Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar
EVOLUTION WATCH Refuting Darwinism, point by point Author's new book presents case against theory in just 83 pages
Posted: January 11, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: In 1999, author James Perloff wrote the popular "Tornado in a Junkyard," which summarizes much of the evidence against evolution and is considered one of the most understandable (while still scientifically accurate) books on the subject. Recently, WND talked with Perloff about his new book, "The Case Against Darwin."
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
QUESTION: Your new book is just 83 pages – and the type is large. What gives?
ANSWER: This past March I got a call from Ohio. There has been a battle there to allow critical examination of evolutionary theory in public schools, and a gentleman wanted 40 copies of Tornado to give to state legislators and school board members. I was delighted to send him the books, but I also knew that a state legislator isn't likely to pick up anything that's 321 pages long.
Q: And not just state legislators.
A: Right. We live in an age when parents often don't have time to read anything long, and their kids, who are usually more into video, may not have the inclination.
Q: So what's the focus of this book?
A: I've divided it into three chapters. The first is called "Is Darwin's Theory Relevant to Our Lives?" In other words, is the subject of this book worth my time or not? A lot of people think this is simply a science issue. And to some of them, science is booooring. But actually, it's the teaching of Darwin's theory as a "fact" that starts many young people doubting the existence of God. Once we stop believing in God, we discard his moral laws and start making up our own rules, which is basically why our society is in so much trouble. In short, Darwinism is very relevant – it's much more than a science matter.
Q: You, yourself, were an atheist for many years, were you not, as a result of evolutionary teaching?
A: That's right. I thought evolution had discredited the Bible. In my books, I give examples of notables who became atheists from being taught evolution, such as Stalin and Carnegie. In fact, the atheist Boy Scout who's been in the news reportedly attributes his atheism to being taught evolution.
Q: Why do you think evolution has such a persuasively negative effect on faith?
A: First, it's taught as "scientific fact." When kids hear "scientific fact," they think "truth." Who wants to go against truth? Second, it's the only viewpoint that's taught. After the Supreme Court kicked God out of schools in the '60s, kids heard the evolutionist viewpoint exclusively. It's like going to a courtroom – if you only heard the prosecutor's summation, you would probably think the defendant guilty. But if you only heard the defendant's attorney, you'd think "innocent." The truth is, we need to hear both sides, and kids haven't been getting it on the subject of origins.
Q: OK, then what?
A: The second chapter is "Evidence Against the Theory of Evolution." Let's face it, no matter what Darwinism's social ramifications, that alone would not be a sufficient basis to criticize it, if it were scientifically proven true.
Q: In a nutshell – if that's possible – what is the scientific evidence against Darwinism?
A: In the book, I focus on six areas of evidence. First, mutations – long claimed by evolutionists to be the building blocks of evolutionary change – are now known to remove information from the genetic code. They never create higher, more complex information – even in the rare cases of beneficial mutations, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics. That has been laid out by Dr. Lee Spetner in his book "Not By Chance."
Q: What else?
A: Second, cells are now known to be far too complex to have originated by some chance concurrence of chemicals, as Darwin hypothesized and is still being claimed. We detail that in the book. Third, the human body has systems, such as blood clotting and the immune system, that are, in the words of biochemist Michael Behe, "irreducibly complex," meaning they cannot have evolved step-by-step. Behe articulated that in his book "Darwin's Black Box." And then there is the whole issue of transitional forms.
Q: What is a transitional form?
A: Darwin's theory envisioned that single-celled ancestors evolved into invertebrates (creatures without a backbone), who evolved into fish, who evolved into amphibians, who evolved into reptiles, who evolved into mammals. Now, a transitional form would be a creature intermediate between these. There would have to be a great many for Darwin's theory to be true.
Q: Are there?
A: There are three places to look for transitional forms. First, there's the living world around us. We see that it is distinctly divided – you have invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals. But we don't see transitionals between them. If these creatures ever existed, why did none survive? It is too easy to explain it away by saying they all became extinct. And of course, there is the question: Why aren't these creatures evolving into each other today? Why aren't invertebrates evolving into fish today? Why aren't fish growing little legs and so forth?
Q: Where else would you look for a transitional form?
