Animals that contradict evolution

Angler Fish:

The Angler Fish lives deep in ocean water. On the forehead the female has a "fishing rod" tipped with an lighted "artificial worm" which she dangles over her mouth to attract her next meal. Luciferin is oxidized with the help of an enzyme scientists named Luciferase, and this reaction produces cold light. It is difficult for the male and female to find each other in the darkness of the deep, so the eggs of the female float up through a mile of ocean to the surface where they form a jelly-like mass and then hatch. The young fish, male and female, grow and mature in the surface waters. At a certain point in their development, the male finds a female and bites and holds on to her abdomen. Soon the tissues of the female grow into and attach to the mouth tissues of the male, and the female drops to the bottom of the ocean carrying her parasite male with her for life. Unlike other fish, the Angler fish does not have a swim bladder - an air sac to provide buoyancy and to prevent sinking. Another feature of the deep sea Angler is its special body, which is designed to prevent crushing. A pressure of over 2,000 pounds per square inch is exerted on he body of the fish at one mile deep. It survives this great pressure with no problem.

If the first Anglers were surface fish and lost their air bladders, and then sank to the bottom of the sea, they would have been crushed. Dead animals don't evolve any further. Why doesn't the female chase the male away when he bites her abdomen? What possible evolutionary mechanism enables the male's circulatory system to merge with the female's? And from what creature did this peculiar fish evolve? Evolution has no answers.

Cleaner Fish:

This fish will swim into a shark's mouth and eat remnant food particles from the shark's teeth. The cleaner fish departs with a satisfied appetite, and the shark is happy because his teeth are cleaned in the process. The shark does not allow any other kinds of fish into its mouth without chomping down for a good lunch. Indeed, what other fish would dare attempt to swim into a shark's mouth? This type of relationship is called a symbiotic relationship. Evolution has a difficult time explaining how these types of relationships could evolve with time.

Giraffe:

The giraffe is an unusual animal that contains an interesting mechanism. A full grown giraffe's heart weighs over 24 pounds and pumps 16 gallons a minute. Because the giraffe's heart is much larger than his head, a series of special one-way, back-flow preventer valves are needed in the neck to regulate the flow of blood to the head, especially when the giraffe is bending down to get a much needed drink of water. Without these valves, the immense blood pressure coupled with gravity would make for one nasty headache and other repercussions. Elastic blood vessels in the giraffe's head allow harboring of enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when bent in this position.

Evolution will have you believe that eventually a short giraffe mutated until the valves properly formed in the neck and the elastic blood vessels sufficiently formed in the head, but still has to explain how interdependent systems such as the Giraffe's capillary system could gradually evolve over time.

Bombardier Beetle:

The bombardier beetle could not have evolved. The defence mechanism is amazingly complicated, and can only have function with all the parts working together perfectly. From twin ‘exhaust tubes’ at his tail, this beetle fires into the face of his enemies boiling-hot noxious gases.

German chemist Dr Schildknecht discovered that the beetle mixes two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone) which would usually form a dirty ugly mixture. The beetle uses a special ‘inhibitor’ chemical to keep the mixture from reacting.

How can the explosion instantaneously occur when needed?  Dr Schildknecht discovered that in the beetle’s specially designed combustion tubes are two enzymes called catalase and peroxidase which make chemical reactions go millions of times faster. These chemicals catalyze the extremely rapid decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen and the oxidation of hydroquinone into quinone, causing them to violently react and explode—but not so soon as to blow up the beetle.

Common sense tells us that this amazing insect cannon which can fire four or five ‘bombs’ in succession could not have evolved piece by piece. Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems—all had to work perfectly the very first time, or all hopes for the beetle and his children would have exploded.

Incubator Bird:

The Megapode or "incubator bird" of Australia is unique among birds. This three to four pound bird resembles a chicken or a small turkey. The incubator birds are unlike all other birds. If they evolved, from what did they evolve? A recent Scientific American article offers little by way of an evolutionary explanation for the origins of this strange bird.

