropriate reference</p> <hr /> <div>It takes only one &quot;counterexample&quot; to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]]. As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of 37 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%. With the total of these counterexamples at 37, '''they demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%'''.&lt;ref&gt;The same analysis can be applied to the [[Young Earth]] theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts. In addition, there are over 100 evidences of a young [[earth]] and [[universe]] (Please see: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ''Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe'']).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The motivation for [[atheist]]s to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from [[God]]'s immediate presence, and to turn them away from [[Jesus Christ]]. Also, they are motivated, and biased, by the fact that their [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] theories require a world which is billions of years old. <br /> <br /> == Counterexamples ==<br /> The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:<br /> <br /> === Astronomy ===<br /> # The [[moon|Moon's]] orbit is a very strong counterxample: The moon is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate&lt;ref&gt;&quot;Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year.&quot; [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).&lt;/ref&gt; that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today.&lt;br /&gt;Additionally, the [[moon]]'s orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability.&lt;ref&gt;http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212&lt;/ref&gt; This disproves the theory of an [[Old Earth]] even further.<br /> # [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.<br /> # The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: &quot;An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ....&quot;]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar &amp; M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm &quot;Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction&quot;]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these is too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.<br /> <br /> === Biology ===<br /> # The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,&lt;ref&gt;''See, e.g.'', David G. Savage, &quot;The Long Decline in SAT Scores,&quot; Educational Leadership 290 (Jan. 1978). [http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197801_savage.pdf]&lt;/ref&gt; music, personal letters,&lt;ref&gt;E.g., Civil War letters.&lt;/ref&gt; quality of political debates,&lt;ref&gt;E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.&lt;/ref&gt; the quality of news articles,&lt;ref&gt;''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.&lt;/ref&gt; and many other measures. This means that if one goes back far enough, intelligence will end up reaching ridiculously high, if humans were supposedly hundreds of thousands of years old.<br /> # The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.&lt;ref&gt;For evidence of a rapidly changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]]&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/animals-face-extinction-threat-as-conservation-efforts-slow-report-says.html One in five species are at risk of extinction]&lt;/ref&gt; and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.<br /> # The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying ([[CNN]]'s [[Anderson Cooper]] began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);&lt;ref name=&quot;Graying&quot;&gt;http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-06-18/living/17299704_1_hair-taylor-hicks-american-idol&lt;/ref&gt; many celebrities (such as [[American Idol]] winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)&lt;ref name=&quot;Graying&quot;/&gt; and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)&lt;ref&gt;&quot;There's a man, close-cropped gray hair, looks older than 35&quot;: Sports Illustrated's description of Cal Ripken at 35. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1163438/index.htm#ixzz12ONbgydd] By age 50 he was bald too.&lt;/ref&gt; increasingly experience premature graying or balding.<br /> # The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,&lt;ref&gt;http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&amp;SRETRY=0&lt;/ref&gt; suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.<br /> # The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.<br /> # The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.<br /> # Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; Some scientists have calculated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this demonstrates that chimpanzees descended from a large initial population while humans descend from a much smaller one, which indeed we know to have been two people.<br /> # Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.&lt;ref&gt;http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/technology&amp;id=7884786&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The separation between salt and freshwater fish, coupled with their inability to survive in the opposing environment, shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.<br /> # Furthermore, the separation of land and aquatic life and a similar inability for the organisms to survive in the other environment shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.<br /> # Biodiversity on Earth is declining too rapidly to be consistent with a long-term (Old Earth) equilibrium, with the Living Planet Index (LPI) showing &quot;a global decline of 27% between 1970 and 2005. The terrestrial index declined by 25%, freshwater by 29% (this index is calculated to 2003 due to the lack of data available for latter years), and marine by 28%.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.zsl.org/science/research-projects/lpi,1162,AR.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[Bible]] makes references to the [[dinosaurs]]. There is no explanation for this if dinosaurs supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/93-dinosaurs-and-the-bible&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> === Geology ===<br /> [[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]<br /> [[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.&lt;ref name=&quot;sf&quot;&gt;[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).&lt;ref&gt;Corliss, 2002&lt;/ref&gt; The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.&lt;ref&gt;Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: &quot;All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]&lt;/ref&gt; [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as &quot;[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[Old Earth]] [[paradigm]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other examples include: <br /> <br /> # The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches&lt;ref&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html&lt;/ref&gt; with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.<br /> # The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].<br /> # The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.<br /> # The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.<br /> # Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation several times each century;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2010872/japan_quake_changed_earths_rotation/&lt;/ref&gt; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation&lt;ref&gt;A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The lack of erosion between rock layers.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.<br /> # [[Paraconformity]] and unconformity such as that seen at the [[Grand Canyon]] disprove the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] view of earth history.<br /> # All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,&lt;ref&gt;http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.<br /> # The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago.<br /> # The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.<br /> # The relatively recent separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass -- denied for 100 years by [[atheist]]s before they accepted it -- suggest a young earth or at least a relatively recent cataclysmic event.<br /> # Fresh tracks of motion by stationary rocks are still visible in some areas, which have baffled Old Earth scientists for more than 60 years; Old Earth magazines refer to them as &quot;self-moving rocks.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/18/rafting-for-rocks?s_cid=rss:rafting-for-rocks&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; &quot;between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades,&quot; sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-beach-erosion&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Land is sinking into the oceans at a rate of at least 7 inches per century,&lt;ref&gt;http://www.app.com/article/20110319/NJNEWS/103190327/Global-warming-rising-seas-threaten-New-Jersey-expert-says&lt;/ref&gt; which would have rendered most of the United States under water if the Earth were not young.<br /> # The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === Science &amp; Discovery ===<br /> # A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.&lt;ref&gt;Though there has been some progress in this timeframe, many of the &quot;discoveries&quot; are liberal propaganda, or are scientifically weak.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === Biblical testimony ===<br /> <br /> The Bible contains multiples pieces of evidence showing its authenticity including [[Bible history]], [[Biblical archaeology|Bible archaeology]] and [[Bible prophecy]]. Competent and honest [[Bible exegesis]] indicates the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.&lt;ref&gt;[http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally Should Genesis be taken literally?]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''See also:'' [http://creation.com/history-questions-and-answers How reliable is biblical chronology?]<br /> <br /> == Recommended books ==<br /> <br /> *[[William R. Corliss]], Anomalies in Geology: Physical, Chemical, Biological (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1989. ISBN 915554-23-2<br /> *William R. Corliss Neglected Geological Anomalies, 1990. ISBN 915554-24-0<br /> *William R. CorlissInner Earth: A Search for Anomalies (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1991. ISBN 915554-25-9<br /> *William R. Corliss, Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds, Submarine Canyons (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1988. ISBN 915554-22-4<br /> <br /> == External links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]<br /> *[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]<br /> *[http://www.preteristcentral.com/Debunking%20Old%20Earth%20Creationism%20&amp;%20a%20Regional%20Flood.html Debunking the Old Earth Theory]<br /> <br /> == Footnotes ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Radiometric dating]]<br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[Category:geology]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soccer&diff=921988 2011-09-27T17:40:54Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Soccer and socialism */ deleted nonsense that had been inserted into article</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:2010 World Cup.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Pictured is [[Miroslav Klose]], a star Polish-born player competing for the highly ranked German team, during the 2010 World Cup]]<br /> '''Soccer''' is a popular sport played with a round ball propelled mainly by kicks from a player's foot. Outside the USA, it is generally called &quot;football&quot; (Spanish: ''fútbol'').<br /> In soccer, players are not allowed to intentionally touch the ball with their hands or arms while it is in play, with the exception of goalkeepers in a restricted area. The goal of the game is to kick the ball into the opposing team's goal; each goal gives that team a point and the team with the most points at the end of the 90 minute game is the winner.<br /> <br /> ==Rules of the Game==<br /> [[Image:Soccer pitch.gif|right|thumb|300px|left|Dimensions of a soccer pitch]]<br /> The game is played between two teams of 11 players (10 out-field players and one goalkeeper each). In official play, there are two 45 [[minute]] halves separated by a break known as half-time which according to the rules of the game must last less than 20 minutes. Unlike most sports, the clock does not always stop when the ball is not in play. When the ball is knocked out of bounds or a penalty is committed, the clock runs continuously. If a player is injured then the [[referee]] makes up that lost time by adding minutes onto the end of the half. This is known as [[stoppage]] or injury time. If both scores are even at the end of regulation time, the game is usually declared a draw. However, in knockout cup games, there is often an additional period of play consisting of two 15-minute halves. In some competitions, the first goal in this period (golden goal) wins the game. If the scores are still level, the result is decided with a [[penalty shootout]]. The set of rules used in soccer are called the [[Laws of the Game]]. <br /> <br /> The game is played on a [[grass]] (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90-120 m (100-130 yards) in length and 45-90 m (50-100 yards) in width.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf FIFA Laws of the Game 2006] ''Official FIFA website''&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> A goal is scored when the ([[spherical]]) ball is propelled into the opposition net. The side scoring the most goals is the winner. Infringements include playing the ball with any part of the body other than the feet or head; pushing or blocking an opposing player and stepping outside the playing area while the ball is in play.<br /> <br /> Accuracy in kicking is very important to make sure that one can kick the ball around opponents, manage it in tight spaces, and make long passes to other players in better positions. Expert players have trained to kick from a variety of angles, both forward and back and to the side, and also to use their chests and heads to maneuver a high-flying ball.<br /> <br /> ==Origins==<br /> <br /> The word ''soccer'' derived in England as slang for &quot;As&lt;u&gt;soc&lt;/u&gt;iation Football&quot;, &lt;ref&gt;[http://london.usembassy.gov/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html] ''US Embassy, London'' &lt;/ref&gt;, much like &quot;rugger&quot; is slang for [[rugby|&lt;u&gt;rug&lt;/u&gt;by]]. Football games have been popular in [[England]] since the [[middle ages]], but the modern game of soccer derives from formalizations of the rules during the mid nineteenth century. The [[Football Association]] (FA) was founded in 1863 and continues to be the game's governing body within the [[UK]]. &quot;Association Football&quot; (later shortened to soccer) meant the version of football approved by the Football Association's rules. The rules were published at [[Cambridge University]] in 1847, as many private schools were playing each other with different rules. In the middle ages the game had no rules. The match was played between villages and the goals were in each village. The game was often violent and was banned by [[Edward III]] and [[Henry IV]] not for its violence but as it distracted archers from military work. Medieval football is still played in the East Midland city of [[Derby]] on [[Shrove Tuesday]].<br /> <br /> ==Soccer Around the World==<br /> [[Image:800px-Soccer goalkeeper.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Goalkeeper leaping to make a save]]<br /> It is the most popular [[team sport]] in the world, described by the legendary Brazilian player, [[Pele]], as &quot;The Beautiful Game&quot;. Its governing body is [[FIFA]] (Fédération Internationale de Football Association). In most countries it is the most popular sport or at least among the most popular (the [[United States]] being a notable exception). Though it is often not a high-scoring game, its popularity comes from the often dramatic saves from goalkeepers and incredible shots from skilled players in attempts to score a goal. In the United States soccer was associated with communism during the Thirties, as several communist organizations used soccer in an attempt to recruit recent European immigrants to their cause.<br /> <br /> Every four years there is an international competition known as the [[World Cup]], where countries send their best players to compete for the title of best national soccer team. Every four years in Europe there is the European Championship in June and July when the leagues finish which is a 16 team competition for members of UEFA, the European governing body. Each other continent also has a competition, such as the African Nations Cup, which is every two years in January.<br /> <br /> Many soccer fans are extremely passionate about their favorite teams, traveling to other countries to support them. Several countries have had problems controlling over-excited fans, with the crowd sometimes spilling onto the pitch, fighting with themselves, disliked referees and even players. [[England]] once had a poor reputation from its soccer [[hooligan]]s who got into drunken fistfights with fans of other teams. This situation has largely changed, with much better behavior at English football matches and considerably increased violence in several other countries, especially [[Italy]].<br /> <br /> In most European countries each large town will have at least one football team who play in leagues, which last August to May in most of Europe but March to October in others. Unlike most American sports, the top teams in each league go up a league to be replaced by the last teams in the league above. The top teams in the top division of each European country enter the UEFA Champions League, a league and knockout competition played on Tuesdays and Wednesdays around the season.<br /> <br /> ==Great Players==<br /> <br /> * [[Ferenc Puskas]], a forward for [[Real Madrid]] and [[Hungary]] in the 1950s, introduced 'total football' and destroyed the old-fashioned English team of the time.<br /> * [[Lev Yashin]] of the USSR in the 1960s is reputed to be the best-ever goalkeeper.<br /> * [[Pele]], [[Brazil]]ian player active from 1956-1974, often considered to be the greatest soccer player to ever kick the ball.<br /> * [[Alfredo di Stéfano]], [[Argentinia]]n midfielder who played for [[Real Madrid]]. considered by Maradona to be the greatest.<br /> * [[Bobby Moore]], captain of England in the 1966 World Cup Finals and one of the finest ever center halves.<br /> * [[George Best]], of [[Manchester United]] and [[Northern Ireland]] in the 1960s, was possibly the best player never to have played in the World Cup Finals.<br /> * [[Franz Beckenbauer]] played for [[West Germany]] in the 1960s and 70s. Defenders rarely gain the limelight in football but Beckenbauer's performances against the great teams of England in 1970 and Holland in 1974 were exceptional.<br /> * [[Johann Cruyff]], captain of Holland in 1974 and 1978: why his Dutch team's brand of Total Football never won them the World Cup is an enduring mystery.<br /> * [[Diego Maradona]], [[Argentinia]]n midfielder of the 1980s, often mentioned alongside Pele as one of the greatest.<br /> * [[Zinedine Zidane]], [[French]] player, retired shortly after the World Cup final match between France and [[Italy]] in 2006.<br /> * [[Cristiano Ronaldo]], a [[Portuguese]] contemporary player for [[Real Madrid]].<br /> * [[Lionel Messi]], [[Argentina]]n forward, currently plays for [[Barcelona]].<br /> <br /> ==A note on terminology==<br /> <br /> {{football meaning}} In many other languages, a [[phonics|phonetic]] equivalent to the English word &quot;football,&quot; such as the Portuguese word &quot;futbol&quot; is used to denote the sport. <br /> <br /> ==References== <br /> {{reflist}} <br /> <br /> [[Category:Sports]]<br /> [[Category:Football soccer]]<br /> [[Category:Soccer]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Dawkins%27_Elevatorgate_comments&diff=920711 2011-09-25T01:37:33Z

