Conservapedia:Counterexamples to Evolution

Note: Conservapedia's counterexamples are bolded to make them more discernible from the general body of the text.

Point-by-Point Refutation of Conservapedia's Counterexamples to Evolution

Counterexamples beautiful autumn foliage, which lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation [sic]	Counter Counterexamples This sort of argument from beauty is common, and is applied to a range of things other than foliage such as sunsets, other animals and human endeavors like art. The point assumes that the foliage are the colors they are for us, which matches the abject hubris of your standard believerTM. Evolutionary explanations start with asking why certain colors are more appealing to humans than other colors. Most of the subtler shades of orange and red in sunsets and foliage are the colors of ripe non-poisonous fruits and vegetables. People who found these colors more appealing certainly would last longer than someone that really liked putrid black. But probably the most powerful argument against beauty as a divine creation is that it is nothing but confirmation bias for evidence. There are as many, if not more things in this world that humans find disgusting. Macroparasites are a good example. Pictures of tape worms, ring worm, ticks, and lice are not shared on postcards during the holidays. Yet these things are as much a part of life as foliage and sunsets. Why do humans find looking at ring worm remnants disgusting and foliage beautiful? Evolution provides the explanatory framework once more. Parasites are easily transferable and contagious so a disgust reaction to any sign of them keeps people away from dangerous hosts. So evolution can easily explain not only what we find beautiful but what we find disgusting. Whats the explanation for tape worms from the "almighty loving omnipotent god" position? Counter - The point of foliage changing color as a couterexample of evolution has nothing at all to do with how appealing it is to humanity. The leaf, once the photosynthetic process halts in preparation for winter, continues to consume sugars and other resources although it provides no feasible advantage to the organism. The leaves, for all intents and purposes, seem to become parasitic. The fact that they are pretty is a notable side-bar to this process, not the core of the argument. One would argue that, if a plant has evolved to improve efficiency and conserve resources, why would a plant continue to maintain a part of itself when it no longer served a purpose? And why would a plant continue to do this year after year? Beauty in the world is not the argument against evolution, but specific processes that are inefficient and serve no purpose is the argument. The fact that some of these processes are beautiful is a notable coincidence.
the whale, which has no plausible ancestor (Charles Darwin suggested black bears) [sic]	The prevailing theory holds that whales are descended from a four-limbed dog-like creature, as supported by the remnants of rear limbs in their skeletal structure. (Darwin suggested black bears-to-whales evolution in a completely hypothetical example, not as his true scientific guess, and yet this example is frequently quote mined by creationists to put up supposed "holes" in the theory of evolution. Even without all the modern fossil evidence of whale evolution, Darwin knew that black bears weren't the ancestors of whales, as they are both modern creatures.) Counter - What is your source for these arguments? As a 'scientist', I imagine you have sources? Citations? Or do you just make this up? I have never heard this argument and I find it difficult that someone who disbelieves in evolution would use a process of evolution as an argument against evolution.
the eye, which lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution [sic]	This example, frequently trotted out by anti-evolutionists, is based on a failure of imagination and knowledge of the animal world. Starting with light-sensitive eye spots, there are numerous examples of more primitive eyes in various species. The ability to detect light and dark aids in navigation, food-finding and predator avoidance. Every small improvement to that first structure, from an opening that would act as a primitive lens (and later develop into a means of controlling the amount of light admitted to the eye) to the musculature that would allow the eye to move around, would confer an advantage, leading to the evolution of the eye as we know it. Counter - "...failure of imagination and knowledge of the animal world". The author, apparently, has a gross ignorance of biology and physics. A planeria, a small worm which has one of the simplest nervous systems and are routinely experimented upon, have primitive eyespots that are capable of light detection only. The idea behind evolution is that, over time, these organs 'became' more complex through natural selection. The complex, vertebrate eye was the natural progression and ultimate achievement of this process. The problem is two-fold. One; the theory supposes that the eye spots developed into eye cups. The eye cups added the ability for directional light source determination (bear with me, author, if I am using words that are too big). The directional light source capability developed into focused light gathering with a primitive lens, then image quality improves, then a flexible lens develops, then, after millenia, we have the ultimate achievement... the complex vertabrate eye (I realize I am skipping steps, but for the sake of brevity, you'll have to bear with me). The process supposes that a change in the conformation, or shape, of the eyespot (i.e. into a cup shape) would immediately add an advantage