All birds use body heat to incubate their eggs except the incubator bird.  "Instead, they pile up great heaps of debris which serve as incubators; the warmth of the fermenting compost does the work. In one species, the scrub fowl, a mound 20 feet high and 50 feet wide has been reported." Instead of using its own body heat to incubate its eggs (as does the chicken who sits on her eggs), the incubator bird uses fermentation heat or "...some use solar heat and others the heat produced by volcanic action." A bird that uses volcanic heat or the warmth of fermenting plant life to hatch its eggs.

The female is responsible for two activities. First, she must test the nest to be sure it is adequate for incubating her eggs. What explanation can evolution offer for the ability of the hen to evaluate the suitability of a nest that may be dug three feet into the ground and extend 10 or more feet above ground and up to 50 feet across? What would motivate a three and one-half pound male bird to get busy constructing monstrous nest number two, should the hen reject his first effort?

After accepting the nest, the second responsibility of the female is performed. She lays 20 to 35 eggs at the rate of one egg every three days for up to seven months. "...As many as 16 eggs can exist in a normal mound at any one time." Each egg weighs about a half a pound and is as large as an ostrich egg. That is a tremendous amount of work for a three to four pound hen. No wonder that upon completion of her laying task, she leaves the nest, never to return. She takes no part in the incubation and raising of her chicks. At this point the male begins to perform his job of managing the incubation of the deeply buried eggs. For incubator bird chicks to survive they demand a precise temperature of 91°F. Exactly 91°F. If the male bird wants the chicks to survive, he will not let the temperature vary more then one degree on either side of 91°F. How does the daddy bird maintain a consistent temperature of 91°F in a mound of decaying plants and dirt? Scientists differ on the mechanism they think the bird uses to measure the temperature. Some think the bird's thermometer is in its beak. Others believe the tongue can distinguish 91°F and a few tenths of a percent above and below 91°F. How could a bird evolve the ability to precisely measure temperatures with its beak or tongue? Evolution says nothing is evolved until it is needed. How would the incubator bird know it needed the ability to keep its eggs at 91°F without the chicks dying from being too hot or too cold?

When the male digs down into the nest and checks the temperature, on hot days, he may pile extra sand on top of the nest to shield it from the sun. He may even rearrange the entire pile of rotting leaves and grasses several times a day. On cooler days, the male will push material off the top of the nest to permit more sunlight to penetrate the decaying organic material. Or, to keep the humidity at 99.5% around the eggs, he may dig conical holes toward the eggs to get more moisture deeper into the nest. Keeping temperature and humidity just right is a big job. Concerning the precision needed for incubation temperature maintenance, Seymour writes: "This process is very precise: one centimeter of fresh material added to the mound can increase core temperature about 1½°C." Not only must the eggs be kept at 91°F and 99.5% humidity, but the chick must get enough air to breathe. The father provides the fresh air for the chicks as he daily digs down to the eggs. But the chick must get the air inside the shell. The means to get air inside the shell was provided by the hen as she formed the shell. It has thousands of tiny pores in it. These holes in the thick shell are conical with the narrowest part of the cone toward the chick. As the chick grows it cannot get enough air through the bottom of the cone so it begins to remove the inside layer of the shell. As it thins out the shell the holes get bigger, moving up the cone, and the chick can get more air.

The way the chicks hatch is also unique among birds. Unlike other birds, they are ready to fly with full feathers as soon as they break out of the egg. Once they hatch, it takes up to three days for them to dig their way up out of the mound. How do they know they must dig their way out or else they die? They have not been instructed by either parent.  Once the chicks dig out of the nest, they are on their own. They are not fed or cared for by either parent. When they are mature, the male will build a huge nest as an incubator for his mate's eggs. He will build this huge, precise mound without any instruction from his parents. This is not learned behavior, so how does the brush turkey know the importance of 91°F? Yet with this specific behavior, this bird is somehow the product of time and random chance.