<p>DavidZa: Created page with &quot;While the notability of the 'elevatorgate' incident is questionable enough, there is certainly no need to go making an entirely separate article about the comments made by Richar...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>While the notability of the 'elevatorgate' incident is questionable enough, there is certainly no need to go making an entirely separate article about the comments made by Richard Dawkins about it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:37, 24 September 2011 (EDT)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Speed_of_light&diff=920621 2011-09-24T22:20:35Z

<p>DavidZa: Undo revision 920601 by RSnelik (talk) It may well be, but it's given in meters because it's more accurate than miles</p> <hr /> <div>The '''speed of light''' in a vacuum (postulated to be constant for all inertial observers by the [[Special Theory of Relativity]]) is 299,792,458 meters per second (approximately 186,282.3 miles per second). As the speed of light is now used to define the [[SI]] meter, this is now the value ''by definition''.<br /> <br /> In physics, it is often represented in equations by the letter '''c,''' as in<br /> :&amp;lambda; = c / f<br /> ([[wavelength]] of an electromagnetic wave in vacuum = the speed of light divided by the wave's frequency).<br /> <br /> The speed of light is about one foot per nanosecond. The late computer pioneer Admiral Grace Hopper was fond of keeping foot-long lengths of wire in her purse; she used them as props for her talks, referring to them as &quot;nanoseconds,&quot; and using them to explain how the speed of light set limitations on [[computing]] systems: no signal could possibly propagate in any wire faster than the speed of light.&lt;ref&gt;Chiarella, Donald Joseph Gray (2002), ''Life in God's Management Corps,'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0595256430&amp;id=VhM9jDwbywUC&amp;pg=PA14&amp;lpg=PA14&amp;ots=ZXHirs9jQI&amp;dq=grace+hopper+nanosecond&amp;ie=ISO-8859-1&amp;sig=XmbYtV2laxCMIKMLzR1eXHP1Eok p. 14]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The speed of light is slower in any medium which is not a vacuum, and varies from medium to medium. This variation gives rise to (as a result of [[quantum mechanics]], particularly the concept of a path of least action) the phenomenon of [[refraction]]. When a charged particle exceeds the speed of light in the medium in which it is travelling, it emits [[Cherenkov Radiation]].<br /> <br /> Since the speed of light in a vacuum is observed to be constant, it can be used to define distances as well. The distance that light travels in one year is known as a [[light-year]], which is about 6 million million (6x10&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;) miles.<br /> <br /> The speed of light raises questions regarding the age of the universe, which are usually summed up under the term &quot;[[starlight problem]]&quot;.<br /> <br /> ==Notes and references==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[category: astronomy]]<br /> [[category: physics]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Speed_of_light&diff=920572 2011-09-24T21:13:38Z

<p>DavidZa: Unreferenced claim; there has been debate on the matter, but normally over whether it was lower before</p> <hr /> <div>The '''speed of light''' in a vacuum (postulated to be constant for all inertial observers by the [[Special Theory of Relativity]]) is 299,792,458 meters per second (approximately 186,282.3 miles per second). As the speed of light is now used to define the [[SI]] meter, this is now the value ''by definition''.<br /> <br /> In physics, it is often represented in equations by the letter '''c,''' as in<br /> :&amp;lambda; = c / f<br /> ([[wavelength]] of an electromagnetic wave in vacuum = the speed of light divided by the wave's frequency).<br /> <br /> The speed of light is about one foot per nanosecond. The late computer pioneer Admiral Grace Hopper was fond of keeping foot-long lengths of wire in her purse; she used them as props for her talks, referring to them as &quot;nanoseconds,&quot; and using them to explain how the speed of light set limitations on [[computing]] systems: no signal could possibly propagate in any wire faster than the speed of light.&lt;ref&gt;Chiarella, Donald Joseph Gray (2002), ''Life in God's Management Corps,'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0595256430&amp;id=VhM9jDwbywUC&amp;pg=PA14&amp;lpg=PA14&amp;ots=ZXHirs9jQI&amp;dq=grace+hopper+nanosecond&amp;ie=ISO-8859-1&amp;sig=XmbYtV2laxCMIKMLzR1eXHP1Eok p. 14]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The speed of light is slower in any medium which is not a vacuum, and varies from medium to medium. This variation gives rise to (as a result of [[quantum mechanics]], particularly the concept of a path of least action) the phenomenon of [[refraction]]. When a charged particle exceeds the speed of light in the medium in which it is travelling, it emits [[Cherenkov Radiation]].<br /> <br /> Since the speed of light in a vacuum is observed to be constant, it can be used to define distances as well. The distance that light travels in one year is known as a [[light-year]], which is about 6 million million (6x10&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;) miles.<br /> <br /> The speed of light raises questions regarding the age of the universe, which are usually summed up under the term &quot;[[starlight problem]]&quot;.<br /> <br /> ==Notes and references==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[category: astronomy]]<br /> [[category: physics]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DavidZa&diff=920481 2011-09-24T17:47:02Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Reverting on Uganda */</p> <hr /> <div>{{welcome}}<br /> --[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:13, 21 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Earthquakes ==<br /> <br /> If you get into an edit war they'll just block you. Best to explain the facts to Aschlafly and Karajou. Once they see the data I'm sure they'll agree. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 13:09, 21 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reverting on Uganda ==<br /> <br /> I was merely reverting a user's questionable removing of cited content.<br /> <br /> The user has less than 10 edits and a previous edit of theirs removed some content from another page -- which was quickly reverted by another user and was blocked for doing so. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 13:41, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :And? They could have made ONE edit and would be as trustable as anybody else.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 13:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Actually, the material on that Bill isn't referenced; the link is no longer valid. And don't even get me started on the disgusting defence of that Bill which someone previously inserted. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 13:47, 24 September 2011 (EDT)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Uganda&diff=920475 2011-09-24T17:38:04Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 */ most HIV transmission is between heterosexuals, and I seriously hope you are not attempting to defend such a vile piece of legislation?!</p> <hr /> <div>{{Country<br /> |name=''Jamhuri ya Uganda&lt;br/&gt;Republic of Uganda''<br /> |map=Uganda rel 2005.jpg<br /> |map2=Location of Uganda.PNG<br /> |flag=Flag of Uganda.PNG<br /> |arms=Arms of uganda.PNG<br /> |capital=Kampala<br /> |government=Democratic republic<br /> |language=Swahili, English<br /> |monarch=<br /> |president=Yoweri Museveni<br /> |chancellor=<br /> |pm=Apolo Nsibambi<br /> |area=91,136 sq. mi.<br /> |pop=30.9 million<br /> |pop-basis=2007 <br /> |gdp-year=$9.4 billion<br /> |gdp-pc=<br /> |currency=Ugandan shilling <br /> |idd=+243<br /> |tld=.cd<br /> }}<br /> The '''Republic of Uganda,''' or '''Uganda,''' is a country in East Africa, bordered to the east by [[Kenya]], on the north by [[Sudan]], to the west by the [[Democratic Republic of Congo]], [[Rwanda]] on the southwest, and [[Tanzania]] to the south. The southern part of the country includes a substantial portion of [[Lake Victoria]], within which it shares borders with Kenya and Tanzania.<br /> <br /> ==People==<br /> Africans of three main ethnic groups &amp;mdash; [[Bantu]], [[Nile|Nilotic]], and [[Ham|Nilo-Hamitic]] &amp;mdash; constitute most of the population. The Bantu are the most numerous and include the [[Baganda]], which, with 18% of the population, constitute the largest single ethnic group. Individual ethnic groups in the southwest include the Banyankole and Bahima, 10%; the Bakiga, 8%; the Banyarwanda, 6%; the Bunyoro, 3%; and the Batoro, 3%. Residents of the north, largely Nilotic, include the Langi, 6%, and the Acholi, 4%. In the northwest are the Lugbara, 4%, and the Karamojong, 2%, occupy the considerably drier, largely [[pastoral]] territory in the northeast. The Basoga, 8% and the Bagisu, 5% are among ethnic groups in the East. Europeans, Asians, and [[Arabs]] make up about 1% of the population with other groups accounting for the remainder.<br /> <br /> Uganda's population is predominantly rural, and its population density highest in the southern regions. Until 1972, Asians constituted the largest nonindigenous ethnic group in Uganda. In that year, the [[E.D. Amin]] regime expelled 50,000 Asians, who had been engaged in trade, industry, and various professions. In the years since Amin's overthrow in 1979, Asians have slowly returned and now number around 30,000. Other nonindigenous people in Uganda include Arabs, Western [[missionary|missionaries]], [[non-governmental organization]] (NGO) workers, diplomats, and business people. <br /> *Population (2007): 30.9 million<br /> *Annual growth rate (2004 est.): 4.0% <br /> *Ethnic groups: African 99%, European, Asian, Arab 1%<br /> *Religions (2007): Christian 85%, Muslim 12%, other 2% <br /> *Languages: English (official); Luganda and Swahili widely used; other Bantu and Nilotic languages<br /> *Education: Attendance (2000; primary school enrollment, public and private): 89%. Literacy (2003): 70%<br /> *Health: Infant mortality rate--86/1,000. Life expectancy--45.3 years<br /> ===Religion===<br /> According to official government figures, an estimated 85% of the country is Christian, 12% Muslim, and the remaining 3% follow traditional indigenous beliefs, Hinduism, Baha'i, and Judaism. Some Muslims and Christians believe that that the Muslim community is larger than the government numbers reflect. <br /> <br /> Of the Christian population, the Roman Catholic Church has the largest number of followers with 42%, the Anglican Church has an estimated 36%, and the Evangelical and Pentecostal claim the rest. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches are very active. The Muslim population is primarily Sunni. Traditional indigenous beliefs are practiced in some rural areas and are sometimes blended with or practiced alongside Christianity or Islam. Indian nationals are the most significant immigrant population; members of this community are primarily Shi'a Muslim followers of the Aga Khan or practice Hinduism. The northern and West Nile regions are predominantly Catholic, while Iganga District in eastern Uganda has the highest percentage of Muslims. The rest of the country has a mix of religious affiliations.<br /> <br /> There were few reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice.<br /> <br /> ==Government==<br /> The 1995 constitution established Uganda as a [[republic]] with an executive, legislative, and judicial branch. The constitution provides for an executive president, to be elected every 5 years. President [[Yoweri Museveni]], in power since 1986, was elected in 1996 and reelected in 2001 and 2006. Legislative responsibility is vested in the parliament; legislative elections were last held February 2006. There currently are 332 members of parliament, of which 79 are women. The Ugandan judiciary operates as an independent branch of government and consists of magistrate's courts, high courts, courts of appeals, and the [[Supreme Court]]. [[Parliament]] and the [[judiciary]] have significant amounts of independence and wield significant power.<br /> <br /> ===Principal Government Officials=== <br /> *President and Commander in Chief--[[Yoweri Kaguta Museveni]]<br /> *Vice President--Dr. [[Gilbert Bukenya]]<br /> *Prime Minister--[[Apollo Nsibambi]]<br /> *Foreign Minister--[[Sam Kutesa]]<br /> *Minister of Defense--[[Crispus Kiyonga]]<br /> *Ambassador to the United States--[[Perezi K. Kamunanwire]]<br /> <br /> ===Political Conditions===<br /> Since assuming power, Museveni and his government have largely put an end to the [[human rights]] abuses of earlier governments and initiated substantial economic [[liberalization]] and general [[freedom of the press]], due to economic pressures from international governments such as the [[International Monetary Fund]] and the [[World Bank]].<br /> <br /> The [[Lord's Resistance Army]] (LRA), which seeks to overthrow the Ugandan Government, has murdered and kidnapped civilians in the north and east since 1986. Although the LRA does not threaten the stability of the government, LRA violence at one time displaced up to 1.7 million people, creating a humanitarian catastrophe, particularly when they were forced into internally displaced persons (IDP) camps for their own protection. The [[Uganda People's Defense Force]] (UPDEF) launched &quot;[[Operation Iron Fist]]&quot; against LRA rebels in northern Uganda in 2002 and conducted operations against LRA sanctuaries in southern [[Sudan]] with the permission of the Sudanese Government. The Sudanese Government had previously supported the LRA. <br /> <br /> There have been significant new developments in this conflict since January 2006. With the signing of the Sudanese &quot;Comprehensive Peace Agreement,&quot; the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) was created. To protect this fragile peace from LRA incursions in southern Sudan, Riek Machar, a GOSS Vice President, launched efforts to broker a peace agreement between the Government of Uganda and the LRA in July 2006. Those talks are ongoing and represent the first time there has been meaningful progress in ending this conflict. As a result, many northern Ugandans are leaving the IDP camps and returning to their villages. <br /> <br /> In 1998, Uganda deployed a sizable military force to the eastern [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]] (D.R.C.), ostensibly to prevent attacks from Ugandan rebel groups operating there. There were widespread allegations that Ugandan military and civilian officials were involved in the illegal exploitation of Congolese natural resources. After much international pressure, Uganda withdrew its troops from the D.R.C. in June 2003. Relations with the D.R.C., however, continue to be [[frost]]y. When the LRA left southern Sudan and relocated to eastern Congo in September 2005, Museveni threatened to enter the D.R.C. and &quot;go after&quot; the LRA if neither Congo nor the UN peacekeepers in the region would take action. The recent peace talks have taken a lot of steam out of those threats, however, and Uganda seems focused on seeing the talks to conclusion.<br /> <br /> ===Foreign Relations===<br /> The Ugandan Government generally seeks good relations with other nations without reference to [[ideological]] orientation.&lt;ref&gt;http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/bgnotes/af/uganda9103.html&lt;/ref&gt; Relations with [[Rwanda]], [[Congo]] and [[Sudan]] have sometimes been strained because of [[security]] concerns. President Museveni has been highly active in attempts implement a peace agreement [[Burundi]] and has supported peace initiatives in Sudan and [[Somalia]]. <br /> <br /> In the past, neighbors were concerned about Uganda's relationship with [[Libya]], which had supplied military equipment and bartered [[fuel]] to Uganda. In addition to its friendly ties to Western nations, Uganda has maintained friendly ties with [[North Korea]]. Uganda's has strained relations with Sudan because of past Sudanese support for the LRA. The LRA seeks to overthrow the Uganda Government and has inflicted brutal violence on the population in northern Uganda, including rape, kidnapping, torture, and murder. In 2002 Uganda and Sudan reestablished diplomatic ties and signed a [[protocol]] permitting the UPDF to enter southern Sudan and engage the LRA. The protocol ought to be renewed periodically. <br /> <br /> Another rebel group operating in western Uganda and eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, near the [[Rwenzori Mountains]], the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), emerged as a threat in 1996 and wields considerable power over the local population. It has largely been defeated by the UPDF and the affected areas of western Uganda have been secured. Remnants of the ADF remain in eastern Congo.