A response to National Geographic's
"Was Darwin Wrong?"
Dr. G. Charles Jackson
Editor's note: The November 2004 issue of National
Geographic had the cover story of "Was Darwin Wrong?" Ya, well, don't
hold yer breath - this IS National Geog! Indeed, I was asked by a fellow
teacher to read it and tell me what I thought. Upon reading it, the
first thing that struck me was the
pages (literally!) the author went
through relentlessly writing of the "overwhelming evidence for evolution",
while
not providing a single shred of evidence for evolution!
I'd say I couldn't believe it, but this was National Geog - I could believe
it. Finally the author coughs up
one "evidence," a supposed
link in the whale evolution which is such shabby evidence that many evolutionists
don't accept it.
Nevertheless, rather than reinvent the wheel, Dr. Jackson did a fine job
of responding to the article in a series of Points Of Origins newsletters,
posted here for your convenience through the kind courtesies of Dr.
Jackson. Enjoy!
This is the first in a series critiquing the 11/04 National Geographic
feature article, "Was Darwin Wrong."
POINTS OF ORIGINS by Dr. Charles Jackson
The article begins with the famous theories-are-not-guesses
speech, so Evo "Theory" should not be doubted. Page 7 says, "No one
needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith."
Well, if evolution's so certain ... then why
do they feel like they have to even say this? Hmm.
Page 6 weeps, "near half the American populace
believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most." Gee
... I wonder why. They blame "honest confusion and
ignorance." They say, "Many people have never taken a biology course
that dealt with evolution." What.
Just try taking Bio, Astro,
Geol, Chem, Soc or even Psyc, Hist & Phil ... without running into
Darwin! You college students know this is a lie.
They're saying "near half" of all Americans ... have just
never been taught evolution? This is propaganda.
Think of what you have seen on your own campus.
Believe your own eyes, ears, and mind to keep thinking.
Notice every argument for
evolution always begins with why you must stop thinking
for yourself ... and why you should let them think for you.
That's why I encourage you to think. Dr J
This is the second in a series critiquing the 11/04 National Geographic
feature article, "Was Darwin Wrong?"
POINTS OF ORIGINS by Dr. Charles Jackson
On page 7 the article says it all boils down
to two things ... "evolution is the what ... natural selection is the how."
The illogic is glaring.
Evolution is an idea. Natural selection is a fact.
Think ... for yourself. Doesn't evolution mean that bacteria can
become people? Natural selection means that the fittest individuals
live to reproduce, while the less fit do not. That is all.
Now ... how can "survival of the fittest" ...
turn a bacterium into Albert Einstein? There is ...
no factual argument ... that works in favor of the
evolution idea. And I've heard them all.
They are, every last one, assumptions (watch this) ... which
are accepted as fact ... which are based on ... other
assumptions that are accepted as fact ... without
any real facts ... anywhere! Think. Look.
See. Read a textbook. Any textbook. See
for yourself this is absolutely the case.
Natural selection cannot create anything.
It is merely the fact that "mutants" tend die before they
can pass the mutation to the next generation. That is all. Isn't
this a feature of the living world that preserves things
the way they are ... rather than creating things?
Dear readers ... natural selection is transparent to
the whole issue of evolution! Without evolution ever being
true ... natural selection can continue ... without a single new species
ever arising. And ohhh ... by what twisted logic ...
can a series of genetic accidents ... "modify" a bacterium
into a person?? Think about that. Dr J
The following is the third in a series of
posts critiquing the 11/04 issue of National Geographic's article "Was Darwin
Wrong?"
Every major point will be addressed in sequence.
POINTS OF ORIGINS by Dr. Charles Jackson
Pages 12 & 13
(and 20) bring up why males have nipples and some snakes "have rudiments
of tiny legs." They say these prove evolution.
Please. Perhaps evo's think church-going creationists will be
too shy to point out why. It's because of sex.
Male nipples have the
same high concentration of nerve endings as female nipples, and play a role
in sexual stimulation. To say male nipples are left-overs, back from
before there were two sexes ... makes no sense, even
if you believe in evolution.
