National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

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

[Carling]

That is a sophist's take on evolution. I tend to agree with the author on many points, but that doesn't make them scientific proofs. "Evidences"?

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

In short, a lot of words, but not enough to convince me of a scientific FACT, and if convinces you, I suggest you do some more research on what scientific fact consists of.

[StJacques]

"Please tell me how a retroarticular process behind the mandible (more properly referred to as the dentary) is dispositive of archaeopterex's ancestral lineage. . . ."

I think you may have that backwards from the text quote of the article I posted. Let me repost just that portion:

". . . The Archaeopteryx skull is also typically reptilian in structure, exhibiting: a number of openings or "fenestrae" in the skull, arranged as in therapod dinosaurs and not birds; a heavy but short quadratic bone which is inclined forward as in reptiles; a bend in the jawbones behind the tooth row; a long retro-articular process, which is found in reptiles but not in birds; . . ."

I believe it was the author's clear intent in that segment to establish the archaeopteryx's reptilian ancestry as positive, not dispositive as your question implies.

I'll repost the link to that article as a "pop up" link below:

Archaeopteryx and the Creationists

[Carling]

Were those supposed to prove something? The one example that may pass the muster is the house mouse, but then the changes occurred over 250 years and could (note that word) be the result of outside factors or breeding with other species.

Still not a fact.

[WildTurkey]

What I am saying is that it is odd that scientists are willing to put their own "faith" into accepting evolution as fact when they know they can't replicate this theory in the lab.

Scientists do not say evolution is fact. It is theory. A theory consistent with observed facts. If observed facts conflict with the theory, it is modified as needed to match observed facts. If it is replicated in a lab, then it will go from being a theory to being fact.

[Carling]

Scientists do not say evolution is fact. It is theory. A theory consistent with observed facts. If observed facts conflict with the theory, it is modified as needed to match observed facts. If it is replicated in a lab, then it will go from being a theory to being fact.

Actually, if replicated in the lab it will become a law, but the above is what I have been trying to say. There are conflicting theories on how the universe was created, but no one knows for sure, now do they. For the record, I tend to side with the evolution gang with a touch of God's hand involved. I'm nuanced!

[WildTurkey]

OK… But some ‘use’ TOE to explain everything and since TOE excludes ID in any form or fashion, what is left but ‘random acts of chance’?

Some say that TOE excludes ID in any form or fashion and say it depends only on 'random acts of chance' inorder to make a false argument against the TOE.

[TChris]

Darwinian Evolution ping

[WildTurkey]

And the evidence against it is generally discarded, even by proponents. I again use the "it used its wings as a net to trap bugs" explanation of how birds first flew. Once it was disproven (mostly by an aerospace engineer) the proponents said "Oh, well, the theory served its purpose."

I think you have entered the world of 'random thoughts'. I have no idea of what you are trying to say.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Example #1 from your link of witnessed 'speciations' is:

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

You realize this example is controversial, right?

[Elsie]

Though I look forward to the use the term "straw man argument" and childish name calling

 

 

Like THESE??

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1270959/posts?page=97#97

[Elsie]

National Geographic, apparently NOT learning from the Chinese Chicken Fossil Hoax of a couple of years ago, this month reported....

[Erik Latranyi]

"do we have documented instances of mutations across a variety of living species that are sufficient to establish a factual basis that, given the postulated length of time required to form a new species, evolutionary development is plausible?"

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.

[Elsie]

they had been totally hijacked by the Greens

Just like Scientific American!

[Elsie]

It makes perfect sense that God would set the process of evolution in motion.

It does?????

[Elsie]

...leave this thread to the creos.

Pat, are we the BLUE or the RED this time?

[WildTurkey]

For the record, I tend to side with the evolution gang with a touch of God's hand involved. I'm nuanced!

I think even Creationists say that God works in mysterious and wonderful ways. They then go on to say they can explain that there is no mystery.

[WildTurkey]

But Darwin asserts that these mutations are random in nature

No. He says that it is through selective adaptation.

[WildTurkey]

It makes perfect sense that God would set the process of evolution in motion.

It does?????

Only if you believe in God.

[MoonMullins]

I thought you would say this. The logical conclusion of your argument is that if free will does not imply randomness, then evolutionary chemisty must itself be following an intelligent design, whether its own (unlikely) or another.

[Elsie]

...all matter was packed into an infinitely dense space.

---

HMmmm... that must have been a BIG Black Hole: something which scientists say that once matter enters it, it'll never get out again.

(Kinda makes ya wonder how it got out in the first place...)