"Counterexamples to Evolution" -- Dumbest page on the internet?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Warning: You may experience injury from severe face-palming

http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexam..._Evolution

[MountOlympus]

What do you expect from the guy who wants to edit the bible to take out the "liberal bias"? Andrew Schlafly is a moron.

[downbeatplumb]

Warning: You may experience injury from severe face-palming

http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexam..._Evolution

That was even more stupid than I was expecting.

I liked that the number 1 reason was:

Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.

Really! evolution can't explain that! now lets think about this for a fraction of a second and come up with a counter argument.

The fuck wit assumes that only people can appreciate the beauty of a fish and that other fish aren't at all involved in the reproduction of fish.

And the autumn foliage looks like that because of the way trees conserve energy during winter.

The person who wrote the article comes across either as the most uneducated person in the western hemisphere or the most dishonest.

I vote for the latter.

[Tobie]

What do you expect from the morons who are trying to ban the teaching of evolution because they are adamant it's a religion?

[Kayenneh]

I don't think I even want to click that link..

[Angrboda]

1. Evolution cannot explain beauty. Beauty evolved before man. - No it didn't; the capacity for man to find things beautiful evolved in man to fit man's needs.

1. Evolution cannot explain the low genetic diversity in humans. - yes it can; a population bottleneck amply explains it.

1. Evolution of eyes and repetition of elements is impossible because evolution is a random process. - no it's not; mutation is random, natural selection is not.

2. Pleiotropy, the linking of multiple effects to a single gene means any improvement will be accompanied by random detriments. - no it won't; first, only some genes exhibit pleiotropy, and second, not all possible combinations of effect are necessarily negative - evolution only needs some successes, not all successes.

3. Scales could not conceivably have "grown" into feathers. - they didn't "grow" into feathers; the genes controlling the formation and growth of scales changed their form over time, and was preserved and replicated by those specimens for whom the change was either adaptive or not sufficiently maladaptive to outweigh possible other advantages possessed by that animal.

4. For every male dog, cat, horse, etcetera, etcetera there had to accidentally evolve a female form alongside it which co-evolved. - no, only the last common ancestor of any fully sexually dimorphic subset of the animal or plant kingdom had to evolve it. Every organism after that would inherit sexual dimorphism genetically. This is what happens from preaching abstinence.

5. "If you don't believe in evolution. /r/atheism." All right Schlafly. No more child labor for you. This is a list of things that would refute evolution, not proof that you have the emotional maturity of an autistic twelve year old.

6. There are no records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another. - maybe because, a) it happens at the genetic level, and we can't directly observe genes, b) it happens veeeery slooowly, and c) species are evolving into new species every second of every day - it's just not newsworthy after 10,000 years of controlled breeding of crops and domestic animals to change them into what we want.

7. if evolution were true, then every personality type would be beneficial. - no, that's not what evolution says. Evolution does not say that all traits should be adaptive, nor that all variants of a trait be adaptive. Go directly to school. Do not collect student loans. Pay for being such a stupid bunt.

8. If evolution were true, there would be more than one species under the genus Homo. - there is, you ignorant bunt! They're all dead but us, but there was a time when we coexisted. And, evolution doesn't say this. (I need an acronym for that, as I fashion I'll be saying it a lot. How about, "WRONG!")

9. Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, as homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool. - WRONG! (See #8 for the acronym, and #7) Moreover, a trait only has to lead to the individual's genetic variety being passed on, which may happen if a homosexual enables the successful procreation of those with similar genes (kin), or their existence benefits the whole species, directly or indirectly. Evolution is smarter than you! (And besides, evolution doesn't care about what your bassackwards moral system says about the worthiness of fags.)

10. Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from bacteria, since bacteria is and has been the most successful organism on the planet, why would it have been adaptive to evolve into something more complex. - (WRONG!) organisms don't evolve "because" doing so is adaptive, organisms evolve because of mutations, and stay evolved and replicate if the new organism is sufficiently successful.

11. The second law of thermodynamics establishes that matter becomes more disordered over time, but evolution postulates the reverse. - no, the second law stipulates that the total entropy can only increase or remain the same FOR A CLOSED SYSTEM - the Earth is not a closed system, as it is receiving continual showers of energy from this big yellow thing in the sky which funds the R & D departments of those clever little mutants.

12. "The Law Of Large Numbers" states that things become more average over time, whereas in evolution things become more complex and further from the mean. - no, the Law Of Large Numbers states that with enough trials, the average value of a measurement will trend towards its ideal value. Evolution has no ideal value to trend toward, the variation involved is not randomly distributed, and even if the Law did apply, there's no reason why the "ideal value" would necessarily be a measure of complexity, nor the value of least complexity.

LACK OF MECHANISM

Okay, I'm bored. Next entertainment. Somebody take over.

[Thor]

I love this as "evidence" against evolution: Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to arise repeatedly via evolution is impossible, as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.

Yes, eyes appear in many different species! In the same place on the body, no less! And this is evidence that we all descended from a common ancestor! It is NOT a counterargument to evolution!

Imbeciles.

[Minimalist]

Trying to explain evolution to creatards is harder than explaining radar to your dog.

In fact, the dog has a least a chance of understanding.

[Tobie]

I really would not be surprised if conservapedia turned out to be a poe. It is ridiculous that the ignorance levels of so many people get so high.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I really would not be surprised if conservapedia turned out to be a poe. It is ridiculous that the ignorance levels of so many people get so high.

Possibly, but every single one of these "counterexamples" I've heard several times from real creationists like Hovind or Ham.