<br /> <br /> ==Defense==<br /> The Uganda Peoples Defense Force (UPDF)--previously the National Resistance Army--constitutes the armed forces of Uganda. Prior to 2000, U.S. military forces participated with the UPDF in training activities under the African Crisis Response Initiative. U.S. military assistance was terminated in 2000 as a result of the Ugandan incursion into the D.R.C. Following the June 2003 UPDF withdrawal of troops from the D.R.C., the U.S. restarted limited nonlethal military assistance. <br /> <br /> ==Economy==<br /> Uganda's economy has great potential. Endowed with significant natural resources, including huge tracts of [[land]], regular [[rain]]fall, and [[mineral]] deposits, it appeared poised for rapid economic growth and development at independence. However, chronic political instability and erratic economic management produced a record of persistent economic decline that left Uganda among the world's [[poor]]est and least-developed countries. <br /> <br /> Since assuming power in early 1986, Museveni's government has taken important steps toward economic rehabilitation. The country's infrastructure &amp;mdash; notably its transportation and communications systems, which had been destroyed by war and neglect &amp;mdash; is being rebuilt. Recognizing the need for increased external support, Uganda negotiated a paper policy framework with the [[IMF]] and the [[World Bank]] in 1987. It subsequently began implementing economic policies designed to restore price stability and sustainable balance of payments, improve capacity utilization, rehabilitate infrastructure, restore producer incentives through proper price policies, and improve resource mobilization and allocation in the public sector. These policies produced positive results. Inflation, which ran at 240% in 1987 and 42% in June 1992, was 5.4% for fiscal year 1995&amp;ndash;96 and 5.1% in 2003. In 2008 it was a mere 3.2%. <br /> <br /> Investment as a percentage of GDP was estimated at 20.3% in 2003 compared to 13.7% in 1999. Private sector investment, largely financed by private transfers from abroad, was 14.9% of GDP in 2002. Gross national savings as a percentage of GDP was estimated at 6.4% in 2003. The Ugandan Government has also worked with donor countries to reschedule or cancel substantial portions of the country's external debts. <br /> <br /> Agricultural products supply nearly all of Uganda's foreign exchange earnings, with [[coffee]] (of which Uganda is Africa's leading producer) accounting for about 19% and [[fish]] 17% of the country's exports in 2002. Exports of non-traditional products, including apparel, hides, skins, [[vanilla]], [[vegetable]]s, [[fruit]]s, cut [[flower]]s, and [[fish]] are growing, while traditional exports [[cotton]], [[tea]], and [[tobacco]] continue to be mainstays. <br /> <br /> Most industry is related to [[agriculture]]. The industrial sector is being rehabilitated to resume production of building and construction materials, such as [[cement]], reinforcing [[rod]]s, corrugated [[roof]]ing sheets, and [[lead]] [[paint]]. Domestically produced consumer goods include [[plastics]], [[soap]], [[cork]], [[beer]], and [[soft drink]]s.<br /> <br /> Uganda has about 30,000 kilometers (18,750 mi.), of [[road]]s; some 2,800 kilometers (1,750 mi.) are paved. Most radiate from [[Kampala]]. The country has about 1,350 kilometers (800 mi.) of rail lines. A [[railroad]] originating at [[Mombasa]] on the [[Indian Ocean]] connects with [[Tororo]], where it branches westward to [[Jinja]], Kampala, and [[Kasese]] and northward to [[Mbale]], [[Soroti]], [[Lira]], [[Gulu]], and [[Kapwatch]], though the routes west of Kampala and north of Mbale currently are not in use. Uganda's important road and rail links to Mombasa serve its transport needs and also those of its neighbors &amp;mdash; [[Rwanda]], [[Burundi]], and parts of the [[Congo]] and [[Sudan]]. An international [[airport]] is at [[Entebbe]] on the shores of [[Lake Victoria]], some 20 miles south of Kampala.<br /> <br /> *[[GDP]] (nominal, 2005/2006): $9.4 [[billion]]<br /> *[[Inflation]] rate (annual headline or CPI, 2005/2006): 6.6%<br /> *Natural resources: [[Cobalt]], [[carbon]], [[copper]], [[tungsten]], [[tin]], and [[sodium]]<br /> *Agriculture: Cash crops: coffee, tea, cotton, tobacco, [[sugarcane]], cut flowers, vanilla. Food crops: [[banana]]s, [[corn]], [[cassava]], [[potatoe]]s, [[millet]], [[pulse]]s. Livestock and fisheries: [[beef]], [[goat]], [[meat]], [[milk]], Nile [[perch]], [[tilapia]] <br /> *Industry: processing of agricultural products (cotton [[gin]]ning, coffee [[cure|curing]]), cement production, [[light]] consumer goods, [[textile]]s<br /> *Trade: Exports (2005/2006)--$887.5 [[million]]: coffee, fish and fish products, tea, electricity, horticultural products, vanilla, cut flowers, remittances from abroad. Major markets--[[EU]], [[Kenya]], [[South Africa]], [[U.K.]], [[U.S.]] Imports (2005/2006)--$1.99 [[billion]]: capital equipment, vehicles, petroleum, medical supplies, [[chemical]], [[cereal]]s. Major suppliers--[[OPEC]] countries, Kenya, EU, [[India]], South Africa, U.S. <br /> *Fiscal year: July 1 &amp;ndash; June 30 annually<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> When [[Arab]] traders moved inland from their enclaves along the [[Indian Ocean]] coast of [[East Africa]] and reached the interior of Uganda in the 1830s, they found several African kingdoms with well-developed political institutions dating back several centuries. These traders were followed in the 1860s by British explorers searching for the source of the Nile River. [[Protestant]] missionaries entered the country in 1877, followed by [[Catholic]] missionaries in 1879. <br /> <br /> In 1888, control of the emerging British &quot;sphere of interest&quot; in East Africa was assigned by royal charter to the Imperial [[British East Africa Company]], an arrangement strengthened in 1890 by an Anglo-German agreement confirming British dominance over Kenya and Uganda. In 1894, the Kingdom of [[Buganda]] was placed under a formal British [[protectorate]].<br /> <br /> Britain granted internal self-government to Uganda in 1961, with the first elections held on March 1, 1961. [[Benedicto Kiwanuka]] of the [[Democratic Party]] became the first Chief Minister. Uganda maintained its [[Commonwealth]] membership. A second round of elections in April 1962 elected members to a new National Assembly. [[Milton Obote]], leader of the majority coalition in the National Assembly, became prime minister and led Uganda to formal independence on October 9, 1962. <br /> <br /> In succeeding years, supporters of a centralized state vied with those in favor of a loose federation and a strong role for tribally-based local kingdoms. Political maneuvering climaxed in February 1966, when Prime Minister Milton Obote suspended the constitution, assumed all government powers, and removed the ceremonial president and vice president. In September 1967, a new constitution proclaimed Uganda a republic, gave the president even greater powers, and abolished the traditional kingdoms. On January 25, 1971, Obote's government was ousted in a military coup led by armed forces commander [[Idi Amin Dada]]. Amin declared himself president, dissolved the parliament, and amended the constitution to give himself absolute power. <br /> <br /> Amin's 8-year rule produced economic decline, social disintegration, and massive human rights violations. The [[Acholi]] and [[Langi]] ethnic groups were particular objects of Amin's political persecution because they had supported Obote and made up a large part of the army. In 1978, the International Commission of Jurists estimated that more than 100,000 Ugandans had been murdered during Amin's reign of terror; some authorities place the figure much higher.<br /> <br /> In October 1978, the armed forces of [[Tanzania]] repulsed an incursion of Amin's troops into Tanzanian territory. The Tanzanian force, backed by Ugandan exiles, waged a [[Uganda-Tanzania War|war of liberation]] against Amin's troops and Libyan soldiers sent to help him. On April 11, 1979, [[Kampala]] was captured, and Amin fled with his remaining forces.<br /> <br /> After Amin's self-imposed exile, the Uganda National Liberation Front formed an interim government with [[Yusuf Lulz]] as president. This government adopted a ministerial system of administration and created a quasi-parliamentary organ known as the National Consultative Commission (NCC). The NCC and the Lulz cabinet reflected widely differing political views. In June 1979, following a dispute over the extent of presidential powers, the NCC replaced Lulz with [[Godfrey Binaisa]]. In a continuing dispute over the powers of the interim presidency, Binaisa was removed in May 1980. Thereafter, Uganda was ruled by a military commission chaired by [[Paulo Muwanga]]. December 1980 elections returned the UPC to power under the leadership of President Obote, with Muwanga serving as vice president. Under Obote, the security forces had one of the world's worst [[human rights]] records. In their efforts to stamp out an [[insurgency]] led by [[Yoweri Museveni]]'s National Resistance Army (NRA), they laid waste to a substantial section of the country, especially in the [[Luwero]] area north of [[Kampala]].<br /> <br /> Obote ruled until July 27, 1985, when an army brigade, composed mostly of ethnic Acholi troops and commanded by Lt. Gen. Basilio Olara-Okello, took Kampala and proclaimed a military government. Obote fled to exile in Zambia. The new regime, headed by former defense force commander Gen. Tito Okello (no relation to Lt. Gen. Olara-Okello), opened negotiations with Museveni's insurgent forces and pledged to improve respect for human rights, end [[tribal]] rivalry, and conduct &quot;free and fair&quot; elections. In the meantime, massive human rights violations continued as the Okello government murdered civilians and ravaged the countryside in order to destroy the NRA's support. <br /> <br /> Negotiations between the Okello government and the NRA were conducted in [[Nairobi]] in the fall of 1985, with Kenyan President [[Daniel Moi]] seeking a cease-fire and a coalition government in Uganda. Although agreeing in late 1985 to a [[cease-fire]], the NRA continued fighting, seized Kampala in late January 1986, and assumed control of the country, forcing Okello to flee north into [[Sudan]]. Museveni's forces organized a government with Museveni as president and dominated by the political grouping called the National Resistance Movement (NRM or the &quot;Movement&quot;). <br /> <br /> A referendum was held in March 2000 on whether Uganda should retain the Movement system, with limited operation of political parties, or adopt multi-party politics. Although 70% of voters endorsed retention of the Movement system, the referendum was widely criticized for low voter turnout and unfair restrictions on Movement opponents. Museveni was reelected to a second five-year term in March 2001. Parliamentary elections were held in June 2001, and more than 50% of contested seats were won by newcomers. Movement supporters nevertheless remained in firm control of the legislative branch. Observers believed that the 2001 presidential and parliamentary elections generally reflected the will of the electorate; however, both were marred by serious irregularities, particularly in the period leading up to the elections, such as restrictions on political party activities, incidents of violence, voter intimidation, and fraud. <br /> <br /> A Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) issued a report proposing comprehensive constitutional change in December 2003. The government, however, took issue with many CRC recommendations and made counter-proposals in September 2004. A July 2005 national referendum resulted in the adoption of a multiparty system of government and the subsequent inclusion of opposition parties in elections and government. <br /> <br /> In February 2006, the country held its first multiparty general elections since President Museveni came to power in 1986. The election generally reflected the will of the people, although [[election fraud|serious irregularities]] occurred. Ruling NRM candidate President Museveni was declared the winner with 59.26% of the vote, giving him a third term in office following the passage of a controversial amendment in June 2005 to eliminate presidential term limits. Opposition FDC leader [[Kizza Besigye]] captured 37.39% of the vote, while the remaining contestants received less than 2% of the vote each, according to official figures from the Electoral Commission.<br /> <br /> ==Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009==<br /> In 2009, Member of Parliament David Bahati submitted a bill before the Parliament of Uganda which would introduce the death penalty for homosexuals with previous convictions, have [[HIV]], and homosexuals who commit acts of pedophilia. In addition, it would impose imprisonment or fines on anyone who did not report an offender within 24 hours. A Ugandan Parliament Committee is currently discussing the bill.&lt;ref&gt;http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110509/ap_on_re_af/af_uganda_gays&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:African Countries]]<br /> [[Category:Landlocked Countries]]<br /> [[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]<br /> [[Category:Uganda|*]]<br /> [[Category:African History]]<br /> [[Category:Africa]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=920414 2011-09-24T13:26:48Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Banned user */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;center&gt;''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''&lt;/center&gt;<br /> __NEWSECTIONLINK__<br /> [[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> ==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==<br /> <br /> I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] (&quot;pervades the inner city culture greatly&quot;) and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==<br /> <br /> Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:<br /> <br /> 1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].<br /> <br /> 2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic. <br /> <br /> 3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being &quot;demonic&quot; offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair &quot;exorcist&quot; commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights. <br /> <br /> Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was &quot;demonic&quot; I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.<br /> <br /> 4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past. <br /> <br /> 5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics. <br /> <br /> 6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]]. <br /> <br /> 7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says &quot;Atheism is true because I say so&quot; or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''<br /> :Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]]. <br /> :Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in &quot;Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)....&quot;? <br /> :*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''<br /> :I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=888699]<br /> :*''suggested a blocking review board ''<br /> :You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have. <br /> :*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''<br /> :And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''<br /> :::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it. <br /> :::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.<br /> :::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Rude and insulting behaviour ==<br /> <br /> Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> Max you wrote at this wiki: &quot;Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''&quot; (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: &quot;Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called &quot;Uncircumcision &quot; by the so-called &quot;Circumcision,&quot; which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.&quot; Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]<br /> ::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==<br /> Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is &quot;sysops playing the bully&quot;, yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.<br /> :::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception. <br /> :::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.<br /> :::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> (unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, &quot;a vulgar&quot; comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou &amp; User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the &quot;thin skinned&quot; comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents. <br /> :::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.<br /> :::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say &quot;Thank you, we're not interested,&quot; and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying &quot;Goodbye&quot; and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking &quot;no&quot; for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' &quot;our&quot; is also &quot;me&quot; because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states, <br /> :::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,'' <br /> ::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states, <br /> :::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==a perspective from a pianist==<br /> MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.<br /> <br /> But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only &quot;original&quot; content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical &quot;parody&quot; pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop &quot;community,&quot; if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.<br /> <br /> My whole time here, I've heard it argued, &quot;well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism.&quot; In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call &quot;the best of the public,&quot; and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.