over the flat eyespot of it's brethren. This, in turn, adds a mating advantage and the gene is passed on, becoming dominant within a given population. What the author fails to realize is that a change in conformation does not mean the change can be utilized. A simple analogy would be a third arm for humans. Just imagine how much faster you would be able to type, to manipulate objects, to use tools, etc. But a third arm alone is not enough. You would need to change the systems involved in control and feedback as well as the third arm. So, although an eye cup would be advantageous, it does not suggest that the entire nervous system of the organism would be able to interpret this new format of information. And, unless the systems are in place to understand that shadows on an eyespot, due to the cup shape, correlate to a more specific trajectory of light, the organism would instead have a diminished light sensitivity due to all the shadows created by the cup shape. In order for the cup shape to become advantageous, the systems to interpret the new data would have to PRECEDE the change in conformation - almost as if the organism KNEW the change was going to come and prepared for it. This, of course, is implausible. The second possibility is that the cup shape arose again and again until, by chance, a new nervous system developed in conjunction with the shape change. This, as well, is implausible. The second issue is, "...leading to the evolution of the eye as we know it". This is an example of, to use the author's OWN words against his opponents, "...the abject hubris of your standard (evolutionist)". The idea that the ultimate achievement of vision is the complex, vertebrate eye, is presumptuous hubris in and of itself. The vertebrate eye is suited for a particular nervous system and anatomy. It has, however, severe limitations that other, simpler, eye designs do not. An insect eye, as an example, is exceptional at detection of motion, can see in the UV spectrum (a significant advantage for night vision), has the capability of replacing lost lenses due to damage, and can see almost 360 degrees. This design, as well, has many of the capabilities of the vertebrate eye; can focus on a given object, determine color and shape, has depth perception, etc. One could easily argue that the insect eye is far superior to the vertebrate eye, yet is commonly considered to be 'simple'. Suggesting that the vertebrate eye is the ultimate achievement of evolution in vision is an example of the arrogance common with 'evolutionists'.
bloodclotting, which also lacks a plausible pathway for incremental evolution [sic]	Bloodclotting, like all other biological functions, can be evolved. In early marine animals, any -- and I mean any -- gel-ify-ing (for lack of a better word) of the blood into an open wound would be an advantage. Later advancements in the quality of blood clots would be helpful to the organism, so when they arrived, they were kept. Modern day example: Animals with low blood pressure do not require as high a quality of blood clotting to occure to survive. The sea-slug has a blood clotting mechanism in which the blood sort of oozes over the wound, not solidifying very much. However, since the organism has very low blood pressure, this suits it just fine. This is yet another example of the ignorance of the author. Both in understanding evolution and in understanding biochemistry. The point of blood clotting is to create a blockage of blood flow as a result of some insult or injury, while maintaining normal blood flow within the organism. The ability of the blood to 'gel-ify' is not enough - in the same way an eyecup alone is not enough. It has to 'gel-ify' under the right circumstances or the blood will continue to flow out of the wound or, worse yet, the blood will 'gel-ify' within the organism. So the question is, what is the trigger to 'gel-ify' the blood? With blood carrying all the same gases from the environment into the organism, what, exactly, is the trigger that determines whether to clot or not? Is it the oxygen? Well, oxtgen is in the blood as well as the water around it. Is it the nitrogen? Again, the nitrogen is in the water as well as in the blood. We cannot suggest that the blood 'dried-out' to form the clot because evolution supposes that life started in water... so there would be no 'drying-out'. As well, if it was oxygen or nitrogen, then the organism would have nothing but 'gel-ified' blood because the 'gel-ify-ing' process would not know it the oxygen atoms were from the environment or from the body. As an actual, for real, biologist, not a pretend biologist as this author apparently is, I can say with authority that, as complex as our own clotting mechanisms are, making the decision between 'in' and 'out' is still extremely sensitive and prone to failure. Hemophilia, spontaneous blood clots, strokes... these are all examples of failures in the blood's ability to know if it is inside the body or outside of it. Some organisms, like many insects, do not even have clotting capability and instead rely on rapid wound closure. "The sea-slug has a blood clotting mechanism in which the blood sort of oozes over the wound, not solidifying very much. However, since the organism has very low blood pressure, this suits it just fine." This, again, is ignorance. The fact that the sea-slug only quazi-solidifies it's blood does not at all suggest that the process, on a biochemical level, is any less complicated than our own clotting mechanism. Some sea slugs, just as a basis of comparison, can eat plants and become photosynthetic for short periods of time. Just because the organisms seems simple, it does not at all suggest that it is. Author, your ignorance is astounding.
