National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

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

[orionblamblam]

> A showcase!

No kidding. A showcase as to why so many people think of American conservatives the way they do.

Oy.

> "Your kids could be learning THIS instead of real biology!"

And Hollow Earth "Theory" in astronomy class. Can't be any worse than the intellectual drool produced by the "Discovery Institute..."

[StJacques]

". . . Millions of fossils later not one transitional one (i.e. frog growing wings etc.) has ever been found . . ."

Not true, though the "frog to bird" analogy is ridiculous. You have posited a "straw man" argument here, which doesn't fly under real scientific scrutiny. There are several finds of the prehistoric bird Archaeopteryx that suggest evolutionary transtion.

You can "pop up" the following quote at this link:

"One almost could not ask for a better example of a transitional fossil than Archaeopteryx. It exhibits an unmistakeable mixture of reptilian and avian characteristics. A bird, of course, is defined by the presence of feathers. Flight feathers of Archaeopteryx are well-preserved, and are virtually indistinguishable from those of modern birds. They possess the central shaft and side barbules found in any songbird of today. The feathers are also asymmetrical and are wider on the trailing edge than the front edge--an adaptation shown by flying birds but not by flightless birds such as penguins or ostriches. This indicates that Archaeopteryx was probably capable of flight (although the fossil lacks the large keeled breastbone which all modern birds use to attach their flight muscles, and the attachment points were themselves much smaller than in modern birds--thus it is possible that Archaeopteryx was only a glider and was not capable of powered flight). The large contour feathers are the only kind found on Archaeopteryx skeletons--no smaller downy feathers have been found, although these are possessed by all modern birds.

Apart from the feathers, however, Archaeopteryx exhibits a number of characteristics which are not birdlike at all, but are shared by the therapod dinosaurs--and some of these are found in no other group of animals. Among the dinosaurian characteristics exhibited by Archaeopteryx are: simple concave articulation points on the cervical vertebrae, rather than the elongated saddle-shaped articulation found in birds; vertebrae in the trunk region which are free and mobile, rather than fused together as in birds; the presence of gastralia, or abdominal ribs, which are found in reptiles and therapods but not in birds; a rib cage which lacks uncinate processes and does not articulate with the sternum, rather than the strutlike uncinates and sternum articulations found in all birds; a sacrum consisting of only 6 vertebrae, rather than the 11-23 found in birds; mobile joints in the bones of the elbow, wrist and fingers, rather than the fused joints found in birds; a shoulder socket that faces downward like a therapod's, rather than outward like a bird's; solid bones which lack pneumatic sacs, rather than the hollow air-permeated bones found in birds; and a long bony tail with free vertebrae, rather than the short fused pygostile found in birds;

The Archaeopteryx skull is also typically reptilian in structure, exhibiting: a number of openings or "fenestrae" in the skull, arranged as in therapod dinosaurs and not birds; a heavy but short quadratic bone which is inclined forward as in reptiles; a bend in the jawbones behind the tooth row; a long retro-articular process, which is found in reptiles but not in birds; a thin straight jugal bone as in reptiles; a preorbital bar separating the anteorbital fenestra and the eye socket (a reptilian characteristic); an occipital condyle and foramen magnum that are located above the dorsal end of the quadrate bone as in therapods, rather than below the quadrate as in all other birds; and a brain structure which exhibits elongated and slender cerebral hemispheres which do not overlap the midbrain (in birds, the cerebral hemispheres are heavy and extend over top of the midbrain).

" There IS evidence in the fossil record. Creationists just dismiss it out of hand.

[bondserv]

Evolution is real and can be proven in the laboratory with bacterial species.

If this statement is true we have nothing to argue about. f it can be demonstrated that an organism gains in complexity via natural means, evolution would be believable.

It has not been demonstrated that any organism has gained beneficial complex information that should be observable in nearly every lifeform if evolution were true. Imagine the beneficial increases in complex information that are needed to create a functioning eye.

The labaratory only observes adaptations of the existing information. Mutations are damaging to the functionality of the organism.

Try taking a sledge hammer to your car engine expecting it to consistantly improve engineering functionality. Now build the entire car that way (Living organism are far more sophisticated engneering marvels than a car engine).

[orionblamblam]

> Modern "science" is based on several metaphysical assumptions that derive from Christian philosophy.

Ultimately, modern science is derived straight from the scientific methods put forward and *used* by the pagan Greek scientists such as Aristarchos of Samos, Democritus and others. Christinity glommed onto Plato and his Pythagorean mysticism, and science stagnated in the West.

[orionblamblam]

> Living organism are far more sophisticated engneering marvels than a car engine

Tell me... which ones self assemble:
A) Car Parts
or
B) Organic Molecules

When you find car parts that put themselves together, maybe then your analogy won't be entirely silly.

[Rippin]

Seems most Freepers on this matter have a hard time in the area of reading comprehension or just don't care about the content of the article.

The author of the article (Jonathan Wells) neither argues that Darwin was wrong nor that Darwin was right. Rather, he argues that the article in National Geographic does a disservice to its readers for its shallow and overly polemical content.

Wells points out specific ways in which the article would be unconvincing to an objective observer.