<br /> <br /> My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them &quot;faux&quot; answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not &quot;serious accusations&quot; these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a &quot;dig at conservative&quot; i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me &quot;demonic&quot; at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> (unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was &quot;Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind.&quot; Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is <br /> :'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''<br /> But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==And end to this==<br /> <br /> Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==<br /> <br /> TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, &quot;the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi&quot;, is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my &quot;castle&quot; and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of &quot;pesterfesting&quot;.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you<br /> ::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...<br /> ::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*<br /> ::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking &quot;View full log&quot;. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> (unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == User:Conservative ==<br /> <br /> I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.<br /> <br /> Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.<br /> <br /> I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.<br /> <br /> A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc. <br /> <br /> User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.<br /> <br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.<br /> <br /> Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.<br /> <br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==<br /> <br /> I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.<br /> <br /> Here are my suggestions: <br /> <br /> 1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this. <br /> <br /> 2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel. <br /> <br /> 3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling. <br /> <br /> 4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product. <br /> <br /> Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:<br /> <br /> *[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]<br /> <br /> *[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I sent an email to Iduan to find out when his vacation is over. I expect to receive a reply within 2-7 days. In the meantime, people who are going to be on the blocking policy refinement panel may want to look at these two pages: [[User:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] and [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::The panel is convening on 8/17/11: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==<br /> <br /> Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Yes votes:'''<br /> <br /> Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''No votes:'''<br /> <br /> (EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and &quot;archiving&quot; the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this &quot;vote&quot;. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> === A question for the ''ayes'' ===<br /> Would you have voted for '''deleting''' the archives, too? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Yes. While there might have been some good points in those discussions, the vast majority was name-calling by troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets. Keeping it around gives a false impression of the site, which is exactly what the troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets want. If any of the discussion in those archives was worthwhile, I'm sure it'll be brought up again in a more orderly fashion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> == Why were the archives deleted? ==<br /> <br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I second that question. &quot;Starting off with a clean slate&quot; should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==On archiving==<br /> By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean &quot;yes, go ahead with it?&quot; [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was &quot;it does not matter&quot;. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]<br /> :::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-<br /> *it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)<br /> *To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative! <br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were &quot;archived&quot; without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.<br /> *And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''<br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive to which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your &quot;expert&quot; opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?<br /> :# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?<br /> :# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy'' That may be a very promising development...<br /> :# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.<br /> :By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks<br /> :[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite to the panel so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall ==<br /> <br /> A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:<br /> <br /> *[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]<br /> <br /> *[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] <br /> <br /> I am sending an email to [[User:Iduan]] to determine when he is returning from his vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I have blocking rights. May I join?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:10, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I added you to list. I don't think there will be any objections to me doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Response to Karajou==<br /> I told Andy yesterday I would respond to these baseless charges today, but spent the better part of the last nine hours blocked after User:Conservative flip-flopped, reverted himself, and unblocked me (I'll accept your apology later, User:Conservative, for inconveniencing me). But to Mr. Karajou: you seem to be of the opinion that,<br /> :'''A little leven leveneth the whole lump.'''<br /> That would be true, if Conservapedia were a monolith, requiring ideological conformity. But it's not, and never has been. Let's not forget the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares,<br /> :'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares#Narrative An enemy hath done this]. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.''' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:29, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> Here is the evidence that I am aware of:<br /> <br /> 1. Both RobS and TracyS edited from the same IP address. After Karajou pointed this out, I personally confirmed this matter. <br /> <br /> 2. Both were somewhat obsessed with my talk page design in an annoying way despite the fact that Conservapedia says a user's talk page is his/her castle. At the time, I had a system for leaving messages to me. I have since closes my talk page for leaving messages due to RobS and his atheist pals use of pestering tactics. <br /> <br /> 3. Both were dishonest. For example, RobS claiming he referred to me as demonic at Conservapedia which he never did as he knows the charge was baseless plus he didn't have the guts to do this at Conservapedia, but instead chose to do this at an atheist gutter website that is filled with obscenity and gossip. TracyS claimed he/she was not trying to annoy me about my talk despite using language purposely meant to annoy. <br /> <br /> 4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative. <br /> <br /> 5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter. <br /> <br /> RobS is still an egotist and has learned nothing. It would be a big mistake at this time to give him back his Sysop/Admin rights. He would just foment a lot of useless drama and nonsense. Conservapedia doesn't need RobS the egotist to change its blocking policy and a panel of which he is not a part to refine its blocking policy is far better suited to the task. I invited people to take part in such a panel and some have accepted my invitation to take part in the panel. <br /> <br /> I did block RobS earlier for a short spell due to him being disruptive to me posting a notice in this room that would be more constructive than much of the current content which I archived. However, with another Sysops's assistance I was able to send out invitations to the appropriate parties so the notice at the community portal was no longer needed so I unblocked RobS and de-archived the material. Given his past behavior, I see no reason to apologize for any inconvenience this caused RobS. <br /> <br /> I will now let RobS give his empty sales pitch on how his desysoping was all a misunderstanding and a mistake on Aschlafly's part. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :User:Conservative, I told Andy yesterday I would respond here, but was prevented by you and the whole day was wasted. Also, I see the whole page &amp; its Archives have been vandalized, as well as other users private user space, so I hesitate in wasting anymore time here. I will however, respond with this:<br /> :'''&quot;pesterfesting&quot;''': this is the term User:Conservative uses for what is commonly refereed to in the outside world as '''&quot;[[Advocacy]]&quot;'''. An advocate is a person who acts on behalf of others who are incapable, or have been prevented from acting on their own behalf. Two examples of advocates would be, (1) [[Andrew Schlafly]], noted attorney, and (2) [[Jesus Christ]], [[savior]] of the [[planet]]. Advocacy is very common in the world of wikis, but I can see where you would have difficultly with the idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:57, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RobS, in retrospect, I believe your &quot;pesterfesting&quot; was just a petty and narcissistic post TK power grab which tried to show others that you were the &quot;big man on campus&quot;. Second, I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find other things to do besides edit Conservapedia and that your whole day was wasted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==<br /> <br /> The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Android App? ==<br /> <br /> Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. [[User:JacobSmith|JacobSmith]] 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == My Testimony ==<br /> <br /> I was a liberal atheist. About two weeks ago, I was talking to a Conservative friend of mine and she pointed me to the site conservapedia.com. So I came here and read a few articles. Then read a few more. Then when I noticed registration was open, I signed up, but didn't contribute right away, but I kept reading. I read [[Christian apologetics]], [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]] and some wonderful essays too numerous to list. While reading, I felt...something. Something I haven't felt since I was a child. Yesterday, Sunday Morning, I did something I haven't done in nearly 30 years: I went to church. It was wonderful and I do believe I felt the Holy Spirit. I don't believe I deserve to call myself a Christian yet, but I'm looking forward to next Sunday. :-) Thank you all. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Summer Paper Gone Bad ==<br /> <br /> Summer is drawing to a close and school is beginning again. I have decided to write my essay on the origin of the moon, citing Conservapedia several times. When my teacher (this is a public school) gave me my paper back with the grade an all, he gave me a 62. In addition, he gave me a &quot;good talking to&quot; on not using Wikipedia. I tried to explain him that Conservapedia is different, he just wouldn't listen! He gave me the opportunity to do the paper again using different sources. I don't want to use different sources, because they are most often plagued with bias. My question is simple- how do we separate ourselves from Wikipedia to the general public, and how to we improve our reputation? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Wikis are not normally considered good sources for research as they are generally open and can be edited by anyone. And any decent teacher (public school or not) probably won't accept an encyclopedia of any kind (hard copy or online) as a source for a research paper, as they normally want the student to actually do some research. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:06, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::William, the good news is you were docked points for your sources and not for content. That implies that your teacher has an open mind. I'd suggest Answers in Genesis, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Creation Ministries International or look at some of Ray Comfort's books. Of course, these sources are all the work of man and are therefore always biased and flawed. For the truth, you'll want to turn to the Bible. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly ==<br /> <br /> I was [[User:WalterS]] and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by [[User:Karajou]] for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to [[User:Aschlafly]] and [[User:Conservative]]. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Your sentiments are appreciated. With the being said, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlafly is the sole owner of the website. My articles tend to receive web traffic, but for the most part I create articles and I have blocked some vandals as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Banned user ==<br /> <br /> Conservative recently banned SamCoulter for &quot;putting garbage into article&quot;. However, the 'garbage' was a legitimate point backed up by a valid reference. Indeed, the same reference has been cited by Conservative on the main page. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :This is a non-starter. Conservative is a senior admin with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of quality edits. This is a meritocracy, David. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Almost 5% of his &quot;tens of thousands&quot; of quality edits are minor edits. He also created 4 different articles all with the same information as a main article. From what it seemed, SamCoulter was just trying to bring more facts to the table. Three months seems too excessive for something that wasn't even explained as to &quot;why it doesn't belong&quot;. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I don't agree with Conservative's articles on this topic. That said, I did not get the impression that SamCoulter meant what he posted as a serious contribution, but rather simply as an attempt to &quot;prove a point&quot;. He basically [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:SamCoulter&amp;curid=114914&amp;diff=920263&amp;oldid=920262 admitted the same himself, and called himself &quot;juvenile&quot;]. One should consider those facts before drawing any conclusions. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:14, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::Nice job taking things out of context. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 00:32, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::I do not see how I am doing so. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 00:55, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::It's like people who quote verses from the Bible (specifically Leviticus). They quote what they want and not its entirety. He admitted what he did was juvenile, but he felt he had to do it that way to bring attention to a topic that Aschlafly appeared to be ignoring. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:04, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::SamCoulter behaved in a manner which, by his own admission, was juvenile, and as a result was blocked. That is the topic being addressed in this section. The issue of those articles, and what position Mr. Schlafly takes or ought to take with respect to them, is a separate discussion which does not belong in this section. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:17, 24 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> Getting back to the point; Conservative banned SamCoulter specifically for &quot;putting garbage into article&quot;. However, the 'garbage' in question was fully-referenced material, indeed it used the same reference as Conservative had on the main page, and SamCoulter was pretty much quoting what the referenced article stated. The number of edits an admin has made is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a particular block was justified. A block must be judged according to the specific circumstances of the case, not the past activities of the admin doing the blocking. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 09:26, 24 September 2011 (EDT)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=920269 2011-09-24T03:14:26Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Wrong predictions */ evolution only argues that they are possible, not that they 'must' exist. Therefore even if the prediction is wrong, it is not a counterexample. See talk page</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]<br /> The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that&lt;ref&gt;Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.&lt;/ref&gt;), then the odds that these 48 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 9%.<br /> ==Counterexamples==<br /> ===Logical examples===<br /> # 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]&lt;/small&gt;]] <br /> # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the &quot;improvement&quot; of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # 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 tens of millions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=90743&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Lack of mechanism===<br /> [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation&lt;ref&gt;[[migration]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a &quot;code&quot; or &quot;language,&quot; as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.<br /> # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably &quot;grown&quot; from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.