It only takes one counterexample (to disprove evolution). Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance
86 comments
"It only takes one counterexample (to disprove evolution)"
Not true. That's simply not the way how science works. We haven't abandoned the Newtonian theory of gravity, despite the fact that it can't quite explain why there are 2 tides on the opposite sides of the earth. Just an example.
"The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest."
That's actually a very good point (no sarcasm). It's just that it only SEEMS to us that the autumn foliage looks pretty. Beauty isn't something we can objectively measure.
"But such beauty does not happen by chance."
I thought this antropomorphizing of inanimate objects ended at ancient astrology, but I guess creationists are to follow in those footsteps.
"The foliage existed before man does , and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest.
Er, didn't you just defeat your own argument? If the foliage existed "before man does[sic]", then the "beauty" clearly wasn't designed or intended for humans to enjoy.
At any rate, the change from green to red, yellow and brown is nothing more than a chemical change.
Well, not technically, but they still benefit us. Or do you not breathe oxygen? ;)
Larty said : We haven't abandoned the Newtonian theory of gravity, despite the fact that it can't quite explain why there are 2 tides on the opposite sides of the earth.
Actually Newtonian theory explains the 2 tides quite well thank you. It doesn't adequately explain the precession of Mercury's orbit though.
As for Andy, Convservapedia is just a huge pile of idiocy, why waste the time?
"The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest"
1) The beauty mightn't, but having autumn foliage does. Why keep all that expensive photosynthetic real-estate going when there isn't enough daylight to make it worthwhile? Of course, where the seasons don't change that much, down near the equator, it would be worth keeping green leaves all year round. And guess what? 'Autumn' foliage is much less common in the tropical and sub-tropical zones.
Why did God decide trees should only be beautiful in the Northern/Southern forests?
2) Who says it doesn't benefit the trees? Perhaps being beautiful makes you less likely to end up as firewood? Beauty in trees would then be a result of the selective activities of man over many generations.
Not true, but still a logical flaw in the argument.
Abscission helps the tree as the nutrients otherwise used by the leaf are stored inside the tree for winter, where there is less sunlight, and therefore energy, available. The value of "beauty" we assign to this process is arbitrary.
As always Andy, you fail. Feel free to play again though.
Actually the chlorophyll in the leaves is breaking down as they fall off the trees in preparation for winter. Since there's less sunlight in winter and more snow, it's not worth it for trees to have leaves that won't be getting light and will only collect snow.
The whole deciduous thing is an evolutionary trait of that whole area of trees.
Didn't you pay any attention in Bio?
And beauty does happen by chance.
You're right, it's beautiful.
They're also dying for the sake of conservation during a time period when they're not going to be getting anything.
I think the latter of the two reasons is why it made it a common evolutionary trait in trees. Since, y'know, the ones that didn't have the ability to drop things they weren't going to be using anyways to keep from starving... tended to starve.
Is Andy Schlafly on crack? Disregarding the highly subjective term "beauty" when describing trees, since when is it a fact that they have obviously adapted to suit their environment and the annual changes in that environment a counter-example of evolution?! If anything, Autumn foliage stands as a direct example of evolution.
But you've failed to explain why chopsticks always come in pairs, so your argument holds no asparagus.
Oh. We're not playing the Word Salad version of Mad Libs?
My bad.
"It only takes one counterexample (to disprove evolution). Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough."
It only takes one counterexample (to disprove gravity). Number one in the list -- cream cheese -- is enough.
Makes about as much sense as what you wrote.
"The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest."
Uh, while the leaves changing colors might be aesthetically pleasing, that's not why they do it you imbecile.
"The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance."
What the fuck are you talking about? Evolution says nothing about "beauty" you jackass. You want philosophy or art. Also, leaves changing color has nothing to do with "chance" either you idiot.
"But such beauty does not happen by chance"
Oh, wait. I just noticed who wrote this tripe. Never mind. This is top shelf thinking for Schlafly and the Conservapedia crowd.
Based on his idea that autumn foliage assumes its colors for the sake of aesthetics, I'd say that Andy Schlafy is in the pre-operational stage of Piaget's cognitive development theory.
He types pretty well for someone with the intellectual capacity of a 3-7 year old.
@Larty, I thought we had abandoned Newtonian Gravity, at least as a view of how thinks actually work. We still use/teach it because it gives a very good, easy approximation in most cases, but we know it is not actually how/why things work and for that we have Einsteinian General relativity which gives an even better answer in all cases, and is the best understanding of how gravity works we have (and explains mercury's orbit.)
It only takes one counterexample (to disprove evolution).
That's true. Unfortunately for creationists, they haven't found one yet, despite poring over everything they can get their hands on (but never doing their own research, God forbid).
The beauty of a dead body doesn't help the person who once lived; therefore, Goddidit.
See what I did there? Subjective views =/= objective observations.
Wrong again. Beauty is a completely subjective term. I find fall leaves to be depressing. But that doesn't matter because evolution can explain why leaves fall off trees in fall. It's because the trees can't get enough sunlight in the winter, and also it's too cold to support leaves, so it would be a more successful trait to just drop the leaves and start photosynthesis again in the spring.
You fail.
Nobody except you and your friends (in the unlikely event that you have any) thinks that all organisms evolve according to what humans find pleasing.
Of course, by your logic, it takes only one counterexample to disprove intelligent design.
And that proves...creationism how?