So Freepers can agree to disagree about evolutionary theory but all Freepers should agree that the National Geographic article (which I have read-though I will not subscribe) is a poor one.

[PatrickHenry]

Christinity glommed onto Plato and his Pythagorean mysticism, and science stagnated in the West.

Until Aquinas glommed onto Aristotle.

[MoonMullins]

Can the scientific community name one species whose origin is explained by evolution? The scientific community may not be debating whether evolutionary chane is responsible for the origin of new species, but they should. For all of Darwin's important contributions, he and his followers still can't explain how life begins.

[wireman]

Even with all of your fancy words and big sentences....

We don't want anyone to become confused!

[orionblamblam]

> he argues that the article in National Geographic does a disservice to its readers for its shallow and overly polemical content.

Tell me: If the National Geographic ran an article on Newtonian physics, in which it brushed aside the arguements of those pushing antigravity and inertialess drives while at the same time brushing aside the problems with Newtonian physics (such as reletivistic issues); whoudl you still consider the article to be a poor one?

At some point, that which is clearly silly (ID) can be reasonably brushed aside in favor of that which is clearly reasonable.

[Aquinasfan]

Ultimately, modern science is derived straight from the scientific methods put forward and *used* by the pagan Greek scientists such as Aristarchos of Samos, Democritus and others.

Then why did it die out in Greece?

[bondserv]

When you find car parts that put themselves together, maybe then your analogy won't be entirely silly.

Testimonies like yours regarding the superiority of our Creator over the creature speaks volumes.

I agree that man has not overcome the engineering feats that we observe being executed in the intelligent design of living organisms.

The directed self assemblage of organic molecules is testimony of the sophistication of the intelligence of the design. Scientists are amazed by the mechanisms that regulate the chemistry of living organisms.

[orionblamblam]

> still can't explain how life begins.

For about the BILLIONTH time... biogenesis is NOT about evolution. Evolution cannot explain atomic chain reactions or the photovoltaic effect either.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

For all of Darwin's important contributions, he and his followers still can't explain how life begins.

Indeed! You may be interested in this thread: Origin-of-Life Expert Jokes about Becoming a Creationist

[orionblamblam]

> Then why did it die out in Greece?


The Platonists won... and won political power. Those who claim mysteries are always going to have a psychological advantage over those who say "I don't know yet."

[hyperpoly8]

This scientist's skepticism isn't serving him very well or he'd have to mention that human embryo's have gills during their development. He might also note that Cambrian fossils, that are as much as 600 million years old, are very rare, since sediments from that long ago are seldom preserved intact. And, unless you've studied the evolution of the horses, which I have, you're likely to become confused by the relatively vast amount of fossil material to work with.

[MoonMullins]

Biogenesis? Talking about a non-sequitor. You should read the post to which I replied before responding. The author makes a claim that is unsubstantiated. Feel free to give it a try yourself.

[orionblamblam]

> The directed self assemblage of organic molecules is testimony of the sophistication of the intelligence of the design.

Nothing of the sort. They are simply molecules that link up and form different molecules. It is no more miraculous than oxygen and hydrogen combining to form water.

> Scientists are amazed by the mechanisms that regulate the chemistry of living organisms.

Yes, many scientists are amazed at the natural, material processes of the world. There is much greater wonderment and beauty in the natural world than in the cheap gloss of supernaturalism that many wish to drape over it. The knowledge that things can be learned, understood and utilized is a greater joy than the belief that the fall of every electron is due to some omnipresent meddler.

[orionblamblam]

> Biogenesis? Talking about a non-sequitor.

Ahem: Who said: "he and his followers still can't explain how life begins."

Evolution explains how life changes, not how it began.

> You should read the post to which I replied before responding.

I did. He made no mention of biogenesis. You did.

[Pacothecat]

In response to the question whether there is any fossil evidence for "reptile-bird evolution," evolutionists pronounce the name of one single creature. This is the fossil of a bird called Archaeopteryx, one of the most widely known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend.

Archaeopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromaeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.

However, the latest studies of Archaeopteryx fossils indicate that this explanation lacks any scientific foundation. This is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

One of the important pieces of evidence that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird is its asymmetric feather structure. Above, one of the creature's fossil feathers.
The thesis that Archaeopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.) However, the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992, disproved this argument. The reason was that in this recently discovered fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed by evolutionists to be missing was discovered to have existed after all. This fossil was described in the journal Nature as follows:

The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles, but its capacity for long flights is questionable.

This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that Archaeopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly.

Morevoer, the structure of the bird's feathers became one of the most important pieces of evidence confirming that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird in the true sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archaeopteryx is indistinguishable from that of modern birds, and indicates that it could fly perfectly well. As the eminent paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "Because of its feathers, [Archaeopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird."125 Paleontologist Robert Carroll further explains the subject:

The geometry of the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx is identical with that of modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range of modern birds… According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and shape of the wing of Archaeopteryx are similar to that of birds that move through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves, woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds… The flight feathers have been in stasis for at least 150 million years…126

Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archaeopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archaeopteryx had feathers shows that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to retain its body heat, in contrast to dinosaur