&lt;ref&gt;http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])&lt;/small&gt;]]<br /> # Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.<br /> # Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.<br /> # Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.<br /> #In February 2010 NASA-funded researchers at Mono Lake in California found a new strain of microbe which substitutes the phosphorous normally found in cellular components (such as DNA and RNA) with arsenic.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html&lt;/ref&gt; If this had occurred step by step due to a random mutation in part of the genome the mutant would have been unable to reproduce, and the odds against the entire genome mutating to use a normally toxic element simultaneously are too high for this to be credible. This rules out the microbe having a common ancestor with all other living things. However the microbe (known as GFAJ-1) is a member of a common group of bacteria, which rules out life on Earth having evolved from two separate original organisms (one phosphorous- and one arsenic-based.) The most parsimonious explanation is that GFAJ-1 was separately created.<br /> <br /> ===Maladaptation===<br /> [[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]<br /> # Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.<br /> # The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.&lt;ref&gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”&lt;ref&gt;''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.<br /> # Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.<br /> # Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.<br /> <br /> ===Wrong predictions===<br /> [[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&lt;ref&gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.<br /> # Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are &quot;[[junk DNA]]&quot; and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called &quot;junk DNA&quot; has been shown to be useful.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of &quot;[[argument from poor design|bad design]]&quot; in the bodies of many organisms, such as &quot;flaws&quot; in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such &quot;flaws&quot; are actually &quot;a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.<br /> <br /> ===Missing fossils===<br /> [[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]<br /> # The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.<br /> # No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record&lt;ref&gt;[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of &quot;On the Origin of Species&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.<br /> # Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.<br /> <br /> === Irreducible Complexity===<br /> # The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] <br /> # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.<br /> # The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.<br /> # The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.&lt;ref&gt;[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]&lt;/ref&gt; Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.<br /> # Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.<br /> # &quot;Social insects&quot; such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.<br /> <br /> ===Uncategorized===<br /> <br /> # No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.<br /> # The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, &quot;the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years&quot; and &quot;3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, &quot;As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population.&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Logical Conclusion ==<br /> As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.<br /> <br /> {{evolution}}<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Atheism]]<br /> *[[Evolution and atheism]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Answers to Question evolution!]]<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[category:Evolution]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=920268 2011-09-24T03:07:32Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Banned user */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;center&gt;''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''&lt;/center&gt;<br /> __NEWSECTIONLINK__<br /> [[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> ==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==<br /> <br /> I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] (&quot;pervades the inner city culture greatly&quot;) and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==<br /> <br /> Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:<br /> <br /> 1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].<br /> <br /> 2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic. <br /> <br /> 3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being &quot;demonic&quot; offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair &quot;exorcist&quot; commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights. <br /> <br /> Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was &quot;demonic&quot; I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.<br /> <br /> 4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past. <br /> <br /> 5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics. <br /> <br /> 6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]]. <br /> <br /> 7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says &quot;Atheism is true because I say so&quot; or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''<br /> :Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]]. <br /> :Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in &quot;Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)....&quot;? <br /> :*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''<br /> :I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=888699]<br /> :*''suggested a blocking review board ''<br /> :You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have. <br /> :*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''<br /> :And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''<br /> :::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it. <br /> :::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.<br /> :::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Rude and insulting behaviour ==<br /> <br /> Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> Max you wrote at this wiki: &quot;Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''&quot; (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: &quot;Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called &quot;Uncircumcision &quot; by the so-called &quot;Circumcision,&quot; which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.&quot; Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]<br /> ::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==<br /> Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is &quot;sysops playing the bully&quot;, yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.<br /> :::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception. <br /> :::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.<br /> :::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> (unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, &quot;a vulgar&quot; comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou &amp; User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the &quot;thin skinned&quot; comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents. <br /> :::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.<br /> :::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say &quot;Thank you, we're not interested,&quot; and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying &quot;Goodbye&quot; and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking &quot;no&quot; for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' &quot;our&quot; is also &quot;me&quot; because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states, <br /> :::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,'' <br /> ::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states, <br /> :::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==a perspective from a pianist==<br /> MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.<br /> <br /> But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only &quot;original&quot; content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical &quot;parody&quot; pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop &quot;community,&quot; if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.<br /> <br /> My whole time here, I've heard it argued, &quot;well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism.&quot; In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call &quot;the best of the public,&quot; and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.<br /> <br /> My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them &quot;faux&quot; answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not &quot;serious accusations&quot; these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a &quot;dig at conservative&quot; i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me &quot;demonic&quot; at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> (unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was &quot;Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind.&quot; Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is <br /> :'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''<br /> But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==And end to this==<br /> <br /> Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==<br /> <br /> TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, &quot;the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi&quot;, is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my &quot;castle&quot; and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of &quot;pesterfesting&quot;.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you<br /> ::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...<br /> ::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*<br /> ::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::::I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking &quot;View full log&quot;. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> (unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == User:Conservative ==<br /> <br /> I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.<br /> <br /> Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.<br /> <br /> I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.<br /> <br /> A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc. <br /> <br /> User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.<br /> <br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.<br /> <br /> Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.<br /> <br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==<br /> <br /> I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.<br /> <br /> Here are my suggestions: <br /> <br /> 1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this. <br /> <br /> 2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel. <br /> <br /> 3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling. <br /> <br /> 4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product. <br /> <br /> Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:<br /> <br /> *[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]<br /> <br /> *[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I sent an email to Iduan to find out when his vacation is over. I expect to receive a reply within 2-7 days. In the meantime, people who are going to be on the blocking policy refinement panel may want to look at these two pages: [[User:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] and [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::The panel is convening on 8/17/11: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==<br /> <br /> Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Yes votes:'''<br /> <br /> Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''No votes:'''<br /> <br /> (EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and &quot;archiving&quot; the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this &quot;vote&quot;. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> === A question for the ''ayes'' ===<br /> Would you have voted for '''deleting''' the archives, too? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Yes. While there might have been some good points in those discussions, the vast majority was name-calling by troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets. Keeping it around gives a false impression of the site, which is exactly what the troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets want. If any of the discussion in those archives was worthwhile, I'm sure it'll be brought up again in a more orderly fashion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> == Why were the archives deleted? ==<br /> <br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I second that question. &quot;Starting off with a clean slate&quot; should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==On archiving==<br /> By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean &quot;yes, go ahead with it?&quot; [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was &quot;it does not matter&quot;. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]<br /> :::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-<br /> *it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)<br /> *To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative! <br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were &quot;archived&quot; without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.<br /> *And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''<br /> [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive to which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your &quot;expert&quot; opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?<br /> :# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?<br /> :# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy'' That may be a very promising development...<br /> :# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.<br /> :By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks<br /> :[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite to the panel so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall ==<br /> <br /> A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:<br /> <br /> *[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]<br /> <br /> *[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] <br /> <br /> I am sending an email to [[User:Iduan]] to determine when he is returning from his vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--&lt;small&gt;[[User:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&quot;&gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&quot;&gt;Duan]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::I have blocking rights. May I join?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:10, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::I added you to list. I don't think there will be any objections to me doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Response to Karajou==<br /> I told Andy yesterday I would respond to these baseless charges today, but spent the better part of the last nine hours blocked after User:Conservative flip-flopped, reverted himself, and unblocked me (I'll accept your apology later, User:Conservative, for inconveniencing me). But to Mr. Karajou: you seem to be of the opinion that,<br /> :'''A little leven leveneth the whole lump.'''<br /> That would be true, if Conservapedia were a monolith, requiring ideological conformity. But it's not, and never has been. Let's not forget the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares,<br /> :'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares#Narrative An enemy hath done this]. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.''' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:29, 13 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> Here is the evidence that I am aware of:<br /> <br /> 1. Both RobS and TracyS edited from the same IP address. After Karajou pointed this out, I personally confirmed this matter. <br /> <br /> 2. Both were somewhat obsessed with my talk page design in an annoying way despite the fact that Conservapedia says a user's talk page is his/her castle. At the time, I had a system for leaving messages to me. I have since closes my talk page for leaving messages due to RobS and his atheist pals use of pestering tactics. <br /> <br /> 3. Both were dishonest. For example, RobS claiming he referred to me as demonic at Conservapedia which he never did as he knows the charge was baseless plus he didn't have the guts to do this at Conservapedia, but instead chose to do this at an atheist gutter website that is filled with obscenity and gossip. TracyS claimed he/she was not trying to annoy me about my talk despite using language purposely meant to annoy. <br /> <br /> 4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative. <br /> <br /> 5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter. <br /> <br /> RobS is still an egotist and has learned nothing. It would be a big mistake at this time to give him back his Sysop/Admin rights. He would just foment a lot of useless drama and nonsense. Conservapedia doesn't need RobS the egotist to change its blocking policy and a panel of which he is not a part to refine its blocking policy is far better suited to the task. I invited people to take part in such a panel and some have accepted my invitation to take part in the panel. <br /> <br /> I did block RobS earlier for a short spell due to him being disruptive to me posting a notice in this room that would be more constructive than much of the current content which I archived. However, with another Sysops's assistance I was able to send out invitations to the appropriate parties so the notice at the community portal was no longer needed so I unblocked RobS and de-archived the material. Given his past behavior, I see no reason to apologize for any inconvenience this caused RobS. <br /> <br /> I will now let RobS give his empty sales pitch on how his desysoping was all a misunderstanding and a mistake on Aschlafly's part. