Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

Archive 1

My plans for this article

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

First of all, God bless you for archiving and clearing up this page! It makes the discussion better.

I'm all for better organization of the entry, but without any dilution. So please have at it!--Andy Schlafly 22:35, 21 January 2010 (EST)

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

Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.^{[Citation Needed]}

What do you mean by "it is a mystery no matter what"? It seems to me that what the article's saying is precisely that it is a mystery - so no natural process could have created it; since atheistic evolution allows only natural processes, but consciousness exists, atheistic evolution can't be all there is. --EvanW 18:20, 22 January 2010 (EST)

It is just as unclear how a supernatural power might generate consciousness. It is a whole big can of worms and thousands of people in philosophy and neuroscience are working on it. The Evolutionary psychology people have a pretty neat little story about how something that manifests itself exactly like consciousness is beneficial and might come about, I think that if we ever do crack the consciousness puzzle then they will swoop in and claim to have an answer. I think that the bit in that counterexample about consciousness can be axed just fine and the rest left standing. Consciousness is its own big philosophical question, and I have serious doubts as to how accurately an argument about it can be contained in one paragraph, let alone one line. --SamF 18:28, 22 January 2010 (EST)

Um, a miracle? That's the whole point about miracles: we don't understand how God did them. Of course it's "unclear." If you want to say that naturalistic scientists are trying to figure out how evolution might bring consciousness about, that's fine with me, as long as it's clear they haven't found it yet. --EvanW 18:46, 22 January 2010 (EST)

No other animal exhibits religion

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

Your point reflects open-mindedness and a willingness to rely on logic rather than consensus. But note that in sharp contrast with humans, animals do not engage in any activities suggestive of prayer.--Andy Schlafly 22:00, 17 February 2010 (EST)

I don't know much about animal psychology, but I really like the poetic notion of wolves howling at the moon being prayer. That's just... beautiful. JacobB 23:05, 17 February 2010 (EST)

Well, animals do not speak English, so of course we're not going to witness animal prayer. Also, dogs howl over their owners bodies when they witness the passing of their owners, but rather than argue like a whiny liberal, I'm going to walk away from this one. DMorris 08:04, 18 February 2010 (EST)

Some of these are rather incomplete

For instance 1.6.1

“

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

”

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

I cut some more out, I would suggest cutting the statistical argument out, it's hard to do with out making up random numbers. Pulling wheat from chaff is going to take some work, but I suspect you will be pleased in the end. --Brendanw 01:03, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

Do not remove without discussion. Do not censor material from the article. DouglasA 01:55, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

I did not censor anything, I did some editing.

• 1.2.6 is parody, Jim put it in there to mock Andy after their discussion ended in Andy saying that beauty was intrinsic, I clarified Andy's counterexample per his feelings on the subject
• 1.3.2 is about ploidy, the last time it was removed there was an edit comment about durum wheat, did anyone ever bother to look it up? Durum wheat is descended from Emmer wheat, Duram wheat is tetraploid and Emmer wheat is diploid. That is conclusive proof that it is not impossible. Hence it is probably parody.
• 1.3.4 actually misreports the selfish gene
• 1.2.7 we know how cicadas manage to wait , we know that those cicadas that come out a year early or a year late die with out mating typically. we can move mating windows in lab animal populations. So we have a means a motive and an opportunity, more parody.
• 1.5.6 You cannot demonstrate a lack of fossils until you dig up all the fossil bearing strata on earth, which is a very big task (digging out the trilobites alone would leave the globe covered in a foot thick layer of fossils) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm just trying to clean up this article a bit, it seems to be a place were parody and counterexample alike are piled in together and they are never checked. --Brendanw 14:19, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

You were warned not to touch this article, Brendan, then you did again. JacobB 14:29, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

Lack of mechanism

The first point in this section is:

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

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

Problems I see with this page:

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

1. 2 Example number three is pointless. Not all genes affect multiple traits, and thus evolution can happen to some without affecting a lot of traits. Furthermore, a mutation can happen to a gene that controls multiple traits and benefit one trait, but that doesn't mean that it will negatively affect the other traits.