Beauty is subjective. We can't be sure how a dog feels about roadkill, but from what I've seen of dogs, it seems they consider it a rather positive thing. If you didn't happen to be human, you might consider other sights beautiful.
(and all those "fall colors" do have a purpose--they're non-photosynthetic pigments becoming visible as the chlorophyll synthesis is shut down in the leaves. All those pigments aid in the plants in various ways)
Wow, he even tries to defend this argument in later posts... Here is a counter example to your counter example, Andy:
I start a random number generator. The output is 19238490231854. I think that number is beautiful.
Beauty can happen by chance because beauty is something applied by people. It is not a characteristic, like size or mass.
Honestly, I am shocked that you are trying to defend this argument instead of just deleting it from the page along with all history of it. If anyone ever wants to know how stupid Conservapedia is, all I have to do is send them this verifiable quote by the site's author.
EDIT - Holy shit, other posters even try to defend this argument later on. If they are wanting a reason to dismiss evolution in their minds, they would be better off going with "Goddidit, everything else is a lie."
Tree 1: What's up?
THIS, my friends, is how a fundy thinks.
Beauty is a subjective experience. I, for one, loathe the autumn colors because a) I'm allergic. And b) it means winter is coming, and it's gonna get *cold*. I don't do well in the cold.
One scenario, as someone said earlier: the aesthetic value of autumn foliage keeps a live tree from looking dead.
Another scenario: Autumn foliage actually serves to make potential eaters of the tree think it's dead, with the benefit that some tree-eaters are likely to spare the tree during a time that it's strapped for nutrients. (That doesn't evidently stop deer from eating so much bark it kills the tree, but then again autumn foliage probably predated cervid predation.)
Also quite likely: Autumn foliage is a spandrel and really has nothing to do with adaptation; it's just a byproduct of dying chloroplasts in the leaves that happens to look cool to humans.
My turds change color, depending on what I have eaten. That does not happen by chance, but it is the will of god. Yes god without caps.
FACT: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The leaves don't change color because they think they're pretty. Humans might think it is; I certainly think autumn leaves are gorgeous.
It's just a chemical change, nothing more.
I've heard this exact argument in the flesh but with flowers.
Didn't take long to point out that flowers might well be intended to attract, but they're not aimed at YOU.
Something as subjective as 'beauty' is hardly permissable as scientific evidence. Just because you find it pretty, doesn't mean that everyone does, or that goddidit.
Whoa, ha ha.
hoo hoo.
WAA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAH.
Amazing that this person is smart enough to turn on the computer. The assumption that the only function that dying leaves have is the ascetic pleasure of man shows that Andy is proceeding from false assumptions.
I tried to think of many clever answers to this, but only came up with, "You are a stupid man, Andy." I call this idea "Stupmandy!"
OK. You had your say, now let me have mine.
Say this with me: Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.
Too hard for you?
Its liking discussing football with a drunk.
No, it's like explaining the queen's gambit to someone who thinks you are playing checkers.
A tree in the middle of a New Hampshire forest that no one has ever seen will still turn in October. This does not disprove evolution, for not only have humans evolved from something else, but the species of tree in New Hampshire has evolved from something else. Beauty is not there for you and you alone. There is beauty in the night sky, that has traveled many light years to reach my telescope. It would be extremely arrogant of me to think that this scene was placed in a far corner of the Universe for my brief enjoyment. It would be the same with or without me.
The red/yellow autumn foliage is not red or yellow to be beautiful on purpose. That's just a side-effect.
When the trees no longer produce chlorophyll (green pigments) in their leaves, but instead stores minerals in their roots during winter, the xanthophyll (yellow pigments) can be seen more clearly. A few minutes of googling told me as much. Real googling, that is, not censored Conservapedia googling.
It's not a beauty contest, stupid, but a chemical exchange of substances.
Btw, how could the trees benefit from humans thinking their dying leaves are beautiful? Sure, we chose the most beautiful ones when we plant trees or shrubs in our gardens and parks. But most trees grow in forests that are not planted by humans.
Yeah, yeah, tide goes in, tide goes out. We've heard it before. It was stupid then, and its stupid now.
These fossilized maple leaves are from the Eocene, about 45 mya. They were pretty colors long before the first members of the Homo genus walked the earth. So no, the dead leaves aren't there for your enjoyment. Neither is the beauty of the night sky.image
> The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest.
> The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance.
> But such beauty does not happen by chance
Only adding critical thinking clues, after already excellent comments.
There is a teleological argument, desiring to see purpose and make attributions. False causal attributions are common and science includes processes to mitigate this. We depend and like nature because we come from it. It does not mean that nature was created for that purpose. Straw men of science are constructed, like based on the false premise that science claims that everything originated by chance alone. Creationists commonly say that and it's ignorant. Science attempts to understand how it happens and discovered natural processes at work that explain life diversity. That said, I suspect that to the average Conservapedian, this all sounds too complicated. But who knows, it's never too late, I used to be a creationist. I was raised in a context of reinforced ignorance. Read a work on criticial thinking skills basics, then a normal college level biology textbook, like Campbells (not a misleading booklet for church or homeschooling produced by an organization, or a fake resource like Conservapedia, with the intent to mislead). Perhaps that you'll recover your mind that was stolen from you.
“It only takes one counterexample (to disprove evolution).”
"Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest.”
"The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance.”
“But such beauty does not happen by chance”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