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :User:Conservative, I told Andy yesterday I would respond here, but was prevented by you and the whole day was wasted. Also, I see the whole page &amp; its Archives have been vandalized, as well as other users private user space, so I hesitate in wasting anymore time here. I will however, respond with this:<br /> :'''&quot;pesterfesting&quot;''': this is the term User:Conservative uses for what is commonly refereed to in the outside world as '''&quot;[[Advocacy]]&quot;'''. An advocate is a person who acts on behalf of others who are incapable, or have been prevented from acting on their own behalf. Two examples of advocates would be, (1) [[Andrew Schlafly]], noted attorney, and (2) [[Jesus Christ]], [[savior]] of the [[planet]]. Advocacy is very common in the world of wikis, but I can see where you would have difficultly with the idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:57, 14 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::RobS, in retrospect, I believe your &quot;pesterfesting&quot; was just a petty and narcissistic post TK power grab which tried to show others that you were the &quot;big man on campus&quot;. Second, I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find other things to do besides edit Conservapedia and that your whole day was wasted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==<br /> <br /> The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Android App? ==<br /> <br /> Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. [[User:JacobSmith|JacobSmith]] 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == My Testimony ==<br /> <br /> I was a liberal atheist. About two weeks ago, I was talking to a Conservative friend of mine and she pointed me to the site conservapedia.com. So I came here and read a few articles. Then read a few more. Then when I noticed registration was open, I signed up, but didn't contribute right away, but I kept reading. I read [[Christian apologetics]], [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]] and some wonderful essays too numerous to list. While reading, I felt...something. Something I haven't felt since I was a child. Yesterday, Sunday Morning, I did something I haven't done in nearly 30 years: I went to church. It was wonderful and I do believe I felt the Holy Spirit. I don't believe I deserve to call myself a Christian yet, but I'm looking forward to next Sunday. :-) Thank you all. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Summer Paper Gone Bad ==<br /> <br /> Summer is drawing to a close and school is beginning again. I have decided to write my essay on the origin of the moon, citing Conservapedia several times. When my teacher (this is a public school) gave me my paper back with the grade an all, he gave me a 62. In addition, he gave me a &quot;good talking to&quot; on not using Wikipedia. I tried to explain him that Conservapedia is different, he just wouldn't listen! He gave me the opportunity to do the paper again using different sources. I don't want to use different sources, because they are most often plagued with bias. My question is simple- how do we separate ourselves from Wikipedia to the general public, and how to we improve our reputation? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :Wikis are not normally considered good sources for research as they are generally open and can be edited by anyone. And any decent teacher (public school or not) probably won't accept an encyclopedia of any kind (hard copy or online) as a source for a research paper, as they normally want the student to actually do some research. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:06, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::William, the good news is you were docked points for your sources and not for content. That implies that your teacher has an open mind. I'd suggest Answers in Genesis, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Creation Ministries International or look at some of Ray Comfort's books. Of course, these sources are all the work of man and are therefore always biased and flawed. For the truth, you'll want to turn to the Bible. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly ==<br /> <br /> I was [[User:WalterS]] and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by [[User:Karajou]] for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to [[User:Aschlafly]] and [[User:Conservative]]. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::Your sentiments are appreciated. With the being said, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlafly is the sole owner of the website. My articles tend to receive web traffic, but for the most part I create articles and I have blocked some vandals as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Banned user ==<br /> <br /> Conservative recently banned SamCoulter for &quot;putting garbage into article&quot;. However, the 'garbage' was a legitimate point backed up by a valid reference. Indeed, the same reference has been cited by Conservative on the main page. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tsunami&diff=920261 2011-09-24T02:26:13Z

<p>DavidZa: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Japan tsunami.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Tsunami waves approaching Kessennuma port, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, in the aftermath of the 8.9 magnitude earthquake of March 11, 2011 (Reuters/Yomiuri).<br /> <br /> Reuters/Yomiuri 2011]]<br /> A '''tsunami''' (also, but inaccurately, referred to as a Tidal Wave), which is Japanese for &quot;harbor wave,&quot; is a massive ocean wave typically caused by an underwater [[earthquake]], a submarine landslide or a coastal landslide. It can cause widespread death and destruction, and even erase entire islands from the surface of the globe. The tsunami that struck South Asia on December 26, 2004, caused the deaths of about 300,000 people.<br /> <br /> [[National Geographic]] and others have reported that animals protect themselves, such as by scampering to high ground, in anticipation of the tsunami flooding their area.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-01-03-tsunami-blog_x.htm&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> <br /> A '''tsunami''' is also used as a popular metaphor to describe a big change in voter or consumer preferences.<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;center&gt;<br /> [[File:Tsunami Wave Height Pacific.jpg|400px|center]]<br /> <br /> Tsunami Wave Height, Pacific Ocean.<br /> &lt;/center&gt;<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[category:meteorology]]<br /> [[category:natural Disasters]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=920245 2011-09-24T02:02:44Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Vestigial organs */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and &quot;old Earth&quot; 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=920242 2011-09-24T02:00:12Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Vestigial organs */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and &quot;old Earth&quot; 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=920238 2011-09-24T01:56:33Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Vestigial organs */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and &quot;old Earth&quot; 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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=920232 2011-09-24T01:48:56Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Declining human fertility */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and &quot;old Earth&quot; 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)<br /> :::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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=920230 2011-09-24T01:41:00Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Maladaptation */ This example appears to be contradictory; saying it provides benefits but is poor design??? I'm not sure what the point being made here is.</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]<br /> The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that&lt;ref&gt;Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.&lt;/ref&gt;), then the odds that these 48 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 9%.<br /> ==Counterexamples==<br /> ===Logical examples===<br /> # 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]&lt;/small&gt;]] <br /> # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the &quot;improvement&quot; of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # 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 tens of millions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=90743&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Lack of mechanism===<br /> [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation&lt;ref&gt;[[migration]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a &quot;code&quot; or &quot;language,&quot; as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.<br /> # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably &quot;grown&quot; from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.&lt;ref&gt;http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])&lt;/small&gt;]]<br /> # Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.<br /> # Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.<br /> # Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.<br /> #In February 2010 NASA-funded researchers at Mono Lake in California found a new strain of microbe which substitutes the phosphorous normally found in cellular components (such as DNA and RNA) with arsenic.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html&lt;/ref&gt; If this had occurred step by step due to a random mutation in part of the genome the mutant would have been unable to reproduce, and the odds against the entire genome mutating to use a normally toxic element simultaneously are too high for this to be credible. This rules out the microbe having a common ancestor with all other living things. However the microbe (known as GFAJ-1) is a member of a common group of bacteria, which rules out life on Earth having evolved from two separate original organisms (one phosphorous- and one arsenic-based.) The most parsimonious explanation is that GFAJ-1 was separately created.<br /> <br /> ===Maladaptation===<br /> [[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]<br /> # Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.<br /> # Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”&lt;ref&gt;''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.<br /> # Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.<br /> # Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.<br /> # [[Menopause]] renders women infertile, but this is clearly counter to evolutionary advantage. Evolutionists claim that only individuals capable of mating are useful to the species (see above discussion regarding social insects), so menopause should have been selected against by now to give women the best chance for producing the maximum number of offspring. However, several theories have been put forward to explain the apparent paradox. Firstly, that since the risks associated of bearing children increase after a certain age, it is little advantage in running the risk, especially as the mother may already have children that rely on her for survival. Secondly, in terms of groups, the menopause leads to 'post-reproductive grandmothers' who can assist their own offspring with raising their children &lt;ref&gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223885&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Wrong predictions===<br /> [[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&lt;ref&gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.<br /> # Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are &quot;[[junk DNA]]&quot; and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called &quot;junk DNA&quot; has been shown to be useful.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of &quot;[[argument from poor design|bad design]]&quot; in the bodies of many organisms, such as &quot;flaws&quot; in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such &quot;flaws&quot; are actually &quot;a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.<br /> <br /> ===Missing fossils===<br /> [[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]<br /> # The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.<br /> # No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record&lt;ref&gt;[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of &quot;On the Origin of Species&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.<br /> # Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.<br /> <br /> === Irreducible Complexity===<br /> # The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] <br /> # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.<br /> # The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.<br /> # The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.&lt;ref&gt;[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]&lt;/ref&gt; Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.<br /> # Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.<br /> # &quot;Social insects&quot; such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.<br /> <br /> ===Uncategorized===<br /> <br /> # No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.<br /> # The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, &quot;the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years&quot; and &quot;3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, &quot;As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population.&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Logical Conclusion ==<br /> As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.<br /> <br /> {{evolution}}<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Atheism]]<br /> *[[Evolution and atheism]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Answers to Question evolution!]]<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[category:Evolution]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=920229 2011-09-24T01:39:24Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Wrong predictions */ the lack of such organs, while perhaps an incorrect prediction, is not a counterexample. Evolution doesn't argue that such organs must exist, only that they can.</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]<br /> The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that&lt;ref&gt;Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.&lt;/ref&gt;), then the odds that these 48 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 9%.<br /> ==Counterexamples==<br /> ===Logical examples===<br /> # 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]&lt;/small&gt;]] <br /> # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the &quot;improvement&quot; of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # 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 tens of millions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=90743&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Lack of mechanism===<br /> [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation&lt;ref&gt;[[migration]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a &quot;code&quot; or &quot;language,&quot; as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.<br /> # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably &quot;grown&quot; from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.&lt;ref&gt;http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])&lt;/small&gt;]]<br /> # Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.<br /> # Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.<br /> # Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.<br /> #In February 2010 NASA-funded researchers at Mono Lake in California found a new strain of microbe which substitutes the phosphorous normally found in cellular components (such as DNA and RNA) with arsenic.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html&lt;/ref&gt; If this had occurred step by step due to a random mutation in part of the genome the mutant would have been unable to reproduce, and the odds against the entire genome mutating to use a normally toxic element simultaneously are too high for this to be credible. This rules out the microbe having a common ancestor with all other living things. However the microbe (known as GFAJ-1) is a member of a common group of bacteria, which rules out life on Earth having evolved from two separate original organisms (one phosphorous- and one arsenic-based.) The most parsimonious explanation is that GFAJ-1 was separately created.<br /> <br /> ===Maladaptation===<br /> [[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]<br /> # Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.<br /> # The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.&lt;ref&gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”&lt;ref&gt;''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.<br /> # Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.<br /> # Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.<br /> # [[Menopause]] renders women infertile, but this is clearly counter to evolutionary advantage. Evolutionists claim that only individuals capable of mating are useful to the species (see above discussion regarding social insects), so menopause should have been selected against by now to give women the best chance for producing the maximum number of offspring. However, several theories have been put forward to explain the apparent paradox. Firstly, that since the risks associated of bearing children increase after a certain age, it is little advantage in running the risk, especially as the mother may already have children that rely on her for survival. Secondly, in terms of groups, the menopause leads to 'post-reproductive grandmothers' who can assist their own offspring with raising their children &lt;ref&gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223885&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Wrong predictions===<br /> [[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&lt;ref&gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.<br /> # Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are &quot;[[junk DNA]]&quot; and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called &quot;junk DNA&quot; has been shown to be useful.