Posted on 05/08/2005 10:20:27 AM PDT by GarySpFc
Study strengths, weaknesses of evolution
By Jonathan Witt
Special to The Star
Biology textbooks diligently paper over the fact that biologists have never observed or even described in credible, theoretical terms a continually functional, macroevolutionary pathway leading to fundamentally new anatomical forms.
It seems the Darwinists in Kansas are living in the past.
Not the past of, say, the fossil record. The history written there tells of the abrupt appearance of major animal forms, nothing like the gradually branching tree of life that Darwin envisioned. The past that some evolutionists are living in, rather, is the Kansas science curriculum battle of 1999.
It's sturdy creation vs. evolution boilerplate and media outlets around the country have run with it. But the boilerplate in this case was showing rust. That is, it was false. The Associated Press was the first to issue the correction, reporting that the scientists that testified at the Kansas science hearings were “expected to advocate exposing students to more criticism of evolution, not teaching alternatives to it.”
In fact, alternatives aren't even on the table in the proposed science standards. And some of the scientists who testified, like Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, aren't even design theorists. They're simply calling for students to learn the strengths and weaknesses in Darwin's theory of evolution, rather than the air-brushed presentation they receive now.
If every design theorist dropped off the planet tomorrow, current textbook presentations of evolutionary theory would still be riddled with error and spin — Ernst Haeckel's 19th century embryo drawings, four-winged fruit flies, peppered moths hidden on tree trunks, the incredible expanding beak of the Galapagos finch.
These common textbook icons of Darwinian evolution in action have all been discredited. Haeckel faked his embryo drawings. Mutant fruit flies are dysfunctional. And peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks; the photographs were staged.
As for finch beaks, high school biology textbooks neglect to mention that the beaks returned to normal after the rains returned. No net evolution occurred. Like many species, the finch has an average beak size that fluctuates within a given range.
This is microevolution, the noncontroversial and age-old observation of change within species. Biology textbooks diligently paper over the fact that biologists have never observed or even described in credible, theoretical terms a continually functional, macroevolutionary pathway leading to fundamentally new anatomical forms like the bat, the eye and the wing.
Well, icons like the finch beak and the fruit fly are just used over and over to make a point, the Darwinists reassure us. Instead, look at a really central icon, the gradually branching tree of life.
You see, neo-Darwinism works by natural selection seizing small, beneficial mutations and passing them along, bit by bit. If all living things are gradually modified descendants of a common ancestor, then the history of life should resemble a slowly branching tree. Unfortunately, while we can find the tree lovingly illustrated in our kids' biology textbooks, we can't ever seem to reach it out in the wide world. The fossil record stands like a flashing sword barring our way.
More than 140 years of assiduous fossil collecting has only aggravated the problem. Instead of slight differences appearing first, then greater differences emerging later, the greatest differences appear right at the start — numerous and radically disparate anatomies leaping together onto the Cambrian stage. These aren't just distinct species but distinct phyla, categories so large that man and bat occupy not only the same phylum but the same subphylum. Later geological periods show similar patterns of sudden appearance, stasis and persistent chasms of difference between major groups.
Could it be that the millions of missing transitional forms predicted by Darwin's theory just happen to be among the forms that weren't fossilized and preserved? After a detailed statistical analysis to test this idea, University of Chicago paleontologist Michael Foote concluded, “We have a representative sample and therefore we can rely on patterns documented in the fossil record.”
He didn't mean that we will find no more species. He does mean that we have enough fossil data to see the basic pattern before us.
In other words, some evolutionists see the fossil record as a real problem. Will high school students learn this in class? In the past they haven't. The proposed science standards would merely correct this problem, directing public schools to teach students the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory.
Meanwhile, the Darwinian scarecrow about the creationists coming to take us away has begun to show its straw.
While (Professor of Creative Writing) Witt is quite confident that modern biology is totally wrong, it’s all too clear that he doesn’t even understand the basics.
I must say I am SHOCKED that the KCStar ran this. You should check out the Wichita Eagle editorial on the subject. "Fringe" I believe was how they started it. It was hateful and arrogant.
At first all was water. A water-fowl thought that there must be earth below. So all the water-fowls dived for it. Finally Turtle said he would try. He made himself a waterproof suit to travel in under water. Then he got much rope. He said, "If I jerk on the rope pull me out. If there is no earth I shall come to the surface all alone." Finally they pulled him up. He was helpless when he came to the surface. His mouth and ears were all plugged up with mud. They saw mud under his nails. They got a little mud this way. They dried it and made an island. It grew and became the world.
Wintu Indian creation story, north-central California
[In fact, alternatives aren't even on the table in the proposed science standards.]
Peerhaps it's time to have teachers cover the most popular alternatives in every branch of science. They could teach intelligent design with evolution, astrology with astronomy, alchemy with chemistry, and levitation, ESP, and alien abduction with physics.
But we shouldn't limit ourselves to just the alternatives in the field of science. We should also be mandating the teaching of Spanish, Chinese, German, Arabic, Latin and Hebrew in English class, and in politics and history class we need to teach, with equal fervor and enthusiasm, the competing theories of Communism vs Capitalism, slavery vs liberty, monarchism vs Jeffersonianism and despotism vs democracy.
In other words, he's totally irrelevant and offers no insight into evolutionary theory.
[University of Chicago paleontologist Michael Foote concluded, “We have a representative sample and therefore we can rely on patterns documented in the fossil record.” He didn't mean that we will find no more species. He does mean that we have enough fossil data to see the basic pattern before us.
In other words, some evolutionists see the fossil record as a real problem.]