Jellyfish in Hawaii, which swarm to the beaches precisely 9 to 10 days after each full moon [sic]	Editor: Coming soon.
cicada that appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others [sic, sic, sic; this punctuation and formatting is horrible. Are these the fruits of homeschoolers' labors?]	Research has shown that this type of staggered hatching is a means of achieving predator satiation and surviving in sufficient numbers to maintain the viability of the species.
The neck of the giraffe. [No sic. It's about time]	The giraffe's long neck has a perfectly fine evolutionary explanation. The long neck allows it to graze the high tree tops for food, as opposed to just the grass. In the past, whichever giraffe-ancestors had slightly longer necks could reach slightly more food, thus giving them an edge in passing their genes to the next generation. Counter - Again... a longer neck alone does not imply that it will work. If you look at the giraffe anatomy, you will see that it has a heart that is ... well, it is absolutely massive. The two had to evolve together but even a two inch increase in height, over time, becomes... Y'know what? I am getting tired of this. Author, you must be an eight-year-old child because these arguments in defense of evolution are ignorant, uncreative, misinformed and tiresome. You know nothing of what you are talking about, on any level, and instead are simply parroting what you have been told. You show no insight, understanding, independent thought, or capability for analysis. You are WORSE than a 'Fundie' because, although a 'Fundie's arguments are based in religious beliefs, they will concede that the source of their beliefs are based in these beliefs. You, on the other hand, are treating evolution as your own 'religion', because you do not question these ideas, you use no independent methods of analysis, and are, instead, asking people to take what you are saying simply on your word. You are asking them to have 'faith' that you know what you are talking about and you most definitely do not. You are a preacher claiming to be a scientist. I have studied genetics in top universities for over ten years, been published multiple times, and even found evidence for evolutionary processes and theories on my own (I use insect models, if you could not tell), and even I concede that 'Fundies' have some persuasive arguments. Genetics is an extremely complex system and the way evolutionary supporters use this 'magic wand' to explain these changes in morphology as natural and uncomplicated is frustrating. Before you open your mouth, open a f*ckin book. You are an embarrassment to evolutionary scientists. To all: This child has no idea what he is talking about. Please ignore him.
The enormous gaps in the fossil record.	Those who use this argument often have not looked into the extent of the fossil record that has been amassed. However, it is true that only a very small percentage of life that has ever lived has been fossilized, as fossilization is very unlikely and has several specific requirements that must be met in order to take place. The extremely large number of organisms that have ever lived still makes for one huge fossil record, though. The supposed "gaps" in the fossil record are in no way a problem for evolution; indeed, the fossil record is a great testament to evolution, not a hinderance. Presumably, the people making this claim will not be satisfied until paleontologists have dug up an unbroken chain of fossils containing every generation from the first bacteria to their grandparents.
The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs [sic; more lack of punctuation]	Just because something is inconceivable by a creationist does not make it impossible. Granted, there is some debate over the origin of feathers. However, scientists do not argue over the plausibility of feathers evolving; every scientist you ask will tell you that feathers evolved. They argue over the specific order that traits of the feather appeared in (to give an example). Most evidence clearly supports the idea that feathers developed on dinosaurs, and to state that feathers are a problem for the theory of evolution is a blatant lie.
Life supposedly began as single cells and formed multicellular organisms, but if this were true then single cells would have to contain multiple cells, proving easy contradiction. NB: No modern cells have evolved into multicellular organisms [sic]	The sentence "single cells would have to contain multiple cells, proving easy contradiction" makes no sense. Nowhere in the process of single-celled organisms evolving into multi-celled organisms is anything said about single-cells containing multiple cells. This does not make sense, and is used as pure obfuscation. The current theory holds that single-celled organisms began living in colonies, and then later began simply being one organism. (This is still in no way a problem for evolution.) Also, the point about "no modern cells have evolved into multicellular organisms" is a red herring. The reason that no modern cells have begun to evolve into multicellular organisms is because they don't need to; they're perfectly well off being single-celled organisms. Any advancements towards being multicellular would probably be a detriment, because the niches of multicellular organisms are already held by, you know, multicellular organisms. However, if for some reason all multicellular life on earth were to dissapear, it is expected that single-celled life would begin evolving towards multicelled life.
(add more) [sic]	Editor: Put any general criticism of Conservapedia's methodology behind these counterexamples and any miscellaneous counter-counterexamples you can think of here. Think of this as the free-for-all section.