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of &quot;[[argument from poor design|bad design]]&quot; in the bodies of many organisms, such as &quot;flaws&quot; in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such &quot;flaws&quot; are actually &quot;a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.<br /> <br /> ===Missing fossils===<br /> [[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]<br /> # The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.<br /> # No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record&lt;ref&gt;[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of &quot;On the Origin of Species&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.<br /> # Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.<br /> <br /> === Irreducible Complexity===<br /> # The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] <br /> # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.<br /> # The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.<br /> # The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.&lt;ref&gt;[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]&lt;/ref&gt; Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.<br /> # Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.<br /> # &quot;Social insects&quot; such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.<br /> <br /> ===Uncategorized===<br /> <br /> # No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.<br /> # The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, &quot;the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years&quot; and &quot;3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, &quot;As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population.&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Logical Conclusion ==<br /> As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.<br /> <br /> {{evolution}}<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Atheism]]<br /> *[[Evolution and atheism]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Answers to Question evolution!]]<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[category:Evolution]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=920226 2011-09-24T01:33:57Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Logical examples */ extinction rates are highly variable (e.g. impact events, climatic change, habitat destruction, over-hunting etc.)</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]<br /> The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that&lt;ref&gt;Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.&lt;/ref&gt;), then the odds that these 48 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 9%.<br /> ==Counterexamples==<br /> ===Logical examples===<br /> # 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; 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.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]&lt;/small&gt;]] <br /> # Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the &quot;improvement&quot; of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # 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 tens of millions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=90743&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Lack of mechanism===<br /> [[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: &quot;It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation&lt;ref&gt;[[migration]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a &quot;code&quot; or &quot;language,&quot; as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.<br /> # The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably &quot;grown&quot; from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.&lt;ref&gt;http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]&lt;/ref&gt;[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;small&gt;([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])&lt;/small&gt;]]<br /> # Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.<br /> # Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.<br /> # Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.<br /> #In February 2010 NASA-funded researchers at Mono Lake in California found a new strain of microbe which substitutes the phosphorous normally found in cellular components (such as DNA and RNA) with arsenic.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html&lt;/ref&gt; If this had occurred step by step due to a random mutation in part of the genome the mutant would have been unable to reproduce, and the odds against the entire genome mutating to use a normally toxic element simultaneously are too high for this to be credible. This rules out the microbe having a common ancestor with all other living things. However the microbe (known as GFAJ-1) is a member of a common group of bacteria, which rules out life on Earth having evolved from two separate original organisms (one phosphorous- and one arsenic-based.) The most parsimonious explanation is that GFAJ-1 was separately created.<br /> <br /> ===Maladaptation===<br /> [[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]<br /> # Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.<br /> # The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.&lt;ref&gt;Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”&lt;ref&gt;''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.<br /> # Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.<br /> # Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.<br /> # [[Menopause]] renders women infertile, but this is clearly counter to evolutionary advantage. Evolutionists claim that only individuals capable of mating are useful to the species (see above discussion regarding social insects), so menopause should have been selected against by now to give women the best chance for producing the maximum number of offspring. However, several theories have been put forward to explain the apparent paradox. Firstly, that since the risks associated of bearing children increase after a certain age, it is little advantage in running the risk, especially as the mother may already have children that rely on her for survival. Secondly, in terms of groups, the menopause leads to 'post-reproductive grandmothers' who can assist their own offspring with raising their children &lt;ref&gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223885&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Wrong predictions===<br /> [[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.&lt;ref&gt;http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm&lt;/ref&gt;]]<br /> # Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.<br /> # Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). &lt;ref&gt;Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are &quot;[[junk DNA]]&quot; and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called &quot;junk DNA&quot; has been shown to be useful.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # While evolutionists argue that there are examples of &quot;[[argument from poor design|bad design]]&quot; in the bodies of many organisms, such as &quot;flaws&quot; in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such &quot;flaws&quot; are actually &quot;a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.<br /> <br /> ===Missing fossils===<br /> [[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]<br /> # The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.<br /> # No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record&lt;ref&gt;[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of &quot;On the Origin of Species&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.<br /> # Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.<br /> <br /> === Irreducible Complexity===<br /> # The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]&lt;/ref&gt;[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]] <br /> # The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.<br /> # The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.<br /> # The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.&lt;ref&gt;[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]&lt;/ref&gt; Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.<br /> # Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.<br /> # &quot;Social insects&quot; such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.<br /> <br /> ===Uncategorized===<br /> <br /> # No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.<br /> # The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, &quot;the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years&quot; and &quot;3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, &quot;As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population.&quot;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Logical Conclusion ==<br /> As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.<br /> <br /> {{evolution}}<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Atheism]]<br /> *[[Evolution and atheism]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Answers to Question evolution!]]<br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[category:Evolution]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=920225 2011-09-24T01:32:30Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Declining human fertility */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Declining human fertility ==<br /> <br /> While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context &quot;fertility&quot; 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)<br /> :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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Earthquake&diff=919581 2011-09-23T00:47:54Z

<p>DavidZa: Undo revision 919578 by BrentH (talk) Karajou has weighed in on this on Talk: Main Page. This matter is now closed.</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Japan quake sendai.jpg|thumb|200px|Japan quake 2011.]]<br /> An '''earthquake''' is when the [[Earth]] shakes, caused by [[plate tectonics|tectonic]] activity in an area after the release of stored [[energy]] from the [[rock]]. Earthquakes most commonly occur on tectonic plate boundaries, and also occur along [[fault|faults]] where previous movement has occurred. There are currently 500,000 detectable earthquakes in the world each year. <br /> <br /> Earthquakes are a significant natural [[hazard]] to populations living in areas prone to them, and emergency responses to the hazard vary with economic development. The most powerful and destructive earthquakes occur at tectonic plate boundaries like the [[San Andreas Fault]].<br /> <br /> The severity of earthquakes is measured using the [[Moment Magnitude scale]], which replaced the [[Richter scale]] in the 1970s. The largest quake ever recorded had a magnitude of 9.5; it struck Chile in 1960&lt;ref&gt;http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/10_largest_world.php&lt;/ref&gt;. Technically the Moment Magnitude scale only measures the absolute magnitiude; the [[Mercalli scale]] is used to measure the felt magnitude - essentially how much the ground shakes over the epicentre of the quake.<br /> <br /> ==Causes of Earthquakes==<br /> <br /> '''Plate Boundaries'''<br /> <br /> Where tectonic plates are moving relative to each other, stress is created as friction prevents the edges of the plates from moving smoothly. When the stress has increased enough to overcome the friction, the plates will release the stored energy by moving abruptly, causing an earthquake.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Intra-Plate Earthquakes'''<br /> <br /> Large movements of plates may cause stress zones that extend far from the boundaries. When this stress includes a weak area in the plate - known as a fault - the fault can release energy by slipping abruptly, again causing an earthquake.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Vulcanism'''<br /> <br /> The movement of magma within volcanoes can induce earthquakes. These are often an indicator of an approaching eruption, as at Mount St Helens.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Japan quake World latest USGS - PD.jpg|550px|left]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Clear}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Seismic]]<br /> * [[Loma Prieta Earthquake]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.drgeorgepc.com/EarthquakesChina.html Historical Earthquakes in China]<br /> *[http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/ Latest Earthquakes in the World - Past 7 days.]<br /> *[http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/region/N_America.php Latest Earthquakes in the North America Region.]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Seismology]]<br /> [[Category:Natural Disasters]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=919579 2011-09-23T00:47:14Z

<p>DavidZa: Undo revision 919575 by BrentH (talk) Karajou has weighed in on this on Talk: Main Page. The matter is now closed.</p> <hr /> <div>It takes only one &quot;counterexample&quot; to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]].&lt;ref&gt;Most of the &quot;evidence&quot; for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack testability, as in [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in court.&lt;/ref&gt; As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of 37 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%. With the total of these counterexamples at 37, '''they demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%'''.&lt;ref&gt;The same analysis can be applied to the [[Young Earth]] theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts. In addition, there are over 100 evidences of a young [[earth]] and [[universe]] (Please see: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ''Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe'']).&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The motivation for [[atheist]]s to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from [[God]]'s immediate presence, and to turn them away from [[Jesus Christ]]. Also, they are motivated, and biased, by the fact that their [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] theories require a world which is billions of years old. <br /> <br /> == Counterexamples ==<br /> The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:<br /> <br /> === Astronomy ===<br /> # The [[moon|Moon's]] orbit is a very strong counterxample: The moon is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate&lt;ref&gt;&quot;Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year.&quot; [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).&lt;/ref&gt; that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today.&lt;br /&gt;Additionally, the [[moon]]'s orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability.&lt;ref&gt;http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212&lt;/ref&gt; This disproves the theory of an [[Old Earth]] even further.<br /> # [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.<br /> # The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: &quot;An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ....&quot;]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar &amp; M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm &quot;Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction&quot;]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these is too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.<br /> <br /> === Biology ===<br /> # The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,&lt;ref&gt;''See, e.g.'', David G. Savage, &quot;The Long Decline in SAT Scores,&quot; Educational Leadership 290 (Jan. 1978). [http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197801_savage.pdf]&lt;/ref&gt; music, personal letters,&lt;ref&gt;E.g., Civil War letters.&lt;/ref&gt; quality of political debates,&lt;ref&gt;E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.&lt;/ref&gt; the quality of news articles,&lt;ref&gt;''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.&lt;/ref&gt; and many other measures. This means that if one goes back far enough, intelligence will end up reaching ridiculously high, if humans were supposedly hundreds of thousands of years old.<br /> # The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.&lt;ref&gt;For evidence of a rapidly changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]]&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/animals-face-extinction-threat-as-conservation-efforts-slow-report-says.html One in five species are at risk of extinction]&lt;/ref&gt; and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.<br /> # The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying ([[CNN]]'s [[Anderson Cooper]] began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);&lt;ref name=&quot;Graying&quot;&gt;http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-06-18/living/17299704_1_hair-taylor-hicks-american-idol&lt;/ref&gt; many celebrities (such as [[American Idol]] winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)&lt;ref name=&quot;Graying&quot;/&gt; and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)&lt;ref&gt;&quot;There's a man, close-cropped gray hair, looks older than 35&quot;: Sports Illustrated's description of Cal Ripken at 35. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1163438/index.htm#ixzz12ONbgydd] By age 50 he was bald too.&lt;/ref&gt; increasingly experience premature graying or balding.<br /> # The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,&lt;ref&gt;http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&amp;SRETRY=0&lt;/ref&gt; suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.<br /> # The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.<br /> # The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.<br /> # Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7&lt;/ref&gt; Some scientists have calculated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this demonstrates that chimpanzees descended from a large initial population while humans descend from a much smaller one, which indeed we know to have been two people.<br /> # Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.&lt;ref&gt;http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/technology&amp;id=7884786&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The separation between salt and freshwater fish, coupled with their inability to survive in the opposing environment, shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.<br /> # Furthermore, the separation of land and aquatic life and a similar inability for the organisms to survive in the other environment shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.