Woodpecker:

If there is any animal that defies the rules of evolution, the woodpecker is an example. The woodpecker's beak is designed to hammer its way into the hardest of trees. If the woodpecker evolved, how would it develop its thick, tough beak? Let's suppose some bird decided that there must be all kinds of creatures which would be good for food hidden beneath the bark of trees. This bird decided to peck through the bark and into the hardwood tree. On first peck this bird discovered problems. Its beak shattered when it was slammed against the tree, its tail feathers broke, and it developed a migraine headache.

With a shattered beak, the little bird was unable to eat and so it died. Now this bird began to evolve a thicker beak and stronger tail feathers and something to help prevent headaches. Of course not. The woodpecker now has an industrial-strength beak, and it also has a special cartilage between its head and beak to absorb some of the shock from the continuous drumming.

To help with the absorption of the constant pounding, the woodpecker has uniquely resilient tail feathers. It uses its tail feathers and feet to form a tripod effect as it clings to the tree. Even its feet are specially designed to enable it to move up, down, and around, vertical tree trunks. The feet of the woodpecker have two toes in front and two toes in back. Most other birds have three toes in front and one in back.

"This two-plus-two toe pattern....along with stiff yet elastic tail feathers, allows a woodpecker to grasp a tree firmly and balance itself on a vertical surface. When the woodpecker braces itself to chisel a hole, the tail feathers bend and spread, buttressing the bird against the rough tree surface. In this way feet and tail form an effective tripod to stabilize the blows of hammering into wood."

Suppose that somehow a bird, knowing there was lunch in those trees, developed the strong beak, the shock absorber cartilage between the beak and the skull, the ability to move its head faster than you can tap fingers, the "two-plus-two" feet and the super stiff yet elastic tail feathers. This bird still has a major problem. It will starve to death. How could it drag its lunch out of the little insect tunnels in the tree?

The woodpecker has a tongue several times longer than the average bird's tongue.  "...the tongue of a woodpecker is in a class by itself. When chiseling into a tree, the woodpecker will occasionally come across insect tunnels. Its tongue is long and slender and is used to probe these tunnels for insects. The tip is like a spearhead with a number of barbs or hairs pointing rearward. This facilitates securing the insect while transporting it to the beak. A sticky gluelike substance coats the tongue to aid in this process as well."

Not only does the woodpecker have little barbs on the tip of its tongue, it is also a mini glue factory. And the glue sticks securely to insects but does not stick to the beak of the woodpecker. Most birds have a tongue and a beak about the same length. The tongue of the woodpecker has evolutionists scratching their heads. It can be stretched far beyond the tip of the woodpecker's beak as it searches the larval tunnels for food. The animal kingdom displays no other tongues quite like that of the woodpecker. The tongue of some woodpeckers does not come from its throat up into its mouth like other creatures. The European Green woodpecker's tongue goes down the throat, out the back of the neck "...around the back of the skull beneath the skin, and over the top between the eyes, terminating usually just below the eye socket." In some woodpeckers the tongue exits the skull between the eyes and enters the beak through one of the nostrils. How would this evolve? And from what ancestor did the woodpecker inherit its special beak, feet, tail feathers, shock absorbing cartilage, thicker skull and unique tongue?

jeebus must have done it, clearly

So, does the OP have any thoughts of their own, or do they just like to plagiarize other people's claims?

It's not even like you bothered to change the words.  That's what's really sad.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anglefish.htm

This is proof that we are not alone in the galaxy... We have been visited and they have tampered with our evolutions!

>>4

You haven't presented a case against any of the arguments presented.  Inquiry is what drives science forward.

anti-god people are so full of holes. intelligent design for the win.