Evo's
believe the two sexes evolved ... back when we were worms,
or even bacteria ... way before mammals got
nipples! So this is really a problem for the poor evo's!
How could males evolve nipples? And why
evolve them? Sure males have an X-chromosome ... but we don't have
a uterus! (I just can't wait for the next
thing they come up with to say!)
As for the "leg bones"
... sex again. These are small spurs, on
the external anatomy of some snakes, that aid in grasping during mating.
All "vestigial" structures have been seen to have current
uses ... something evo's are only now discovering about "vestigial" DNA.
"Sequences
between [conventional genes] may have important functions we don't know about
yet ... [moderating other genes] is one example."
Harvard U Geneticist
quoted in Discover magazine, 1/05, p58.
This is the 4th in a series of posts critiquing
the 11/04 feature article in National Geographic, "Was Darwin Wrong?
No."
We're taking our time and hitting every point they made. There are
so many, and they are all so easy to show up as fakes. Enjoy and learn
... to think! Dr J
POINTS OF ORIGINS by Dr. Charles Jackson
NG quotes Darwin saying,
"the embryo is the animal in its less modified state ... reveals the structure
of its progenitor." (p13) We all start life as a single cell ... just
like our bacteria "ancestors". Does that prove evolution? Dr.
Duane Gish asks, "Well ... can you think of any other way for
an embryo to begin?" Man, he's right! This point is transparent to
the debate. It has to start out that way!
And from there ... we have to look something like a worm
... on the way from a cell to a baby.
In 1866 Ernst Haeckel, a Darwin
supporter, published drawings comparing human embryos to animals. In
1874 they found out he chopped off limbs, colored in eyes, even changed the
sizes as much as 10 times, to make it look like
evolution!
Years passed and
people forgot the fraud, but sort-of-remembered somebody, somehow
proved evolution (how it always goes). In 1901 the
drawings showed up in biology texts and have stayed
there ever since. Think I'm kidding? Check your book!
And check out Science, vol 277, 9/5/97,
p1435. That article calls it "one of the most famous fakes in biology."
But ... it's still in your book. Why. You know
why.
Oh and BTW, we never
go through a "fish stage." Those marks on the embryo neck aren't part
of the respiratory system and are not openings. So they are not gills
and they are not slits ... so they are not "gill slits" ... no matter what
your teacher tells you.
Keep thinking. Dr J
This is an ongoing series, critiquing the
11/04 National Geographic feature article "Was Darwin Wrong" ...
so full of wonderful errors, it'll take the rest of the semester to get'em
all laid out for you. Dr J
POINTS OF ORIGINS by Dr. Charles Jackson
Darwin is quoted (p13)
saying, "the embryo is the animal in its less modified state ... reveals
the structure of its progenitor." Is this ... embryonic recapitulation?
... ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny? In other words ... embryo growth
is an instant replay of an organism's evolutionary history?
Hold the phone!
In 1980
Steven J. Gould condemned this idea (Natural History,
vol89, 4/80, p144). In 1997 evo's admitted
that embryo drawings used in textbooks for 123 years were
fakes! (Science, vol277, 9/5/97, p1435) Militant-evo
and bio textbook author Kenneth Miller said he'd take'm outta his book, but
they remained ... just without the captions saying they
were proof of evolution. Why leave'm in? One evo said it was "because
of their great visceral appeal." Whats'at mean? It means ...
that without actually saying it, they're still hoping
you'll get the evo connection!
Hey,
so why do we start out as a single cell ... then a worm
... getting arms, legs, kidneys, brains ... all later? Could it be
... because there's no other way for it to happen?
That makes this embryo thing totally transparent to the issue
at hand! Watch it when they point to something that
could be true without evolution ... and tell you it is "proof
for Darwin." Nat Geog should be extremely embarassed. Keep thinking.
Dr J
This is the 5th in a series of posts critiquing
the 11/04 issue of National Geographic's feature article "Was Darwin
Wrong?".
POINTS OF ORIGINS by Dr. Charles Jackson
"Simpler" plants with
flower parts, is "proof" that evolution creates more complex plants, so says
the article (p14). If evolution were not true, this
would still be true! So, this can't be proof
... of anything. It is transparent to the issue. The
Creator just made a less complex plant, with flower parts. So what.
