National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

Discovery Institute News ^ | 11/8/04 | Jonathan Wells

[Elsie]

...that 1% repopulates and is immune to the old stuff.

EVERY one of them???

---

HMmmm...

"Dare a WHOLE lot of assumin' goin' on hyere!"

[O Neill]

Was Darwin wrong?

Is anyone even working on this? Experimenters are always testing Einstein's theories/hypotheses...and have verified many (as close as possible given experimental/apparatus limitations).

So, if we watch rabbits reproduce long enough, they should eventually produce a zebra...

Is anyone working on this?

Anyone?

Anyone?

[NJ_gent]

As I said, there's a bit of oversimplification there (as it would take 20 pages to begin to do it justice), but yes, for all intents and purposes, you can assume that when you've used the 99%-effective spray on 1,000 bugs, 10 will be left alive and cannot be killed by that particular spray.

[Heartlander]

Natural selection is obviously observed but the crux of this argument is, in my opinion, purpose and design or science sterilized from ID – i.e. secular fundamentalism.

Again, this is ‘my’ take on this entire argument.

[AndrewC]

Haven't you heard? Darwin has no flaws.

He uses a WaterPik®

[NJ_gent]

Ahh, but real science doesn't attempt to answer the question of what happens outside that which is observable/detectable, nor which is beyond the explainations of physical laws. When you delve into ID, you've basing your assumptions upon a premise which cannot be proven or disproven.

[Heartlander]

When you delve into ID, you've basing your assumptions upon a premise which cannot be proven or disproven.

Well, science should now immediately show how human consciousness and morality came from mindlessness. If science ‘believes’ we came from a universe void of ID, I’m now asking scientism for answers. Obviously scientism has the answer or you’re ‘basing your assumptions upon a premise which cannot be proved or disproved’.

[2nd Amendment]

National Geographic is no longer interested in science It is chocked full of pure evolutionary propaganda!

[ThinkPlease]

Oh yeah? I see your critique,and raise you a response!

A response to a critique of 29 evidences

[PatrickHenry]

Herewith, my review of the response to a critique of 29 evidences:

It's tough slogging. The guy should simply have rewritten the original essay. He could have used Darwin's technique at various points and said something like: "Those who dispute this point by arguing X are in error because ..."

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Thanks for the link.

Since you're such a big TO fan, here's a critique of Boxhorn's 'Observed Instances of Speciation' you might be interested in: No speciation

[Elsie]

...10 will be left alive and cannot be killed by that particular spray.

And if the bugs no longer get sprayed, what will the future population be like?

Do the non-resistant bugs outproduce the others? or the other way around? Or does the ratio stay the same?

[Elsie]

Natural selection is obviously observed...

Is it? Really?

To paraphrase a movie of a couple of years ago: "I see dead bugs."

---

Does your family have a 'history' of heart problems? Cancer? wahtever?

Yet they are ALL still Human.

[Elsie]

"HMmmm... these natives we found living in the New World have no immunities against European diseases. I guess they haven't evolved enough."

[GummyIII]

thanks!

[StJacques]

"But Darwin asserts that these mutations are random in nature and not "programmed". Unfortunately, we do not see random mutation since that would quickly lead to the extinction of every living thing on the planet.

Intelligent Design (ID) asserts that the mutations are programmed in and somehow intelligent in their direction."

What we see are mutations. What we argue about is whether they are random, a response to environmental stress, or something else. As I stated in my first post in this thread, there is a difference between the Theory of Evolution and the "engine of evolutionary change," which to Darwin is Natural Selection and that there is a real scientific debate over Natural Selection, which your point about mutations brings into focus. So I have no argument with that.

I have to be honest about "Intelligent Design" and admit that I have not read enough about it to speak authoritatively on the matter. I do know that some evolutionary biologists have argued that certain mutations can be "predicted" due to "Entropic Relationships within an Ecology," which is another way of saying that species are "programmed" to maximize the resources of their environment. I do not know how this relates to "Intelligent Design," but at least on the surface, the theory seems to merit further observation.

[WildTurkey]

So, if we watch rabbits reproduce long enough, they should eventually produce a zebra... Is anyone working on this? Anyone? Anyone?

"Speciation is not a sudden, miraculous transformation from one species to another. The way creationists envision evolution theory, a pregnant female ape went into labour one day and a human being popped out! It is a gross understatement to say that this is a misrepresentation of the truth. In reality, evolution theory merely proposes that a great many small changes eventually caused an animal population to become intersterile with its ancestors."

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

No problem, glad you got here. Tangents in all directions, but the original post was brain fodder.

[StJacques]

". . . The way creationists envision evolution theory, a pregnant female ape went into labour one day and a human being popped out! . . ."

Lol WildTurkey! That is about what they see. No grandpappy o'mine ever swung from his tail!"

[Elsie]

evolution theory merely proposes that a great many small changes...

If this is TRULY what current ET believes, then we should find, in all living things, partial structures that fail to have ANY function at this point in time, but are merely waiting for the last brick to be placed in the wall.

After all, the EYE is one of the many stumbling blocks:

1. It is so complex that the odds of random mutations occuring at the same time to form it are so great the Universe hasn't been around long enough.

2. Accumulating small mutations over time to form a functioning eye hits the same problem.