>>6
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

>>6

The point wasn't about whether the OP had submitted some legitimate form of reasoning (i.e. scientific inquiry).  The point was that the OP presented someone's ideas as their own.  They could have saved us the cutting and pasting by just posting a link to the webpage they stole their post from.  The simple fact that they stole these arguments from an obviously biased and politically motivated website proves at least one thing:  They have already made up their mind that evolution is wrong.  In essence, the OP is not interested in discussing anything, but rather is interested in trolling this entire board and all evolutionists on it with a big "FUCK YOU."  To this end, the OP has been successful.

Therefore, your insinuated claim that I am against scientific inquiry because I refuse to indulge the whimsy of some anonymous jackass troll is horribly wrong.  Good day.

The line of inquiry is "What uses could ancestors have for organs that lead to the organs found in today's species."  What use would a land mammal have for a blowhole?  What would be the point of a limb that has yet to become a wing for winged descendants?  What hypothesis would you have for how these ancestors develop traits and manage to successfully breed, leading to what we have today?

>>10
And those don't tend to be particularly baffling questions, unless you're crippled by a total lack of imagination and have never looked at any animals.

>>10
Exaptation. Look it up.

>>12
Or, if you want to avoid Gould's meaningless sensationalism, preadaptation.

>>13
Exaptation is better, sounds less teleological. That's why I prefer "survival of the fit enough" instead of natural selection, too.

>>14
``Survival of the fit enough'' implies a greater level of determinism than is merited.

>>15
What? No it doesn't! If a certain phenotype is fitter than others, it'll reproduce more successfully than them. A collective of "fit enough" genotypes of different species survives. I really can't see what's so deterministic about it.
Also, "preadaptation" makes you think a trait had to evolve in order to have a future purpose - even "postadaptation" is a better word.

Random mutations + genetic drift

/Thread

>>16
So in your mind, the ability to survive a meteor impact, for example, is a measure of fitness? Random things happen to fit animals all the time. Most extinction event happen independently of fitness.

>>18
To some extent, yes. The average fitness in a population makes certain phenotypes more likely to survive sudden, destructive events, even if individual organisms die randomly. It's all about large numbers. Some micro-organism (like tardigrades) can survive in space for a long time, while others cannot. I imagine it's the same for meteor impacts.
You forgot that as a major extinction happens, the environment changes and other traits become desirable. There is no unmutable standard of "fitness". Birds and mammals were certainly more fit than large dinosaurs during the K-T event, because they could regulate their body temperatures better, and didn't die out.

>>19
You're defining fitness so broadly that the whole thing becomes tautological. ``The fittest survive, and fitness is defined as that which those that survive possess.''

>>20
Am not. You're using the age-old tautology argument favored by trolls and/or creationists, forgetting heritability. And since I'm too lazy to type this shit, I'll just post a link.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
Notice point #3. In my examples, a handful of tardigrades survived a meteor impact because of their heritable ability to survive extreme conditions, and small, fuzzy animals survived the K-T event because of their heritable trait, a certain form of thermoregulation.

>>21
You're an idiot. The tautology argument doesn't apply to survival of the fittest as biologists understand it, but it most certainly applies to survival of the fittest as you define it.
You've demonstrated that you don't actually understand evolution, but you can recognise certain shibboleths and mindlessly respond to them. It's good that you're ``on our side'' (your intentions are good), but you really aren't helping.

>>22
Let me restate, what part of "some tardigrades survite extreme conditions, and pass on the alleles responsible for their success to next generations" is tautologous? The following generations are certainly more able to survive harsh conditions. If you have nothing to criticize but a strawman like >>20, or simply call me names, I don't know what you're so pissed off about.

>>23
Moving the goalposts now? And you have the gall to compare me to a creationist?

>>24
Nope, that's what I said already in >>16. But yeah, congratulations for trolling the shit out of me in this thread, I'll move back to 99chan's /sci/.

If the first Anglers were surface fish.

Since Life essentially started at the bottom of the ocean why would one assume that anglers started out as surface fish?

Only bothered to read the first part of post.

>>25
99chan
Terrible! I hate all Kusaba based imageboards.

>>26
Since Life essentially started at the bottom of the ocean
[citation needed]