National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

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

[Ichneumon]

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 ..."

Actually, he did. From the opening paragraphs of the response:

My response has been two-fold. First, I have incorporated new material into the original essay that specifically addresses many of Camp's points, and thus much of his response is now superfluous. Second, in the following sections I rebut the more egregious errors found in Camp's criticism, especially ones that would interrupt the flow and thrust of the original article if they were included there.

[Elsie]

....they wouldn't be able to put forth their fallacious arguments.

You keeping using these words, but are STILL failing to point them out...

[Elsie]

A simple question:

Since ET says that monkeys and apes and Humans descended from a common ancestor,

did the CA have an opposable thumb for a big toe and the Humans devolved it;
or did he NOT have an opposable thumb for a big toe and the monkeys and apes EVOLVED it?

[PatrickHenry]

Actually, he did.

I know. That's why I started to read it. But it just didn't flow, so I bailed. Maybe I wasn't in the mood. Or maybe Darwin was a better writer.

[Elsie]

Speaking of mating, I would assume that Multiple Orgasums would be GOOD for the species as a whole, with the repro rate up there, so why do we Humans want to DEvolve, by LOWERING our offspring output?

[Migraine]

Please state, in your own words, the "evidentiary difficulties" you feel that National Geographic has failed to acknowledge.

Broken down to its essence, the theory of evolution fails to address the monumental problem of turning rocks into people in a universe totally devoid of intelligence. Anyone who would believe that rocks could turn into people could be convinced of just about anything.

[PatrickHenry]

Award-winning placemarker.

[JeffAtlanta]

Plus, his evidences were microevolution, not macroevolution, so I'm not even sure why his article is titled as such.

Here we go again. There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution. All evolution is gradual. What you refer to as "macro-evolution" is just the accumulation of "micro-evolution".

If you're waiting for a fruit fly to give birth to a monkey then its not going to happen. In fact, if it did it would actually invalidate evolution.

[JeffAtlanta]

Actually, if replicated in the lab it will become a law

That's not how "theories" and "laws" work. Theories and Laws in science coexist and do not replace each other. The Ideal Gas law did not replace any theories. Theories never graduate to being laws.

This is the where most people just don't understand science methodology. This is also the origin of the old argument "evolution is only a theory".

[JeffAtlanta]

UH... just what 'facts' have been 'observed'??

You're kidding right? How about antibotic resistant bacteria? How about pesticide resistant insects?

[JeffAtlanta]

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

Unless you left off a sarcasm tag, you have no idea what the theory of evolution really is. If a rabbit gave birth to a zebra, it would actually INVALIDATE evolution.

By the way, there are people constantly working on evolutionary theory. Like all scientific theories it is continually tested, explored and debated.

[CompGeek]

I'm no expert (this will become obvious momentarily) so I've always been puzzled about one thing. At a certain point a mother gives birth to a child with a different genetic code, right? Fine, but let's say the child is a female. My question is; where does the male come from with the same genetic code to propagate this new species? Or is it a horse + donkey = mule type of thing where the species are similar enough to carry on. My ignorance on this is great so I would appreciate any answers you could provide?

[JeffAtlanta]

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?

No way to tell. When the spraying stops that evolutionary pressure is eliminated. The proportion of bugs that have spray resistant genes will be at a higher level though.

This is why it is so important to kill off all members of a rapidly reproducing species (insects, bacteria) population before they can adapt and become resistant. This is why doctors insist that antibiotics shouldn't be taken unless the patient will take the whole dose.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

Pythagorean mysticism

did you sit in front of me in geometry?

[JeffAtlanta]

Where are they??

All around us. Right now in Africa, there are some lions that are slightly better equipped to live in their changing environment that others. They might be a little stronger, a little faster, a little smaller and a little more heat resistant. Whatever the very slight variation, it will be almost impossible to spot. These genes however will give the lion a better chance of reproducing and passing on its genes.

The lions will not spontaneously grow a horn.

[JeffAtlanta]

there is absolutely NO evidence one species evolved from another, NONE.. evidence to the contrary exists though.

What is this contrary evidence?

[JeffAtlanta]

Since ET says that monkeys and apes and Humans descended from a common ancestor,

Monkeys should be left out of this. They are quite different from apes. The common ancestor for monkeys and apes far predates the common ancestor of apes and humans.

[JeffAtlanta]

the theory of evolution fails to address the monumental problem of turning rocks into people in a universe totally devoid of intelligence. Anyone who would believe that rocks could turn into people could be convinced of just about anything.

Of course the theory of evolution fails to address turning rocks into people. That's because evolution doesn't predict that at all. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life - its only about already living creatures accumulating biological changes over time.

No where in the theory of evolution does it say that life sprung forth from rocks. In fact, the theory is totally silent on the subject of the origin of life. If you actually knew something about evolution you wouldn't post something like that.

[Carling]

Nice and vague, eh Jeff? Evolution isn't a law, and you know it.

The generally accepted argument won't pass with me. Probability is one thing, but a true scientist strives for certainty.

[Carling]

The common ancestor for monkeys and apes far predates the common ancestor of apes and humans.

Show me the transitional fossils and the proof for this statement.

I'll be waiting, and I want tangible, factual evidence.