<br /> # Biodiversity on Earth is declining too rapidly to be consistent with a long-term (Old Earth) equilibrium, with the Living Planet Index (LPI) showing &quot;a global decline of 27% between 1970 and 2005. The terrestrial index declined by 25%, freshwater by 29% (this index is calculated to 2003 due to the lack of data available for latter years), and marine by 28%.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.zsl.org/science/research-projects/lpi,1162,AR.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The [[Bible]] makes references to the [[dinosaurs]]. There is no explanation for this if dinosaurs supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/93-dinosaurs-and-the-bible&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> === Geology ===<br /> [[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]<br /> [[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.&lt;ref name=&quot;sf&quot;&gt;[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).&lt;ref&gt;Corliss, 2002&lt;/ref&gt; The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.&lt;ref&gt;Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: &quot;All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]&lt;/ref&gt; [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as &quot;[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[Old Earth]] [[paradigm]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Other examples include: <br /> <br /> # The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches&lt;ref&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html&lt;/ref&gt; with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.<br /> # The massive [[Great Lakes]] and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume; the third largest saltwater lake, Oroumieh Lake, could completely evaporate within the next five years.&lt;ref&gt;http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_environmental_disaster&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].<br /> # The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.<br /> # The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.<br /> # Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation several times each century;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2010872/japan_quake_changed_earths_rotation/&lt;/ref&gt; extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation&lt;ref&gt;A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # The lack of erosion between rock layers.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.<br /> # [[Paraconformity]] and unconformity such as that seen at the [[Grand Canyon]] disprove the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] view of earth history.<br /> # All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,&lt;ref&gt;http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf&lt;/ref&gt; and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.<br /> # The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago.<br /> # The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.<br /> # The relatively recent separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass -- denied for 100 years by [[atheist]]s before they accepted it -- suggest a young earth or at least a relatively recent cataclysmic event.<br /> # Fresh tracks of motion by stationary rocks are still visible in some areas, which have baffled Old Earth scientists for more than 60 years; Old Earth magazines refer to them as &quot;self-moving rocks.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/18/rafting-for-rocks?s_cid=rss:rafting-for-rocks&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; &quot;between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades,&quot; sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-beach-erosion&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> # Land is sinking into the oceans at a rate of at least 7 inches per century,&lt;ref&gt;http://www.app.com/article/20110319/NJNEWS/103190327/Global-warming-rising-seas-threaten-New-Jersey-expert-says&lt;/ref&gt; which would have rendered most of the United States under water if the Earth were not young.<br /> # The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === Science &amp; Discovery ===<br /> # A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.&lt;ref&gt;Though there has been some progress in this timeframe, many of the &quot;discoveries&quot; are liberal propaganda, or are scientifically weak.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === Biblical testimony ===<br /> <br /> The Bible contains multiples pieces of evidence showing its authenticity including [[Bible history]], [[Biblical archaeology|Bible archaeology]] and [[Bible prophecy]]. Competent and honest [[Bible exegesis]] indicates the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.&lt;ref&gt;[http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally Should Genesis be taken literally?]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''See also:'' [http://creation.com/history-questions-and-answers How reliable is biblical chronology?]<br /> <br /> == Recommended books ==<br /> <br /> *[[William R. Corliss]], Anomalies in Geology: Physical, Chemical, Biological (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1989. ISBN 915554-23-2<br /> *William R. Corliss Neglected Geological Anomalies, 1990. ISBN 915554-24-0<br /> *William R. CorlissInner Earth: A Search for Anomalies (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1991. ISBN 915554-25-9<br /> *William R. Corliss, Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds, Submarine Canyons (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1988. ISBN 915554-22-4<br /> <br /> == External links ==<br /> *[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]<br /> *[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]<br /> *[http://www.preteristcentral.com/Debunking%20Old%20Earth%20Creationism%20&amp;%20a%20Regional%20Flood.html Debunking the Old Earth Theory]<br /> <br /> == Footnotes ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]<br /> *[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]<br /> *[[Radiometric dating]]<br /> [[Category:Counterexamples]]<br /> [[Category:geology]]</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=919550 2011-09-22T23:13:38Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Chimpanzees and Gorillas */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> ::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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=919435 2011-09-22T20:53:55Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Chimpanzees and Gorillas */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> ::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. <br /> <br /> 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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=919420 2011-09-22T19:59:10Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Chimpanzees and Gorillas */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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)</div>

DavidZa https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution&diff=919419 2011-09-22T19:58:40Z

<p>DavidZa: /* Chimpanzees and Gorillas */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]<br /> [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not &quot;true&quot; [[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)<br /> <br /> === PZ Meyers Photo ===<br /> <br /> Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the &quot;excellent evidence&quot; 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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Improving article ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> (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)<br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Perfect number of teeth? ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::''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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::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)<br /> (unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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 &quot;There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!&quot; My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::''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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::(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)<br /> :::::::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) <br /> :::::::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)<br /> ::::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Raptorex ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Bats ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :Oops, I just noticed this: &quot;an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)&quot; Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> ::::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)<br /> :::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :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)<br /> :::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 &quot;friendly blocking fire&quot; during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm &quot;Broken arrow&quot;] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Artistic beauty argument ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> :I'm sorry, ''&quot;death didn't exist before the fall&quot;''?<br /> :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?<br /> :If &quot;death didn't exist&quot; for plants (of all things) then all the &quot;green things&quot; G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook? <br /> :You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined &quot;life.&quot; Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that &quot;life&quot; is usually equated to &quot;having the breath of life.&quot;) Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no &quot;death&quot; as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was &quot;no death before the fall&quot; 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)?<br /> :::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 &quot;alive&quot;. <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> ::::::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)<br /> :::::::&quot;most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::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)<br /> ::::::::: 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)<br /> ::::::::::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)<br /> :::::::::::&quot;Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature.&quot; Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: &quot;After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life.&quot; - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's &quot;Cosmos&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word &quot;beautiful&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==<br /> <br /> 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&amp;pg=PA227&amp;lpg=PA227&amp;dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xAVwcJihMN&amp;sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&amp;f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&amp;pg=PA28&amp;lpg=PA28&amp;dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=XUGsWfPVCY&amp;sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&amp;f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors. <br /> <br /> Also this:<br /> <br /> &quot;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.&quot;[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> 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. <br /> <br /> Here are some sources:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting<br /> <br /> http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists<br /> <br /> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum<br /> <br /> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/<br /> <br /> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/<br /> <br /> http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Altruism ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book &quot;The selfish gene&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> == The Devil's Advocate ==<br /> <br /> 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):<br /> <br /> Logical examples<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 6. Strong argument and should be expanded. <br /> <br /> 7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 8. Good argument and cannot be refuted. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Lack of mechanism<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of &quot;information&quot; 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.<br /> <br /> 3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?<br /> <br /> 4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> 5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation. <br /> <br /> 6. Laughable. Should be removed.<br /> <br /> 7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps? <br /> <br /> 8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Maladaptation<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed. <br /> <br /> 5. Strong example.<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Wrong predictions<br /> <br /> 1. A very good example.<br /> <br /> 2. Fairly strong.<br /> <br /> 3. Moderately strong but not concrete.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Missing fossils<br /> <br /> 1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.<br /> <br /> 2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 4. Pretty strong.<br /> <br /> 5. Very strong and should be expanded.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Paradoxical fossils<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Irreducible Complexity<br /> <br /> 1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.<br /> <br /> 2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.<br /> <br /> 3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> :::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)<br /> <br /> 4. The flagellum is a solid example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 7. Ear bones; an excellent example.<br /> <br /> 8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Uncategorized<br /> <br /> 1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?<br /> <br /> 3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 4. Without a definition of &quot;kind&quot; this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> 5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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):<br /> <br /> :#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.<br /> :#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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!<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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).<br /> :#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.<br /> :#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.<br /> :#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.<br /> <br /> :Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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.<br /> <br /> ::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 &quot;don't knows&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' &quot;explanations&quot; are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.<br /> <br /> ::: As to the specific points:<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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.<br /> <br /> ::::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)<br /> <br /> :::::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 &quot;Mitochondrial Eve.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::The &quot;joke&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::::&quot;Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all.&quot; - Richard Dawkins, &quot;The root of all evil?&quot; &quot;There was no Adam. There was no Eve.&quot; - PZ Myers, &quot;Pharyngula,&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::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 &quot;Finding Darwin's God.&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> : 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.<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Vestigial organs ==<br /> <br /> 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 &quot;vestigial&quot; 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)<br /> :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 &quot;Fun Police&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> ::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)<br /> <br /> :::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.<br /> <br /> :::Nobody claims that most atheists are &quot;maniacs&quot;, but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::No, &quot;vestigial&quot; 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, &quot;Question Evolution!&quot; 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)<br /> <br /> :::::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)<br /> <br /> ::::::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)<br /> <br /> == Vanadium and tunicates ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == HIV and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> ==Rate of extinction==<br /> &quot;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.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;<br /> This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human.&lt;br/&gt;<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).&lt;br/&gt;<br /> I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :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)<br /> ::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)<br /> :::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)<br /> ::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::::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)<br /> 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)<br /> <br /> == Trilobites and Evolution ==<br /> <br /> 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)<br /> <br /> :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)<br /> <br /> == Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==<br /> <br /> 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] [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 15:58, 22 September 2011 (EDT)</div>

DavidZa