I will happily debate Ms. Hewitt. Her article was full of factual error, logical error, and scientific anachronisms. Her “Hewitt Supposition” or whatever she called it, that species “have always existed as they are today”, but vary within species like the famous sooty moths is Lamarckian evolution. She suggests that species somehow adapt to their environment without proposing a competing mechanism to natural selection. It’s the old “Giraffes grow long necks because they stretch them to eat leaves argument that has already been discredited.
If I misread her horrible prose and she does believe in natural selection within species, but not across species, then she either doesn’t understand natural selection or the meaning of “species”.
She has the unbridled ego to throw out BOTH creationism AND evolution of species through natural selection, putting herself above God AND Darwin. Without either, her statement that the species have always existed as they do today, means the existed before the Earth existed. They were neither created, nor did they evolve from lower orders of chemicals. I own a credential verification company. Please let me have the name of the university, date of graduation, and name at time of graduation. If by some miracle she has a “Masters in Genetics”, I can verify it and also let the school know she doesn’t deserve it.
“I will happily debate Ms. Hewitt.”
Why would she lower herself to debate you? Science is not establish by debate. What do you care if other people agree with you or not. If they are wrong, well then, to bad for them.
Why do you believe in Lamarckian evolution? (I’m learning your methods.) You’re the only one that has mentioned it. The moth example is a fact, one frequently used by evolutionists as an example of adaptive evolution.
Speaking of Giraffes, what kind of mutation would cause the growth of a long neck, and an especially developed heart to pump blood all the distance at the same time? If they weren’t developed at the same time, which came first? Certainly not the long neck or they couldn’t have survived. When you’ve answered these questions, tell me how you know it.
I see, to have your own opinion about something, to not bow down to some authority or the other, is now call “unbridled ego.” Well, as a matter of fact, you are absolutely right. It’s also called independent individualism, it’s also called thinking for yourself, it’s also called originality. These must all be things you despise. I guess that would make you a collectivist second-hander who has never had an original thought of his own.
You don’t need to verify it, she could send you her research papers, which I doubt you would understand. But no one really cares what you think. Believe what you like. It’s a free country so far.
Have a nice day!
Hank