An orchid on Madagascar
has an 11-inch nectar well. Darwin said co-evolution must
have made a moth with an 11-inch tongue, though one was not known (p14).
When they found the moth, evo's said this proved Darwin,
but this is also ... transparent to the issue.
A moth to go with the flower is predicted by creation
too, so it cannot be proof of evolution.
Dog breeding and pigeon
breeding are given as proofs of evolution (p17). But
again, these things could be done without evolution, because
they do not require new genetic information
... just a re-shuffling of genes that already exist
in the animals. So, this also is transparent to the issue!
Changes
in the shapes of finch beaks is given as proof of evolution
(p26-7). But no new genes would be necessary for this
to happen either, just like with the dogs and pigeons. This
is not evolution ... so it is transparent to the
issue!
Page
20 hints that since humans have 99% of the 30 thousand genes that mice have
... this proves evolution. Well ... how else
could it be? Complex mammals have to have
mostly the same genes as less complex ones, plus many extra genes.
Humans have over 20 thousand extra. This "proof" is
also transparent to the issue! Think about it yourself!
Don't these guys ever give up making meaningless
statements?!
At least they got some
things right (see p13). They admitted Carolus Linnaeus, inventor of
the biological classification system (in 1735) was a creationist
... and credited Richard Owen (a creationist contemporary
of Darwin) with inventing the concept of "homology" ... which they also say
is "proof" of evolution. Owen didn't see it that way.
Neither did Linnaeus. Transparent again! Dr
J
This is the 6th in a series on the Nov 2004 issue of National Geographic
feature article "Was Darwin Wrong."
POINTS OF ORIGINS by Dr. Charles Jackson
Page 13 claims "rock
types and styles of jewelry don't reflect unbroken descent from common
ancestors. Biological diversity does." Don't let them get away
with this ... not even for a minute.
Are there "missing link"
fossils? No. Check the original reports.
Usually the discoverer of the fossil says there's some reason ... why the
fossil is disqualified from being a "missing link"
in the evo chain. But then, this same fossil gets
on the page of a textbook next year!
Nat Geog goes on to tell
how it's not just fossils ... but DNA and biochemistry ... that finish the
"proof" that people used to be worms. I'll get to that in Nat Geog
post 7. Meanwhile, if you have any specific questions
about any "missing link" please write to me, and I'll tell
the whole list what's wrong with that "link." They are all
easy to prove bogus, my friends. You keep
thinking. Dr J
"Don't let them try
to fool you, or even try to school you." Bob Marley
(for the guy
with dreds at UNCW Tues nite ... and for my brother Chris, who used to have
dreds)
This is the 7th in a series critiquing the
11/04 feature article in National Geographic "Was Darwin Wrong?"
POINTS OF ORIGINS by Dr. Charles Jackson
Page 20 says population
genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and gene sequencing all "overlap
seamlessly and intersect with older forms, strengthening the whole ediface,
contributing further to the certainty that Darwin was right." Let's
look at these up close.
Calculations show we
could start with three couples about 4500 years ago (the Flood), and get
to today's world population ... easy. Population "genetic
drift" studies always show no new genetic information
is ever produced, no matter what. It's true
the biochemicals of all living things are the same. Does that mean
all life came from the same bacteria cell? Think. If the
Creator made the biochemicals of all species were different ... then what
would we eat? See how thinking only one direction
... gives them only one answer?
Gene sequencing is the
biggest evo-nightmare. The past two years, it has "proven" that mantises
"evolved" and "un-evolved" wings (violating evo's Dollo's Law)
five times. It "proved" bats must have evolved echo-location
at least two times ... even though just
once is like a miracle! And mammals
must have evolved the middle ear bones three separate times ...
also a miracle to ever happen once! Don't
ask your Bio 101 profs these questions. Ask an evo-expert
in insects, in bats, and in monotremes. Only these
evo's will even know what I'm saying is
true. Have a nice day. Dr J
This is the 8th in a series of posts critiquing
the 11/04 National Geographic feature article "Was Darwin Wrong."
