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 youThat'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
 
visit our web site at www.pointsoforigins.com
 
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.
 
visit our web site at www.pointsoforigins.com 
 
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
 
visit our web site at www.pointsoforigins.com
 
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
 
visit our web site at www.pointsoforigins.com
 
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
 
visit our web site at www.pointsoforigins.com

 
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)
 
visit our web site at www.pointsoforigins.com

 
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
 
visit our web site at www.pointsoforigins.com
 
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.    
  
visit our web site at www.pointsoforigins.com
 

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
 
visit our web site at www.pointsoforigins.com
 


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.


visit our web site at www.pointsoforigins.com