|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
http://www.wikihow.com/Defend-Evolution-Against-Creationism lists the following advice: If a creationist argues that Mendelian inheritance disproves evolution because nothing extra is added to genes, point out that only applies to sexual reproduction, and bacterial cells still evolve. Also bring up that Mendelian inheritance doesn't take into account mutations. There are several kinds, and insertion mutations actually do add extra code into DNA, which could be considered added information. This should make it plain to anyone that genetics was indeed the antithesis to Darwinism. That it still is... well, one'd need to see though this smokescreen. Can't count on that in every case, unfortunately. Now it appears the first sentence of the above quotation alleges something which is not clearly true. According to the neoLamarckist Paul-Pierre Grassè, "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve. This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. (p.88)" He goes on to point out that bacteria -- the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists -- are organisms which produce the most mutants. Yet bacteria are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!" He regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect (p. 87)." He asks, "How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable -- some of them for the last hundreds of millions of years -- have mutated as much as the others do? Once one has moticed microvariations (on the one hand) and specific stability (on the other), it seems very difficult to conclude that the former (microvariation) comes into play in the evolutionary process (p.88)." (Cut & pasted from http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html ) So how can bacteria have been stable for a billion years if they're mutating & evolving so much? Smells like another bait & switch to me. "Mutating = evolving", or something along those lines. Getting back to the topic of the thread, I found a little more on Häckel. <img src="http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/c/c8/Haeckel.jpg/180px-Haeckel.jpg"> Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History: “ "Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!" From http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|