National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

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

[Elsie]

All around us. Right now in Africa, there are some lions that are slightly better equipped to live in their changing environment that others. They might be a little stronger, a little faster, a little smaller and a little more heat resistant. Whatever the very slight variation, it will be almost impossible to spot. These genes however will give the lion a better chance of reproducing and passing on its genes.

---

You are GUESSING!

A classic example of circulr logic.

---

This is 'current' ET, so your paragraph is a statement of what MUST be occuring.

[Elsie]

Monkeys should be left out of this.

 

 

Ok........

 

 

A simple question:

Since ET says that monkeys and apes and Humans descended from a common ancestor,

did the CA have an opposable thumb for a big toe and the Humans devolved it;
or did he NOT have an opposable thumb for a big toe and the monkeys and apes EVOLVED it?

[Elsie]

...small changes can eventually accumulate into the differences between distinct species.

There it is again!

---

I wanna see some varmit that is HALFWAY to the next 'new' varmit!

(Bacteria need NOT apply!)

[Elsie]

...ask me nicely for help...

Do I get a pat on the head too?

[Elsie]

Shared endogenous retroviruses *alone* conclusively indicate that humans and apes share a (geologically) recent common ancestor.

(We'll get to those foot toes in a minute; right?)

[Elsie]

The damned things keep springing back after I think I've eliminated most of them.)

This happened to me, too!

(But with me, it was KIDS!!! ;^)

[Elsie]

Due to our niche in th world, (I thought We were everywhere?) our reproductive method works well for us, and the insects' method works well for them in *their* niche -- and neither would work well for the other. Insects are poorly equipped (brainwise, among other reasons) to nurture their offspring, and humans are poorly equipped to deal with giving birth to 100+ offspring per year.

 

So the 'smarter' we are, the less kids we have?

 

Now I understand our 'welfare' system!!

[Elsie]

...when a population (usually, an isolated *subpopulation*) of species X is evolving towards becoming species Y, the amount of genetic change per generation is small enough that each member of the population can continue to interbreed with the rest of the population, even if it has a mutation that hasn't yet spread to the rest of the population.

There it is again!

---

Where's HalfWay Man when you NEED him???

[Elsie]

You sound amazingly like Michael Moore yourself, son.

Unhuh.....

[Thunderous applause!]

---

Ok....

[Elsie]

<snip from #328>

By evolution, from earlier ancestral species, such as perhaps Australopithecus anamensis and (farther back) Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

The problem is not a lack of transitional hominid fossils, but a plethora of them -- it makes it trickier to determine which are truly ancestral and which are side branches. But the most significant point is that the great abundance of them, and their clearly (?) transitional nature, makes quite clear that the ancestry of man is shared with that of the apes.

 

<snip from #329>

No, the fossil evidence is clear.

 

 

Possibly not......

[nmh]

Pride will not allow them to admit they are not only wrong but ridiculous.

[longshadow]

in celebration of a long-vanquished and deeply confused Freeper who has been cited on this thread, I hereby offer a

"1⁷²⁰, Wildly elliptical planetary orbits, circle is not an ellipse, infrared light causes sunburn" Memorial placemarker.

It probably should be posted in blue, but I can't be bothered.

[hosepipe]

[ Now that your rant has run down.. I asked you for *specific* reasons you felt that evolution is "not science". I'm afraid that simply making general slurs like you do above does not qualify. Try again. Give examples. If you're not familiar with how to construct an actual argument, ask someone for assistance. ]

Your right, it was a rant in a patronizing sort of way..
Read many threads between creationists and evolutionists...
Yeah.. it was dallyance, my "rant"... no wish "engage" in wasted time..
You seem to be a believer.. like talking to a Jehova Witness, no percentage in that..
Same with creationists, same thing, wasted effort to my way of "thinking"..

Apologize?, No way.. I think both sides of the "argument" are arrogant..
Like talking to pro-lifers and pro-choicers.. its their way or highway... same with you..
When I was 20 I was the smartest man on earth, but have gotten a lot dumber since then..
And "God willing" am getting even more dumber as we post..
Nah! I'm too dumb for an "intelligent" bi-ped like you..

By the way Did humans evolve to need to use toilet paper or a reasonable facimile ?..
Or is inspecting our daily production from time to time a gift from GOD..?

