Posted on 11/09/2004 11:21:22 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Was Darwin wrong?
In the November 2004 issue of National Geographic, David Quammen answers this question with a resounding "NO. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming."
In Quammen's view, most people who reject Darwin's theory of evolution do so out of ignorance, so he proceeds to lay out some of the evidence for it. But the evidence he lays out is exaggerated, and the problems with it are ignored.
Quammen explains that Darwin's theory has two aspects: the "historical phenomenon" that all species of living things are descended from common ancestors, and "the main mechanism causing that phenomenon," which is natural selection. The evidence presented by Darwin, he continues, "mostly fell within four categories: biogeography, paleontology, embryology, and morphology."
The first category includes evidence from similar species in neighboring habitats, such as finches on the Galápagos Islands; the second includes evidence from the fossil record, such as extinct horse-like animals that preceded modern horses; and the third includes evidence from similarities in early embryos that supposedly point to their common ancestry.
All three categories are rife with problems that Quammen overlooks. For example, the Galápagos finch story is complicated by the fact that many of what were originally thought to be thirteen species are now interbreeding with each other -- even though Darwinian theory regards inability to interbreed as the distinguishing feature of separate species.
The fossil record of horses is also much more complicated than Quammen makes it out to be; actually, it looks like a tangled bush with separate branches rather than a straight line of ancestors and descendants. Even worse, Quammen ignores the Cambrian explosion, in which many of the major groups ("phyla") of animals appeared in a geologically short time with no fossil evidence of common ancestry -- a fact that Darwin himself considered a "serious" problem that "may be truly urged as a valid argument against" his theory.
Finally, embryos fail to show what Darwin thought they showed. According to Quammen, the evidence for evolution includes "revealing stages of development (echoing earlier stages of evolutionary history) that embryos pass through before birth or hatching." Darwin (as quoted by Quammen) thought "the embryo is the animal in its less modified state," a state that "reveals the structure of its progenitor." This idea -- that embryos pass through earlier stages of their evolutionary history and thereby show us their ancestors -- is a restatement of German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel's notorious "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," a false doctrine that knowledgeable experts discarded over a century ago.
It is actually Quammen's fourth category, morphology (i.e., anatomical shape), which Darwin himself (as quoted by Quammen) called the 'very soul' of natural history, that provides the basis for the other three. In each category, similarity in morphology ("homology") is interpreted as evidence for evolutionary relatedness. According to Darwin, features in different organisms are homologous because they were inherited from a common ancestor through a process he called "descent with modification."
The biologists who described homology a decade before Darwin, however, attributed it to construction or creation on a common archetype or design. How can one determine whether homology in living things comes from common ancestry or common design? Simply pointing to the similarities themselves won't do, as biologist Tim Berra inadvertently showed when he used different models of Corvette automobiles to illustrate descent with modification in his 1990 book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Although Berra wrote that "descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious" in Corvettes, we all know that automobile similarities are due to common design rather than common ancestry. Only by demonstrating that a Corvette can morph into another model by natural processes could someone rule out the need for a designer. Similarly, the only scientific way to demonstrate that similarities in living things are due to common ancestry would be to identify the natural mechanism that produced them. According to Darwin's theory, that mechanism is natural selection.
So the four categories of evidence on which Darwin relied to support his theory of the historical phenomenon of evolution rely, in turn, on his theory about the mechanism of evolution. But what is the evidence for Darwin's mechanism?
The principal evidence Quammen cites is antibiotic resistance. "There's no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory," Quammen writes, "than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs." Perhaps so; but then Darwin's theory is in serious trouble. Antibiotic resistance involves only minor changes within existing species. In plants and animals, such changes had been known for centuries before Darwin. Nobody doubts that they can occur, or that they can be produced by selection. But Darwin claimed much more, namely, that the process of selection could produce new species -- indeed, all species after the first. That's why Darwin titled his magnum opus The Origin of Species, not How Existing Species Change Over Time.
