Quote# 74193

The theory of evolution cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved. As in logic, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule.

Here are some counterexamples to evolution:

*beautiful autumn foliage, which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation
*the whale, which has no plausible ancestor (Charles Darwin suggested black bears)
*the eye, which lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution
*bloodclotting, which also lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution
*Jellyfish in Hawaii, which swarm to the beaches precisely 9 to 10 days after each full moon[1]
*cicada that appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others[2]
*migratory powers of butterflies and birds[3]

Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia 74 Comments [7/5/2010 8:48:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 157
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 | bottom

vampirehummingbird

Andy, add naturalist to your list of things you are not.

7/5/2010 8:54:14 AM

Shanya Almafeta

I'm afraid you fail biology forever.

7/5/2010 8:54:22 AM

Aethernaut

Are you high, Andy? All of those examples would perfectly support the theory as organisms and systems that are perfectly evolved to fit environmental niches.

7/5/2010 8:54:26 AM

Leliel

Counter-Counter-Points, which the TOE has A LOT of ability for.

* Death of clorophyll. There is less heat in winter, and thus, it's evolutionarily sound to shed leaves. How beautiful it is is irrelevant.

*...that is still alive, and Darwin was working on the best science he had at the time...

* And those are problems because...?


I could go on, but I'm not a biologist and am too lazy to Google explanations. I'll let my biologist friends explain.

7/5/2010 8:54:44 AM



lets see,
its the death of the chloroplasts
Its been proven that stages of an eye are all useful, light senstive skin, eys with no lens etc.
The swarming will have been timed with the full moon for an important reason, most likely tides.
the prime number swarmings make it almost impossible for predators to scinronise with them.
sorry for spelling .

7/5/2010 8:55:58 AM

Boy Wonder

Wow. Andy, you do not even have to be a scientist to know that pretty much ALL of those things have scientific evolutionary explanations. Seriously. Wikipedia. It's that easy.

7/5/2010 8:56:46 AM

Horsefeathers

"The theory of evolution cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved."

Let me get this straight. You want the theory of evolution to take into account and accept as valid "things that could not have evolved"?

This is stupid. Even for you, Andy.

"As in logic, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule."

Logic and you are not exactly on speaking terms, Andy.

"*beautiful autumn foliage, which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation"

The change in the color of leaves is quite easily explained by evolution. The fact that you want evolution to explain the "beauty" of it shows a distinct lack of understanding on your part.

"*the whale, which has no plausible ancestor (Charles Darwin suggested black bears)"

Whale evolution is, along with horses, one of the most well documented as far as I'm aware.

"*the eye, which lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution"

Darwin himself explained how it could have come about and, as far as I'm aware, he wasn't off by much.

"*bloodclotting, which also lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution"

I'm afraid I don't see why you think this.

"*Jellyfish in Hawaii, which swarm to the beaches precisely 9 to 10 days after each full moon"

And?

"*cicada that appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others"

And?

"*migratory powers of butterflies and birds"

And?

7/5/2010 8:59:28 AM

HazelHolly

<b>beautiful autumn foliage, which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation</b>
The green in leaves is caused by a chemical called chlorophyll, which only works while the leaves are alive. Certain plants shut down thier leaves during the harsh winter months, and thus the leaves stop producing chlorphyll during autumn and the leaves change colour.

<b>the whale, which has no plausible ancestor (Charles Darwin suggested black bears)</b>
For the first bit, they share the same anscestors as dogs. Also, why is there no plausible anscestor for them? The second bit gets a resounding [CITATION NEEDED].

<b>the eye, which lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution</b>
Primitive eyes were most likely a fluke mutation that happened to be EXTREMELY benificial. Animals with eyes were more likely to survive and thus more likely to pass down the eye gene. As time went on, those with more focused and developed eyes were more likely to survive, resulting in the eyes we have today.

<b>bloodclotting, which also lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution</b>
Animals without clotteing blood tend to bleed to death, so they are far less likely to pass on their genes.

(cont.)

7/5/2010 9:02:48 AM

HazelHolly

(cont.)

<b>Jellyfish in Hawaii, which swarm to the beaches precisely 9 to 10 days after each full moon</b>
The phases of the moon are an easy reference point for animals. These jellyfish know that the moon is always at its biggest and brightest a given amount of time before the optimum time to swarm is. That's why.

<b>cicada that appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others</b>
Life and mating cycles.

<b>migratory powers of butterflies and birds</b>
Birds and butterflies migrate from a place where there's not much food to a place where there's food aplenty. Those that can't do that tend to die rather quickly, and thus - any guesses? - DON'T PASS ON THEIR NON-MIGRATING GENES.

There. I, a 13-year-old Christian "evolutionist", just answered all of your points. There are no counterexamples to evolution.

7/5/2010 9:03:43 AM

Patches

The theory of evolution cannot permit any "counterexamples," or examples of things that could not have evolved. As in logic, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule.

And that's what makes it such a powerful explanation: Falsifiability. In that one potentially COULD find a (legitimate) counterexample to it, but so far have not.

Creationism, on the other hand, explains everything as "it was just created that way", therefore it is unfalsifiable given there is absolutely no evidence that could ever potentially be found that you would accept as a counterexample. There is no way to test it because "it was just created that way" accepts all possible outcomes as supporting evidence for itself, thus rendering it with absolutely zero explanatory power.

7/5/2010 9:16:50 AM



*beautiful autumn foliage, which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation

When leaves are shed, the chlorophyll is simply the first to go.

*the whale, which has no plausible ancestor (Charles Darwin suggested black bears)
ORLY?

