Conservapedia talk:Examples of evolution

Can't say that I'm struck on the "Old Earth" in the title, as this sounds a bit little bit like Old Earth creationism. We've also got a fantastic article Evidence against a recent creation which does things a little better. Still ... I am, aware that the phrase "Old Earth" is popular in the US, and no better title suggests itself to me at the moment - so maybe it's just my European background showing.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There's info on tectonic plates and the last point about the age rational ghey (send a message) 17:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Five digits

I call bullshit, and so does my childhood cat. ħuman 02:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. look it up rational ghey (send a message) 01:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever hear of "double-toed" (or whatever) cats? Hell, mine had about 26 toes. ħuman 01:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

All the examples are mammals, that could be done better.

Also, please explain the three-toed sloth and the horse to me. And for that matter, the goat. ħuman 01:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cats have 5 claws. The hoofs.. I'm actually glad you mentioned that! Yes, believe it or not, even hooves have 5 digits because I remember learning it in AP Bio. Hold on. rational ghey (send a message) 03:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The hoof is an evolution of an earlier accomodation of the 5 digits. They are still there--- just super small. A hoof is really the 3rd digit, but just very large. Earlier evolution of the horse's hoof (example 1) rational ghey (send a message) 03:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you done bitching? rational ghey (send a message) 03:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you really better be done bitching. rational ghey (send a message) 04:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Poor article

So far, anyway. It lacks citations, and makes many questionable assertions. If not better before long, might need to die gently. See evidence against a recent creation for how to do this well. ħuman 02:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's well-meaning, but unfortunately reminiscent of Schlafly's "counterexamples to evolution" - the examples are rather arbitrary, plus some questionable ones as Human points out, and some imply a reliance on weak logic. "The shape of South America and Africa seem to fit together suggesting that they once fit together" - "seems-to therefore is" is the kind of logic used by creationists, & kindof demeans the huge amount of research that's gone into investigating & demonstrating that the continents were in fact joined. (Besides which, the continents being joined then split apart doesn't inherently prove an old Earth. It's pretty much what happened on the third day in the creation myth anyway).

I think that evidence for evolution & an old Earth is far too large a subject to deal with using individual bullet point examples. Some of this could be salvaged by taking the examples relating to human anatomy & reactions, which make up quite a lot of these, getting citations & making an "evidence of human evolution" article, if we don't already have that. The rest of these are already better covered elsewhere. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I look at this again I'm not even sure what the article is trying to do.

• Is it trying to use evolution to demonstrate that the Earth is old?
• Is is simply a list of random examples of evolution mixed with an equally random selection of examples of evidence of an old Earth?

If it is trying to do the former, why do we have the references to geology? Furthermore while evolution is certainly suggestive of an old Earth it's not the best way to go about proving it.

If it's tying to do the latter, I can't quite see the logic of putting them together. (Why not "evidence for evolution, an old Earth and relativity" for example?) As has been pointed out evidence against a recent creation does this better.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading it again to try to offer improovmints is truly painful. ħuman 01:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should conflate evolution with old Earthism. As I understand it there is sufficient evidence from the geological record to prove an old Earth without bringing evolution into it. Only the cretinists muddle the two. While geology makes use of fossils the theory of evolution is independent of that. If evolution was wrong it still wouldn't change geological chronology.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Appendix

"The appendix “acts as a good safe house for bacteria,” said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker, a study co-author. The location of the appendix — just below the normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine in a sort of gut cul-de-sac — helps support the theory, he said." [1] ^{(I am a person not a template)} 08:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Acidity

Tastes sour, not bitter. Bitter is astringent, IIRC. Whatever that means. ħuman 01:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. rational ghey (send a message) 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

71 C is not "cold"

In fact, it's rather scalding. Since there's no reference, I can't check if it really means 71 F - or even 71 K (very cold!). ħuman 02:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarified. rational ghey (send a message) 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ħuman 01:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete

I vote for delete for the reasons I stated above.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Either delete or redefine. There may be scope for salvaging some of these into a more specific subject, or adding them to other relevant articles. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No further edits or comments after five days. Let's move forward & either delete this or decide what else to do with it. If there are still no further edits or comments in another two-three days, I'll just zap it. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wanna say I created this to counter Conservapedia's style of "Counterexamples to an old earth" and their nonsense. It isn't the best work I could do, admittedly. rational ghey (send a message) 01:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have begun a clean up. rational ghey (send a message) 01:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should move it to the CP: namespace and clarify why it exists, by saying what you just said. ħuman 01:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove old earth

That section is pretty vacant. Why not remove it or just link to EARC, then rename the page over to the CP space? ħuman 01:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. rational ghey (send a message) 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. It will make a lot more sense that way. ħuman 04:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you asked

