Skip to comments.Donald Prothero’s Imaginary Evidence for Evolution (yet another evo hoax!)
Posted on 12/01/2009 6:39:06 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Need evidence for Darwinian evolution? Just make it up.
Thats the lesson of Donald Protheros book, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero is a professor of geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles. On November 30, he teamed up with atheist Michael Shermer (founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine) to debate Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg of the Discovery Institute.
Shermer wrote the foreword to Protheros book, calling it the best book ever written on the subject. In fact, Dons visual presentation of the fossil and genetic evidence for evolution is so unmistakably powerful that I venture to say that no one could read this book and still deny the reality of evolution.
Of course, evolution can mean many things, most of which nobody would deny even without Protheros book. For example, evolution can mean simply change over time, or minor changes in existing species (microevolution), neither of which any sane person doubts. Both Shermer and Prothero, however, make it clear that by evolution they mean Darwins theory that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified principally by natural selection acting on unguided variations (macroevolution).
The modern version of the theory asserts that new variations originate in genetic mutations. Some of the most dramatic mutations occur in Hox genes, which can determine which appendages develop in various parts of the body. On page 101 of his book, Prothero shows pictures of two Hox gene mutations: antennapedia, which causes a fruit fly to sprout legs instead of antennae from its head, and ultrabithorax, which causes a fruit fly to develop a second pair of wings from it midsection. But both of these are harmful: A fruit fly with legs sticking out of its head is at an obvious disadvantage, and a four-winged fruit fly has no flight muscles in its extra pair of wings, so it has trouble flying and mating. Both mutants can survive only in the laboratory; in the wild they would quickly be eliminated by natural selection.
Some Darwinists have suggested that ancestral four-winged fruit flies could have evolved by mutation into modern two-winged fruit flies. But this explanation doesnt work, because a two-winged fly hasnt simply lost a pair of wings; it has acquired a large and complex gene (ultrabithorax) that enables it to develop halteres, or balancers. The halteres are located behind the flys normal pair of wings and vibrate rapidly to stabilize the insect in flight. So the two-winged fly represents the gainnot lossof an important structure. (See Chapter 9 of my book Icons of Evolution).
Prothero ignores the evidence and suggests that ancestral four-winged flies simply mutated into modern two-winged flies. Modern four-winged mutants, he writes on page 101, have apparently changed their regulatory genes so that ancestral wings appeared instead of halteres.
Not only does Prothero ignore the evidence from developmental genetics, but he also invents an imaginary animal to complete the story he wants us to believe. Page 195 of his book carries an illustration of an eighteen-winged dragonfly next to a normal four-winged dragonfly, with the following caption: The evolutionary mechanism by which Hox genes allow arthropods to make drastic changes in their number and arrangement of segments and appendages, producing macroevolutionary changes with a few simple mutations.
Yet there is no evidence that eighteen-winged dragonflies ever existed. There are lots of dragonflies in the fossil record, but none of them remotely resemble this fictitious creature.
No matter. In what Michael Shermer calls the best book ever written on the subject, Donald Prothero simply makes up whatever evidence he wants.
LOL! Perhaps next time an evo has a specific question about creation, we should just refer them to an entire creation science website!
Ah, the much respected “Joe’s Gems” repository. If you need a gem, think Joe’s Gems. Apparently when Joe isn’t busy creating his website for his gem store, he is reviewing dinosaur books.
What exactly do a bunch of book reviews have to do with anything?
You know what I think? I think you googled “help i ned to no if teh dinosours ate well” and that is what came up...and since it looked like an imposing bunch of information, you tried to just throw it out there without actually even understanding what it was.
So once again...what do a bunch of book reviews have to do with anything?
For all the years the term has been used as an abbreviation for EVOlutionist, as you well know, all of a sudden, evos are taking exception to the term and acting like they’ve gone brain dead and don’t know what it means and that it’s an insult instead of a descriptive term.
So, as I’ve asked before and not received an answer, exactly what is it that supporters of evolution would prefer to be called?
They don’t like Darwinists. Won’t accept IDers.
Dawkinsists, maybe? Natural selectionists? Materialists? Anti-God-ists?
That’s why I said the rank and file. Joe Sixpack. Evos themselves are Marxists, in my opinion, and their goal is to destroy or discredit religion.
2003. Acrylic on stretched canvas. 18"x24".
A split second after launching itself from a tree, a tiny dromaeosaur named Microraptor gui begins spreading its feathered limbs. Whether or not it is an evolutionary "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds, one thing is fairly certain: it could glide through the air like a flying squirrel.
Whether or not? Fairly certain?
A painting? Is this the best we can expect in support of the ToE?
And we should accept the ToE as a fact for what reason?
Maybe they would prefer *Marxists* to *evos* (which they had been called for years before they decided to get their panties in a wad over it)
Crick is one of my scientific heroes. Now I have lots of new leads to pursue, find I'm not alone, and other scientists question it as well, but some of this work may turn out to be outdated.
First I'll have to figure out who came up with that quote, got it from an evolution vs. creationism debate on youtube.
Some FReepers act like you're ignorant if you don't accept evolution unquestioningly which seems to be the dominating thought out there.
Psuedo-science hoaxes are in vogue these days.
Egalitarian / Homosexual ‘sexuality’
Next will be a video, discovered embeded in the rocks of the Chinese desert.
It's simply beyond their comprehension that someone could consider the ToE and decide against it.
And dissent is NOT allowed.
So much for objectivity.
Stephen Meyer, historian.
.......................No they were not, they ate themselves out of house and home, took about 30,000 years..................
Nah! Can’t be!
Earth is only about 6 thousand years old!
So, you’ve been passworded and you decided to set up a new account?
What’d you do to earn that?
“.......................No they were not, they ate themselves out of house and home, took about 30,000 years..................
Nah! Cant be!
Earth is only about 6 thousand years old!
So how about that fake dragonfly you evolutionists created? Got anything to say about that or are you just here because the personal religious beliefs of some people threaten you?
By the way...when did you personally determine the age of the Earth? You didn’t you say? You read it in a book? Sounds like you have a lot of faith in something that you only read in a book. Or should I call it your Book?
I'm calling Bullsh!t. Would you care to explain how this posting is a defense of religious freedom and not a defense of specific church doctrine that Jim Robinson says belongs in the Religion Forum?
You neglected to ping jim to your assault on his policy.
Actually I was commenting on the abuse of his policy. His words, even as posted by GGG, are very clear and pretty damning of threads like these existing in the News / Activism forum.