HUH?! Wrong conclusion. “We have a representative sample and therefore we can rely on patterns documented in the fossil record.” means there is no problem for the validity of evolution in the fossil record.
What does this have to do with the points in the story that evolution does not exists as the evols would have us believe? Even Darwin himself was puzzled and dismayed at the lack of transitional fosils in the fosil record and said that more digging should prouce them. However, more digging hasn't produced them, on the contrary more digging has only shown that darinism is wrong, which is why evos have produced several other theories to explain evolution, neo darwinism and, the latest, punctuated equilibrium, both of these are mutation theories. In other words instead of gradual evolutionary changes they occur suddenly by mutation.
These two theories are full of holes also. What is known for sure but seldom admitted to in public by top evo scientists is the fact that natural selection doesn't work except in the case of variations, or if you prefer, micro evolution. Outside infulences on a species cannot change the species because the DNA of a species decides what the next generation will be like, not weather conditions of some other outside influence
In other words, if I cut my index finger off and the next 2,000,000 generations cut their index finger off, the babies being born would still have index fingers because the simple act of cutting off a finger will not change the DNA pattern that causes babies to have index fingers. This is something all scientists know today but, as I said, few evos will admit to knowing this and they still allow natural selection to be taught in schools
I am not a creationists, nor, do I think , a person who believes in ID, but I will tell you what I don't believe in, I don't believe in evolution as it is taught today, and I don't believe it for good reason. That reason being that it has been proven false and a new theory needs to be formed, even if that theory is the "we don't know how things got to be the way they are" theory until they can actually discover how it does work.
Lying, producing false records, false species and generally making the evidence fit the theory has been the general practice of evos and I suspect they will continue to do so until they are finally forced out of existence by the truth.
The truth being, no one knows, including creationists, how we got here and why there are so many different species on the planet.
What do you expect?? He's with the "Discovery Institute"---a major advocate of "intelligent design".
Do you really think this example honestly represents natural selection as understood in the scientific community?
We should note that there are at least 16 different species of shrimp, in the Point Mugu Lagoon. They are different from any shrimp, and breed true. The Point Mugu lagoon was man made in the 1940s when mud was dredged out to make a high place for the Pt. Mugu runways.
Current evolutionary theory shows that there are lean times and fat times. In fat times nearly all members of a population survive, and diversity abounds. In lean times particular members are selected by their accidental advantage, and other characteristics die out.
Creation is a Zero order theory. In the absense of evidence, one postulates continuous existance as it is today. How did it get here? A miracle.
The Darwinian theory was a first order theory. In the absense of evidence, it is reasonable to fit a straight line to two points.
The current evolutionary theory is high order, based on encorporating data from fossiles, modern farm eugenics programs (aka Luther Burbank) and biochemistry.
I merely propose that those who don't accept it be denied "live vaccine" medicine, modern "large breast" chicken and turkey, and be required to pay a premium on the price of all foods, to estimate what the price of food would be if there was no evolution.
Besides, I have grown weary of trying to explain science, and how it works, to people whose minds are already made up and need to either destroy or pervert science to reach their desired ends. No amount of explanation or education will ever change a person's mind when it is ovecome by the zeal of true belief.
So, expect to see a beautiful Native American creation story on many of these CS/ID posts.
CS/ID folks want alternatives? There are lots of alternatives out there besides theirs!
"Peerhaps it's time to have teachers cover the most popular alternatives in every branch of science. They could teach intelligent design with evolution, astrology with astronomy, alchemy with chemistry, and levitation, ESP, and alien abduction with physics.
But we shouldn't limit ourselves to just the alternatives in the field of science. We should also be mandating the teaching of Spanish, Chinese, German, Arabic, Latin and Hebrew in English class, and in politics and history class we need to teach, with equal fervor and enthusiasm, the competing theories of Communism vs Capitalism, slavery vs liberty, monarchism vs Jeffersonianism and despotism vs democracy."
Excellant idea. Perhaps children will grow up with the tools required to help them make informed decisions.
"Besides, I have grown weary of trying to explain science, and how it works, to people whose minds are already made up and need to either destroy or pervert science to reach their desired ends."
I am still waiting for a simple or extremly will defined answer as to if you believe a hula hoop made of polyethlene for instance could have been formed from non organic materials in some early earth model (tons of versions, take the version you feel suitable), and to make things easier on you, you pick the choice of the type plastic amoung thousands of choices that would be formed into a simple geometric design such as a hula hoop, or again to make things simper, lets say hollow ball, er might not be simpler.
" Do you really think this example honestly represents natural selection as understood in the scientific community?"
What "version" of natural selection supported by what group of evolutionist would you point to, specifically?
I am still waiting for a simple or extremly will defined answer as to if you believe a hula hoop made of polyethlene for instance could have been formed from non organic materials in some early earth model (tons of versions, take the version you feel suitable), and to make things easier on you, you pick the choice of the type plastic amoung thousands of choices that would be formed into a simple geometric design such as a hula hoop, or again to make things simper, lets say hollow ball, er might not be simpler.
This is what I mean about trying to explain science to those who must deny or pervert science in favor of their beliefs. Your question is scientifically nonsensical; it has no relevance to anything we have been discussing.
I like your bio page by the way.
In other words, if I cut my index finger off and the next 2,000,000 generations cut their index finger off, the babies being born would still have index fingers because the simple act of cutting off a finger will not change the DNA pattern that causes babies to have index fingers. This is something all scientists know today but, as I said, few evos will admit to knowing this and they still allow natural selection to be taught in schools.
Do you want to defend that as accurately representing any scientific version of natural selection?
The "Discovery Institute" - isn't that the nuthouse funded by the Rev Sun Myung Moon's nefarious CAUSA organization?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.