Difference between revisions of "Counterexamples to Evolution"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The [[theory of evolution]] cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved. | The [[theory of evolution]] cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved. | ||
| − | |||
The following are some counterexamples to evolution. If just one cannot be explained by evolution, then logically the theory of evolution as it is must be inadequate. | The following are some counterexamples to evolution. If just one cannot be explained by evolution, then logically the theory of evolution as it is must be inadequate. | ||
| − | * | + | * Autumn foliage, the beauty of which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation. |
| − | * | + | * Many other cases of beauty, such as the [[peacock|peacock's]] tail, lack any plausible evolutionary explanation.<ref>The peacock's tail used to be considered an example of [[sexual selection]], but a study has shown that this is not the case.—Catchpoole, David, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/ Peacock tail tale failure] 6th June 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref> |
| − | * | + | * the [[whale]] and other relatives, which have no plausible ancestors in the fossil record<ref>[http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whale.ev.html University of Indiana Natural Sciences Department]</ref> ([[Charles Darwin]] suggested black bears) |
| − | + | * the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref> | |
| − | + | * [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref> | |
| − | * | + | * the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref> |
| − | + | * the migrations of butterflies and birds, and the mechanisms which allow them to navigate.<ref>[[migration]]</ref> | |
| − | * | + | * The neck of the [[giraffe]].<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref> |
| − | + | * The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record. | |
| − | + | * The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref> | |
| − | * | + | *[[Pterosaurs]]; biologists recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings? |
| − | * [[ | + | * The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage. |
| − | * [ | + | * The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> |
| − | * | + | * Variation in chromosome count is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 4 chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 5. 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 simultaneously. |
| − | + | * Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref> | |
| − | + | *Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employs a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore those bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight. | |
| − | + | * No clear transition form unicellular to multicellular organisms - a single cell in a multicellular organism has no ability to survive on it own as it has only a single function, but if a unicellular organism loses one function it will die.{{fact}} | |
| − | + | * 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.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref> | |
| + | * Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. If man were evolved from lower life forms, we would expect at least some other animals to display these traits. Since they do not, it's clear that man is not simply an animal. | ||
== Logical Conclusion == | == Logical Conclusion == | ||
| − | + | As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded. | |
| − | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 00:03, November 7, 2008
The theory of evolution cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved.
The following are some counterexamples to evolution. If just one cannot be explained by evolution, then logically the theory of evolution as it is must be inadequate.
- Autumn foliage, the beauty of which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
- Many other cases of beauty, such as the peacock's tail, lack any plausible evolutionary explanation.[1]
- the whale and other relatives, which have no plausible ancestors in the fossil record[2] (Charles Darwin suggested black bears)
- the immune system is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection[3][4]
- Jellyfish in Hawaii swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full moon, for no apparent evolutionary reason[5]
- the fact that cicadas appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others[6]
- the migrations of butterflies and birds, and the mechanisms which allow them to navigate.[7]
- The neck of the giraffe.[8]
- The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the fossil record.
- The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs[9][10]
- Pterosaurs; biologists recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?
- The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
- The flagellum a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of irreducible complexity and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.[11]
- Variation in chromosome count is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 4 chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 5. 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 simultaneously.
- Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.[12]
- Many bats which live in caves employs a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore those bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
- No clear transition form unicellular to multicellular organisms - a single cell in a multicellular organism has no ability to survive on it own as it has only a single function, but if a unicellular organism loses one function it will die.[Citation Needed]
- 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.[13]
- Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. If man were evolved from lower life forms, we would expect at least some other animals to display these traits. Since they do not, it's clear that man is not simply an animal.
Logical Conclusion
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.
References
- ↑ The peacock's tail used to be considered an example of sexual selection, but a study has shown that this is not the case.—Catchpoole, David, Peacock tail tale failure 6th June 2008 (Creation Ministries International)
- ↑ University of Indiana Natural Sciences Department
- ↑ Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.
- ↑ [1]
- ↑ http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html
- ↑ http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html
- ↑ migration
- ↑ [2]
- ↑ http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf
- ↑ [3]
- ↑ [4]
- ↑ [5]
- ↑ Sarfati, Jonathan, The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?, 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)