[PatrickHenry]

If you'd like a reminder of the Blue One's style, you can take a trip down memory lane and visit an old vanity thread of mine: The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism. His stuff starts around post 44. F-dot's in there too, starting around post 31.

[hosepipe]

[ What is this contrary evidence? ]

Inter spieces re-production does not happen...
And closely related spieces reproduction is ALWAYS sterile...
Same with some plants or animals.. mostly it can't happen at all period..

No response is sought for, asked for, or even desired..
Dead end conversations are SO boring.. I'd rather talk about democracy and how it sucks.. and how it ALWAYS produces socialism.. basically democracy is a prelude to socialism.. since socialism is a symptom of democracy.. and really thats what the forum is about anyways.. a FreeRepublic..

Humans trying figure out where they came from is like a Chimp seriously pondering a Rolex watch.. Whats goin through his mind ?.. That is where my mind goes with it.. What that Chimp is thinking has GOT to be WRONG... If he really cares at all.. Its all in my book...

[balrog666]

Anyone who would believe that rocks could turn into people could be convinced of just about anything.

Anyone who would believe that the theory of Evolution says that rocks could turn into people could be convinced of just about anything. And obviously has.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

His stuff starts around post 44.

Actually, he starts at post #55

[Pacothecat]

"Wow, who's been filling *your* head full of nonsense?"
Wow you can't be this close minded to think your view is the only valid one, and you have to be insulting to try and prove your point - are you a Democrat? Literally thousands of Biologist, Scientist and prominent researchers think Evolution is at best a highly flawed theory, which is why it has had to be adjusted with NEO Darwinism and various other new EVOLUTIONS on this fairy tail. Oh yeah and Darwin himself said
In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science. here's some more silly people with their head filled with NONSENSE. "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman, zoologist. "The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science "Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times. " `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species Canadian scientist. "One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Australian molecular biologist. "The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century. "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion of halfway species instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist. "I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms theories and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, "When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space "With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, "Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London. "Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis "From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms "I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History "What is it evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.

[Pacothecat]

"Wow, who's been filling your head full of nonsense?"
Wow you can't be this close minded to think your view is the only valid one, and you have to be insulting to try and prove your point - are you a Democrat? Literally thousands of Biologist, Scientist and prominent researchers think Evolution is at best a highly flawed theory, which is why it has had to be adjusted with NEO Darwinism and various other new EVOLUTIONS on this fairy tail. Oh yeah and Darwin himself said
In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science. here's some more silly people with their heads filled with NONSENSE.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—Dr. Fleischman, zoologist.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life". Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times. " `

The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.'
—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin,

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species Canadian scientist.


"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery


"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Australian molecular biologist.


"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist,


"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist,


" Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century.


"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion of halfway species instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.


"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms theories and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all. R.H.
Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—H. Lipson,

"A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, "When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey,


"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History


"What is it evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—Arthur N. Field.

[Pacothecat]

"And let's not forget that it was Galileo, a scientist, who disputed that "other planets rotated around the Earth", and it was the *church* which "said all the other planets rotated around the Earth" and persecuted Galileo for his "heresy"... Did you "forget" about that, or are you just hugely ignorant of the history of science, but quite willing to slander it anyway? "


Ok I can't let this nasty little spin go.
First off by "The Church" you are referring to The Catholic Church of the 15th century, which one can say was less then Biblically based or scientifically enlighten. But your assumption that Galileo was "against religious theory is incorrect.
The conflict was not between a progressive scientist and a backward clergy, in fact, Galileo’s defense was that scriptures were not wrong, only the Catholic Church interpretations of the scriptures were wrong.

Galileo said nothing he held was in conflict with Scripture. Accordingly, he reasoned that Scripture deals with natural matters in such a cursory and allusive way that it appears as though it wants to remind us that its proper concern is not about them but about the soul of man. It is willing to adjust its language about Nature to the simple minds of ordinary people. He argued that it is not the business of Scripture to validate science, and defended this point by quoting Cardinal Baronius who had remarked that, "The Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."(35)

The Holy Office finally issued a decree in 1616 declaring "the Pythagorean doctrine of the motion of the earth" to be "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture." Galileo's name was not mentioned in the decree, nor were his works prohibited. The incident ended on a decorous note with Pope Paul V gracefully receiving Galileo in a long audience in which the Pope assured Galileo that any rumors and calumny directed against him would be ignored by the Vatican.