POINTS OF ORIGINS by Dr. Charles Jackson
When germs become
resistant to drugs, evo's say it's evolution. Page 21 says, "They evolve. There's no better
or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory than this
process of forced transformation of our inimical germs." Page
30 says the same about weedkillers and pesticides.
Crabgrass, termites,
salmonella ... all the same ... here's how it happens. There may be one
in the group who's already immune. The antibiotic
or poison kills everyone else ... so who's left to reproduce? You guessed
it ... superbug. Soon ... all you've got around are ... superbugs.
Is this evolution? Is there a new gene? ... with new information?
No.
Another way is if there's
a mutant, who does not have the part the antibiotic
attacks. For example, if we all take to blowing whistles
that fry dogs' brains ... deaf dogs are "immune." Guess
who survives. Guess who's left in two generations? 'Evolution?
Not.
Bacteria can also share
their immunities with each other, by plasmid transfers. In this,
as in every case ... it could happen without evolution.
Check every microbiology text. It is always
one of these ways. And if something can happen without evolution
happening ... then you can never use it as proof
of evolution ... now can you? This is just an urban
myth.
They just keep saying it, but
nobody ever looks it up to see if it's true.
Well ... almost nobody. Dr J
Page 30 says houseflies evolved resistance to DDT in just TEN YEARS after
it was invented. Evolution should take MILLIONS of years. This
is TOO FAST to be evolution. This is NATURAL SELECTION ... selecting
the fittest who ALREADY EXIST, to survive.
This is the 9th in a series of posts critiquing the 11/04 National
Geographic feature article "Was Darwin Wrong."
POINTS OF ORIGINS by Dr. Charles Jackson
Page 20 says Darwin's theory
of "what causes variation within a species ... turned out to be dead
wrong." So how can you have the origins of new
species? Well, page 27 says, "isolation
-- plus time, plus adaptation to local conditions -- leads to the origin
of species." They cite changes in finch beaks over generations.
Are they still finches? ...and adaptation of fruit flies to different
habitats. Are they still fruit flies? Does this take new genes
... with new information?
Call
it a "new species," if you like. You can
even call it "evolution." But whatever you
call it, man ... it'll never
get you from trout to stallions ... which is exactly
what evolution says happened!
(Osteichthyes to Equus) To get all the way from bacteria to people
... you need new genes with new information. Three evo-profs at
DePauw U actually answered this in debate saying, "No
new information was needed!" Oh please ... anybody
else knows better than to say that.
Keep thinking. Dr J
This is the 10th in a series of posts critiquing the 11/04 National Geographic
feature article "Was Darwin Wrong."
POINTS OF ORIGINS by Dr. Charles Jackson
Man ... it's been a long
trip with this article ... and I assume some readers might be getting tired
of hearing about it. I'll tell ya what ... I'm gonna end here, even
though there's so much more to tell on them. I tried to hit all of
what your evo-profs might use in class. But please ... if you read
the article and you still have a question or a comment ... please feel free
to email me about it and I'll address it for the group.
Page 30 says, "science functions by inference, not just by direct
observations, and the inferential sorts of evidence ... are no less cogent
simply because they're indirect." So that's what
evo's think is science ... "inference." Inferences depend on perceptions,
folks. As long as all perceptions filter thru the evo-lens ... then
"inferential sorts of evidence" will continue to trump "direct observations."
As one evo put it recently (Sci News), "Lack of evidence is not
evidence of lack." Yeah ... right. That's
evo-thinking. And they call us
"ignorant, stupid, or insane" (Richard
Dawkins, 1989) for doubting the "grandeur in
this view of life" (Darwin, 1859). Keep on thinking, man ...
let's keep on thinking ... no matter what they decide to "infer" next.
Dr J
I hope all can see now that NG's attempt to "settle" that Darwin was right
... is total intellectual garbage. They should be ashamed. As
a scientist, they make me ashamed for them. Urban myths, rumors, hear-say,
just-so stories, smokescreens, excuses, manipulations, out and out lies ...
this is not real science ... because it is not honest THINKING.