National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

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

[Erik Latranyi]

No. He says that it is through selective adaptation.

And how is the mutation selected?

[js1138]

If that's true, then so is forensics.

Are you one of those nitwits who believes OJ is guilty, and that people can be locked up or even executed without the evidence of eyewitnesses?

[Elsie]

Tell me... which ones self assemble:

You left out...

---

C) None

[Elsie]

I gave you one: Homo sapiens

Circular logic

[orionblamblam]

> But will they use Google?

Only if neither of the following has occured:
1) The creationists win, and we slip into a new Dark Age
2) The Liberals win (due in large part to assistance fromt he creationists), and we slip into a new Dark Age.

[WildTurkey]

It is the evolutionary purists whose theories are stretched beyond believability.

Back to the beginning?

The evolutionary purists only try to give reason to the world. As new facts are introduced, theories are modified. Evolutionary purists never stretch the believabiltiy.

Of course there are disagreements and egos. They are human, after all.

[Heartlander]

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.

If you have a peer-reviewed article that states otherwise, I’d like to see it…

[Elsie]

How?

It think it has something to do with the Spirit hovering over the face of the Deep....

[Elsie]

No one has ever proved the existence of God.

Uh... You can use the same rationale that is exhibited in replies #64 and #67

[Elsie]

But, what about the BAD Freepers???

[WildTurkey]

Uh... You can use the same rationale that is exhibited in replies #64 and #67

Did God invent man or did man invent God to be able to explain the unexplainable?

[jennyp]

Much of forensic is deductive reasoning, but there have been more than one conviction of innocence and acquittal of a guilty man based on that. Do not call it a pure science.

Well, since it's a historical science, no theory about how a crime was committed is ever strictly proven (except when a security camera videotape shows up). But a forensic theory can become more & more secure as more facts are analyzed & as more accurate & plausible theories are developed that integrate those facts.

Also, science uses both deductive and inductive reasoning. The scientist gathers facts and steps backward (inductively) to a hypothesis about what caused them. Then she steps forward from the hypothetical cause & deductively reasons that there should be other effects out there if this hypothetical cause is in fact true. If the predictions are borne out, then we start calling it a theory and we start using it as a building block for yet more theories.

Also note that forensic scientists sometimes will conduct experiments to see whether some step in their theory of how a crime was committed is plausible, even though they're trying to reconstruct an event that happened in the past.

[Elsie]

GEORGE W BUSH WAS RE-ELECTED! ... and we can all celebrate that good news together !!!!!!!!!!

And none too soon, either!!

We C's & E's called (and actually participated in!) a truce for the duration of the electoral process.

Now it's over and we can get back to the REAL fun stuff!

---

[debating Calvinism VS Arminian veiwpoints comes in second...]

[Elsie]

A theory consistent with observed facts.

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

[Elsie]

Only if you believe in God.

What kind of a 'god' would do a thing like that?

Kids do silly things just to see what happens...

[Quix]

2-3 decades ago, I came to the very reluctant conclusion

after noting that a lot of the same board of directors at the NG were on boards of directors on a number of UN and other NGO organizations fiercely dedicated to global government

that the NG society had long been a tool of the puppet masters against Biblical values and USA sovereignity.

[Heartlander]

I believe that the ‘liberals’ are currently throwing around the word ‘creationist’.
Tell me, if someone believes God intervened at anytime in the creation of the universe and mankind, does that make the person a creationist. I need to know because the term ‘creationist’ has such a current liberal flair and can mean anything from a belief in God to morality in general.

That being said, we know if someone believes God never intervened at anytime in the creation of the universe or mankind, well… as us redneck, backwoodsy, gun-carryin’ , moral majority Christians say, ‘You might be an atheist.’

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

LOL!

[NJ_gent]

"If evolution is such a lock, why is it that there is not one documented instance in the past 200 years of a member of one species giving birth to a completely new species with a different genetic code?"

The question is oversimplified to fit an agenda. Evolution doesn't make the claim that one species all of a sudden sees its DNA altered within a generation to form an entirely new species. That's actually absurd. What evolution does is take what we already know about genetic variation, applies a little common sense to it, and then looks at the consequences of the result over a long-term period.

There are genetic differences between your parents and you. That does not make you a new species. Imagine for a moment, though, that you and a friend move to isolated spots on the planet. Let's assume you live in northern Canada, while your friend lives in central Africa. Assuming you remain completely isolated from each other, as do all those around you, your offspring over the next several dozen generations will begin to show signs of divergent evolution. Your group, living in a very cold place, sees those whose genes manifest poor homeothermic characteristics die off before they can pass those genes on to the next generation. Your friend's group, living in a more hospitable environment, does not lose those type of individuals. His group, however, will tend to see slower moving people picked off by predators often before they can pass on their genes to future generations. So we see two forces at work: the genetic variation/mutation/differentiation inherent to all known lifeforms, and the elimination of the genetic traits unsuitable for the differing environments.

What evolution tells us is that if you continue along this path for a sufficient amount of time (on the order of a few million years), you will reach a point where genetic variation and differentiation has created a difference between the two groups so great on a genetic level that they can no longer interbreed and produce viable offspring. It is the projection out to a few million years that tends to create the doubters. Few who've studied genetics doubt genetic variation/differentiation/mutation, and it's difficult to doubt the obiousness of the truth that those not fit to survive in an environment will not survive in that environment.

"My personal thoughts on this aside, how can anyone lend credence to calling evolution fact"

In my opinion, anyone who claims Evolution is a fact is just as silly as someone who claims it's entirely myth. It's a theory in progress which explains, with a high degree of accuracy, much of what we see around us in terms of differences between species, and in terms of the differences between modern and pre-historic species.

"when the theory cannot be proved even in a controlled lab environment?"

The driving principles of evolution have been shown in a lab, most dramatically using bacteria cultures which are exposed to various toxins. If you want another example, ask the people who make RAID why it is that they constantly have to develop new formulas for their bug-killing products. They'll tell you that when you've killed the 99% of bugs in your home as promised on the can, that 1% repopulates and is immune to the old stuff. (That's a partial simplification, but the principle holds true).

[Elsie]

So far we've got......

 

#40 the Dark Ages

#41 intellectual drool

#50 clearly silly

#58 cheap gloss

#94 religious obsessives

#96 dense (intentionally or not?)