A: In the fossil record. And here we have a problem of almost comparable magnitude. We find no fossils showing how the invertebrates evolved, or demonstrating that they came from a common ancestor. That's why you hear of the "Cambrian explosion." And while there are billions of fossils of both invertebrates and fish, fossils linking them are missing. Of course, there are some transitional fossils cited by evolutionists. However, two points about that. First, there should be a lot more if Darwin's theory is correct. Second, 99 percent of the biology of an organism is in its soft anatomy, which you cannot access in a fossil – this makes it easy to invest a fossil with a highly subjective opinion. The Piltdown Man and the recent Archaeoraptor are examples of how easy it is to be misled by preconceptions in this arena.
Q: What is the other place where you can look for transitional forms?
A: Microscopically, in the cell itself. Dr. Michael Denton, the Australian molecular biologist, examined these creatures on a molecular level and found no evidence whatsoever for the fish-amphibian-reptile-mammal sequence. He summarized his findings in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis."
The last chapter is "Re-evaluating Some Evidences Used to Support the Theory" of evolution. That would include evidences that have been discredited, and also some evidences presented as proof that in fact rest on assumptions.
Q: What evidences have been discredited?
A: Ernst Haeckel's comparative embryo drawings. The human body being laden with "vestigial structures" from our animal past. Human blood and sea water having the same percentage of salt. Babies being born with "monkey tails." These are not foundational evidences, but they still hold sway in the public mind.
Q: You mentioned assumptions as proofs.
A: Yes. Anatomical similarities between men and animals are said to prove common ancestry. But intelligent design also results in innumerable similarities, as in the case of two makes of automobile. Also, what has been called "microevolution" – minor adaptive changes within a type of animal – is extrapolated as evidence for "macroevolution" – the changing of one kind of animal into another. However, a species is normally endowed with a rich gene pool that permits a certain amount of variation and adaptation. Certainly, those things happen. But the change is ordinarily limited to the confines of the gene pool. It doesn't mean a fish could adapt its way into being a human.
Q: You covered a lot of this ground in "Tornado in a Junkyard." Can readers expect something new from "The Case Against Darwin"?
A: There is a bit of new material, but no, if you've read "Tornado," or for that matter, if you read the July 2001 Whistleblower, where we looked at evolution, you already know most of the points. What's new is the size. This is a book to give to a busy friend, a book for a high-school student to share with his science teacher.
"The Case Against Darwin" by James Perloff is available from ShopNetDaily.
And my claim has not been refuted.
Who, exactly, do you think you're fooling here?
If the entire system does not work the species dies.
Sure, but that's hardly the same thing as demonstrating that it had to happen "all at once" in a single generation. So stop mumbling your slogans and address the issue you're dodging: Doesn't the retention of the yolk during the (possibly long) development of a fully-functioning placenta provide a way for the "system to work" during "development"? Yes or no?
Doesn't this invalidate your claim that it *had* to happen in a "single mutation, single generation"? Yes or no?
"First, I showed that you had completely overlooked the mechanism of developing placental feeding *in addition to* the pre-existent yolk-feeding method, not as an immediate *replacement* for it to which you had simplistically limited your thinking."
The problems of the sharks curious mode of reproductive development are similar, but not as great as those with human development, but they are also pretty large - including the implantation problem, and complete loss of the shell - again in one generation I guess. So this example proves nothing. What it does prove is that two totally unrelated species were able to do a quite extraordinary transformation, neither of which you can explain.
Why are you babbling about sharks? My statement had nothing to do with sharks. Don't be confused by the fact that I once, many posts ago, demonstrated the workability of a given system by showing that it works in sharks. My statement to you here has nothing to do with sharks. Here it is again, without any sharks, so don't be afraid of sharks, there aren't any under the bed, honest:
"First, I showed that you had completely overlooked the mechanism of developing placental feeding *in addition to* the pre-existent yolk-feeding method, not as an immediate *replacement* for it to which you had simplistically limited your thinking."This point still stands, unless you can rebut it without doing your irrelevant shark-o-phobia.
"Structures or processes which may have been necessary novel developments for the first primitive placenta, which you claim (without any real support) are somehow impossibly difficult."
My whole post# 542 dealt with just that.
No, actually, it didn't. It was just a coredump of biology texts. It was a description of *modern* placentas. Where, exactly, did you make any examination of what might be minimally necessary for, I quote, "the first primitive placenta"? Try to stay focused.
It showed what scientists say, it has links for those who wish more information,
...about *modern* placentas. I have repeatedly asked you to support your claims about what the *first* mammalian placenta necessarily would have.
If I asked you for the requirements of a minimal primitive aircraft, would you post blueprints of a Stealth Bomber? You probably would, even though a sensible person would describe something more akin to the Wright Brother's first model.
it shows a picture which shows the significant differences between an egg laying circulatory system and a live bearing one.