*the eye, which lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution
Such old hat, even Darwin addressed it. C’mon, Andy. Get with the times.

*bloodclotting, which also lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution
First time I’ve heard this one, so I’ll let Talk Origins handle it for me.

*Jellyfish in Hawaii, which swarm to the beaches precisely 9 to 10 days after each full moon[1]
Wow… It’s almost like the moon has some sort of regular effect on the ocean. What could that possibly be?

[i]*cicada that appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others[2][i]
Again, I leave this to someone with more experience

*migratory powers of butterflies and birds[3]
Really? You mean getting lost and falling into the ocean or nabbed by a predator isn’t a strong selective pressure? What would be a strong pressure, then?

7/5/2010 9:17:04 AM



Oh Andy, Andy. You so like that word "plausible". Thing is, you use it to mean "things that Andy Schlafly believes to be true". That's not what plausible means dude. So for the rest of the sane world, everything you just said is tripe. Just because you neither understand nor believe how each of your "counterexamples" actually work, doesn't mean that they don't have plausible explanations. "Andy Schlafly accepts this" is not a prerequisite for something being true.

7/5/2010 9:17:22 AM

TGRwulf

We don't know how the eye evolved? What science books have been rea.... oh, it's Andy. Nevermind.

7/5/2010 9:37:08 AM

Zoo

It's probably pointless to tell you to learn about something before you try to use it as an argument, but, well, you should.

7/5/2010 9:38:23 AM



I love this list, because it's so completely random. There's no relationship between his "counterexamples". It's just a random list of stuff he doesn't understand.

7/5/2010 9:53:53 AM

Neith

*beautiful autumn foliage, which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation

"Beautiful" is a matter of opinion. Leaves don't lose their chlorophyll every year just to make people go, "Ooh, pretty!"

*the whale, which has no plausible ancestor (Charles Darwin suggested black bears)

The hippo is their closest relative. A lot has been discovered since the time of Darwin.

*the eye, which lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution

This has been debunked so many times, it's pitiful that you people keep claiming this.

Richard Dawkins on the Evolution of the Eye || Part 1

*bloodclotting, which also lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution

Ken Miller talks about the evolution of blood clotting

I'm bored with this. See HazelHolly's response (and probably others) for the rest.

7/5/2010 10:07:57 AM

Vanilla Bear

Ah, Andy repeating words he has no idea what they mean. At least he's predictable.

7/5/2010 10:09:12 AM

Papabear

It's not that the ToE "cannot permit any examples of things that could not have evolved, it's that no such examples have been shown.

As for your example of foliage, not everything requires a purpose. If something is neither beneficial nor harmful to a species, it has no role in evolution. That leaves turn colors in the fall just doesn't matter and is simply the result of chemistry in the leaf changing as the leaf dies.

The whale? Plenty of ancestors to modern whales have been found. That Darwin suggested bears is irrelevent.

The eye? There ARE plausible pathways for the evolution of eyes.

Blood clotting? Does that require any more than one step?

Jellyfish may swarm after the full moon as they are more likely to be eaten when backlit by the full moon. Just my guess.

Cicadas swarming at long intervals may have evolved such that the swarms take place when the predator populations are likely to be at a nadir.

Birds and bugs migrate to where temperatures and food supplies are better than where they are migrating from.


P.S. Do not presume to give others a lesson in logic. You are under-qualified.

7/5/2010 10:10:12 AM



Leaves change color because they die. Things don't evolve to die in a certain way. They just die and rot. What happens after death has chemical explanations, not evolutionary ones.

7/5/2010 10:17:38 AM

Berny

Andy,
Every single one of the things in your list has an explanation if you know where to look.
Here's a hint, it's not up your ass, which is where all your information seems to originate.

7/5/2010 10:32:14 AM

dionysus

Wow, you really do suck at biology don't you? All of those things you listed have perfectly good biological explanations. Also, I had no idea migration was a power. I can just see it now: an average man has a chemical accident in a GPS factory and becomes Migration Man, the superhero with the power to go places! That would make an awesome comic book.

7/5/2010 10:36:44 AM

Serph-no-Okami

This started like the old irreducible complexity argument but quickly descended into arguments from ignorance and plain LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Also: "precisely 9 to 10 days". If it's variable from 9 to 10 days the word "precisely" doesn't really enter into it now does it?

And as a side note, is it just me or are there more people with the problem of having the comments jumbled in the wrong chronological order?

7/5/2010 10:55:15 AM

GodotIsWaiting4U

1. That "beautiful autumn foliage" is only beautiful as a side effect. What you are seeing is the death and withering of the leaves on the trees as they lose chlorophyll in preparation for winter, something that would indeed be an evolutionary advantage as it would mean not wasting resources.

2. Whale ancestry has been traces and filled in pretty well. Whales are most likely descended from a previously land-dwelling mammal.

3. Actually, it's perfectly plausible. Evolution works on the principle of "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king". Even if your eyes suck, they're better than everyone who has worse eyes. If you're in the top half, you have an advantage. Better nearly blind than totally blind.

4. Again, land of the blind, one-eyed king. There is a distinct advantage to not bleeding all over the place forever, and the chemicals in blood allow for clotting.

5. And? So?

6. Neat, behavioral patterns. So?

7. So?

7/5/2010 10:59:31 AM

DinosaurRidinJeebus

I was about to call poe before I saw it was andy.

Andy you are so full of lulz.

7/5/2010 11:34:38 AM

aaa

Andy, you somehow find ways to get even lower than your previous records. You are a bottomless pit of bullshit.

7/5/2010 11:36:27 AM

1 2 3 | top: comments page