(moved from user talk Human) ħuman 04:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's your 5 digit evolution: oh the things you learn rational ghey (send a message) 03:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hooves of animals still have 5 digits --- the other 4 are just really small and very far up the "foot." It's just that the 3rd digit is by far the largest. rational ghey (send a message) 03:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Here you go again. rational ghey (send a message) 04:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yah, but that article you're writing is still really lame. You need to at least address the evolution of one, two, and three toed animals if you're gonna make that five-toe claim. I'll be moving it to CP space shortly anyway, after which I will stop caring about its low quality. ħuman 04:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I originally thought it was all mammals and birds only. David Gerard said he found a reference that it was all tetrapods, not me. rational ghey (send a message) 04:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In any event, I appreciate your rude, unhelpful bitching constuctive criticism. Thanks, rational ghey (send a message) 04:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the fishies and reptiles should definitely be included. ħuman 04:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I already told you I wasn't the one who added that. rational ghey (send a message) 12:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing is a mess

Perhaps restart as a side-by-side based on CP's? Aceⁱ⁹ 04:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. ħuman 06:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all of these are eamples of evolution.

Some of these are simply biological facts or other things.

• Emotions like anxiety and the "fight or flight" response are basic instincts shared by people with all animals as an innate response to a threat, even if it is entirely perceived (such as generalized anxiety disorder or a panic attack). Why is this evidence for evolution?

Are you an idiot or are you pretending? rational ghey (send a message) 11:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi RG. Neither actually. Why should a fight or flight response be evidence for evolution?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You have absolutely no idea what evolutionary purpose adrenaline would serve. Absolutely none? rational ghey (send a message) 15:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing "compatible with" and "evidence for".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

? That's a widely held belief amongst psychologists. In fact evolutionary psychology is a highly diversified and studied field in psychology rational ghey (send a message) 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• The body begins to enter a starvation mode after three hours or so from the last time food was eaten as then the liver begins to release glycogen first.[citation needed] After several hours after the last time food was eaten, the body begins to use proteins from muscle as an energy source. As a very last resort, stored body fat is used to fuel the body. The fact that body uses nutrients in this order suggests a hierarchical importance of energy that is ideal for a hunter-gatherer/nomad. Pretty tenuous.

Whatever, that is true, I learned in BIO 129 a year ago from a doctor, but whatever. rational ghey (send a message) 11:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not be true, but it is not evidence for evolution.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggests hunter gatherer. And it is true. Starvation here is used liberally, but the blood sugar level drops significantly after a few hours which is when the liver kicks in and releases more sugar. That is 100% true. rational ghey (send a message) 15:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• All mammals have a "mammalian diving reflex" that activates when they are underwater. It is only activated by cool or lukewarm water (colder than 71F[4] hitting the face, not any other body part.[5] The chest's pressure builds up to protect the heart and lungs against collapse due to the water pressure. This adds to the belief that all mammals have originated from water. All mammals originated from water? I think not. Mammals evolved from reptiles.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 05:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the second one is also pure bullshit. And, sure, we evolved from water, since that is probably where life started on this planet. ħuman 06:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I forgot to read your commentary. Yeah, #3 is bullshit also. Basically, this article started as rather weak sauce, and is continuing with that trend. At least it's out of the mainspace now, though. ħuman 06:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad you think anything which you don't already know is bullshit. What a great Assfly attitude. God you really are annoying, why I spend less time on here than Wikipedia. rational ghey (send a message) 11:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's really that bad why don't you just delete it? I'd rather have that than hear anything in which your superior wisdom doesn't know as "BS" rational ghey (send a message) 11:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And yes, mammals are from reptiles, which are from water. Duh. But I'll rephrase that. rational ghey (send a message) 11:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So ... there's a reptilian diving reflex?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. rational ghey (send a message) 14:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, you wrote a crap article, big deal. We all write shite now and then. Get over it. I notice you have deleted it. Probably the best fate, since it was embarrassing to both you and the rest of the site. Also see Bob's comments below. ħuman 05:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A longer answer

So why do I object to these examples in general? The problem is that virtually any randomly chosen example of biology could be presented as evidence for evolution. It will naturally be compatible with the theory of evolution because we evolved. But a creationist will look at the same evidence and ask "OK, why wouldn't God have created it that way?".

Consequently what are needed are examples of biology which are compatible with evolution (naturally) but which are not compatible with special creation. In theory if something has been created by a perfect God we should be able to expect that he has done it properly.

The human appendix, human teeth, and the human eye are examples of things which are badly done. They can be explained in terms of evolution but not in terms of special creation.

But: Is there any reason why a God would not have created a flight/fight response? Is there any reason why he wouldn't have created a diving reflex? Is there any reason why he wouldn't have created humans to use glycogen first?

If you would like to read a more profound development of this argument I recommend Stephen Jay Gould's "The Panda's Thumb".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)