No, you just posted a picture of the inside of an egg from a poultry website and then *declared* it "significantly different". Hardly the same thing as "showing" any real differences. In fact, visually, as I pointed out, it looks a lot like a cow fetus/placenta.
What more do you want?
Intellectual honesty. Got any?
I want you to stop waving your hands, dodging the questions, refusing to abandon lost arguments, and repeating yourself while pretending that there are standing rebuttals which you have not yet dealt with.
If you can refute the statements made there by SCIENTISTS then go ahead and prove them wrong.
There's nothing wrong with what they say, the problem is your insistence that it supports your flawed argument. Again I point you to the "blueprints for a Stealth Bomber" issue -- the problem isn't that the blueprints are wrong, it's that they don't address the question that was posed.
In particular you need to refute the following: "This adaptation has entailed a dramatic restructuring of the maternal anatomy (such as expansion of the oviduct to form the uterus) as well as the development of a fetal organ capable of absorbing maternal nutrients."
No need to refute it, it's essentially correct, although it's worded in a way that might be misleading. When the author talks of the "development of a fetal organ", it might sound like he means from scratch, although the organ in question (the placenta) is clearly just a modified chorion (present in eggs). But it is true that this needs to be "developed" into a form more suitable for use as a placenta.
So, is there any, um, "special reason" you neglected to deal with the following passage, FROM THE SAME PAGE AND SECTION as the passage you just quoted?
"Birds and mammals are both descendants of reptilian species. Therefore, it is not surprising that mammalian development parallels that of reptiles and birds. What is surprising is that the gastrulation movements of reptilian and avian embryos, which evolved as an adaptation to yolky eggs, are retained even in the absence of large amounts of yolk in the mammalian embryo. The mammalian inner cell mass can be envisioned as sitting atop an imaginary ball of yolk, following instructions that seem more appropriate to its reptilian ancestors."Now your turn -- as you say, "in particular you need to refute the following", which is from YOUR OWN SOURCE. Did I just hear someone say, "If you can refute the statements made there by SCIENTISTS then go ahead and prove them wrong"? Go for it.
The above alone proves my statement that it could not have happened in one generation.
If that's all you had said, there'd be no disagreement, but unfortunately you also claimed that it couldn't happen across *multiple* generations, either.
Your repeating what has already been answered in full shows quite well that you cannot disprove my statement but are trying to dishonestly claim you have.
I must again ask, just who do you think you're fooling here?
I have raised multiple problems for your scenario which you have not only not "answered in full", but you haven't answered *at all*.
You cannot even give a detailed description as to how all these SYSTEMS which are clearly necessary in live birth
Except in cows, apparently (yet another point you keep skipping).
could have arisen in a gradual manner - and no evolutionist authors have been able to do so either otherwise you would have cut and pasted it or typed it in.
And speaking of points which you keep pretending not to have even seen, much less dealt with (despite your pious claim to have "answered in full"), I again point you to the point I made in my last post (and elsewhere):
I include in this category those structures/processes which you simply *declare* to be absolutely necessary but for which you have not provided any sort of actual evidence. *You're* the one making the claim of impossibility, *you* document the alleged impossibilities and demonstrate that they are, indeed, absolutely necessary steps. You have the burden of proof.You made a claim of impossibility. I've been dismantling the many flaws in it (and in your attempts to salvage it). I don't need to provide any counterclaim in order to prove yours wrong, I just need to point out when your "facts" are wrong, and when your reasoning is faulty.
Ha! Good one!
For people who claim to believe in evolution, it's interesting to note how stunted their evolutionary development really is. ;)
As I always pictured you. Now what was this about Creationist women and your...ahem..."essence"?
More than a few of us are in awe of your stamina against the relentless onslaught of nonsensical, self-indulgent posts. A lesser man would have caved long ago. :^)
I am preserving my vital energies for the ultimate struggle between good and evil.
Yes, the usual Hydras are still clinging to ignorance (minus a few heads).
Read post 574 for the answer.
Congratulations! So far, you are the only one brave enough to think about the problem. You are correct in your observation that such a statement as the cosmologists make, "Before the Big Bang there was no time," is logically contradictory since the word "before" requires the existence of time. This, however, is only a problem for materialists who believe that matter and its motion are all there is. It is not a problem for Creationists who believe that there is a reality beyond this physical universe.
If, therefore, there is a reality outside of this universe there can be a cosmological "before time."
Good question, good thinking.
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.