Yet no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by selection, natural or otherwise. Bacteria should be the easiest organisms in which to observe this, because bacteria can produce thousands of generations in a matter of months, and they can be subjected to powerful mutation-causing agents and intense selection. Nevertheless, in over a century of research no new species of bacteria have emerged. Quammen cites Darwinian biologists who claim to have produced "incipient species," but this merely refers to different strains of the same species that the researchers believe -- on theoretical grounds -- might eventually become new species. When the truth of the theory itself is at stake, such a theoretical extrapolation hardly constitutes "overwhelming evidence" for it.
So the evidence Quammen presents for Darwin's theory falls far short of confirming it. Biogeography, paleontology, embryology and morphology all rely on homologies, and the only way to determine whether homologies are due to common descent rather than common design is to provide a natural mechanism. Yet Darwin's mechanism, natural selection, has never been observed to produce a single new species. Scientific theories (Quammen acknowledges) should not be accepted as a matter of faith, but only on the basis of evidence. And given the evidence, any rational person is justified in doubting the truth of Darwin's theory.
As Quammen points out at the beginning of his article, public opinion polls conducted over the past twenty years have consistently shown that only about 12% of Americans accept Darwin's theory that "humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god." The reference to "god" is significant, because it shows that science is not the only thing at stake here: Darwinism also makes religious and philosophical claims. Most importantly, Darwinism is committed to naturalism, the philosophy that nature is all that exists and God is imaginary -- or at least unnecessary. It is not surprising, then, that many people reject Darwinism on religious grounds. Nevertheless, Quammen maintains, most Americans are antievolutionists only because of "confusion and ignorance," because "they have never taken a biology course that deals with evolution nor read a book in which the theory was lucidly described."
As someone with a Berkeley Ph.D. in biology, I dispute Quammen's characterization of Darwin's doubters as confused and ignorant. On the contrary, Quammen's article makes it abundantly clear why it is quite reasonable to doubt Darwinism: The evidence for it is "underwhelming," at best.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires every state to formulate standards for science education. As a guide to interpreting the law, Congress also passed a Conference Report recognizing "that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.''
In other words, students should be encouraged to distinguish the actual evidence for Darwin's theory from the naturalistic philosophy that accompanies it. Furthermore, students should be taught not only the evidence for the theory, but also why much of that evidence is controversial. Congress recommends this; the American people overwhelmingly support it; and good science demands it.
Quammen claims that evolution is "more crucial nowadays to human welfare, to medical science, and to our understanding of the world, than ever before." Yet no country in history has made more contributions to human welfare and medical science than America. Is it just a coincidence that the vast majority of citizens in the most scientifically successful nation on Earth are skeptical of Darwin's theory? I think not. As a scientist myself, it seems to me that a healthy skepticism is essential to good science. This caveat applies to all theories, including Darwin's.
If Quammen's article had accurately presented not only the evidence for Darwin's theory, but also the problems with that evidence, it might have made a valuable contribution to scientific literacy in America. As it stands, however, the article is nothing more than a beautifully illustrated propaganda piece. The readers of National Geographic deserve better.
Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Culture Discovery Institute
You are GUESSING!
A classic example of circulr logic.
This is 'current' ET, so your paragraph is a statement of what MUST be occuring.
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?
There it is again!
I wanna see some varmit that is HALFWAY to the next 'new' varmit!
(Bacteria need NOT apply!)
Do I get a pat on the head too?
(We'll get to those foot toes in a minute; right?)
This happened to me, too!
(But with me, it was KIDS!!! ;^)
So the 'smarter' we are, the less kids we have?
Now I understand our 'welfare' system!!
There it is again!
Where's HalfWay Man when you NEED him???
Unhuh.....
[Thunderous applause!]
Ok....
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.
Pride will not allow them to admit they are not only wrong but ridiculous.
"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.
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..?
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...
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.
Actually, he starts at post #55
"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 unseenbelief 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.
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.