Happy Birthday, Darwin
On February 12, 1809, Charles Darwin was born.
On November 22, 1859, his book, On The Origin Of Species, hit the bookshelves.
On February 12, 2009, modern-day scientists still praise the man and his work, leaving the rest of us to wonder when “science” became “science fiction.”
Yesterday, Fox News published an article about Darwin’s anniversary. “‘Missing Links’ Reveal Truth About Evolution,” they state.
With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory.
Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory.
One frequently cited “hole” in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka “missing links.”
Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.
The article goes on to present an impressive list of ‘missing links‘–it was a very interesting read. Let’s check out a few of their examples:
– Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today’s have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology’s New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
– Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
– A turtle on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China’s coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell, but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts.
Are you convinced?
Let’s get one thing straight: We’re definitely talking about evolution here. Microevolution is the term.
Microevolution: The theory that natural selection can, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized species of that organism. *
Ask yourself a question: Is this the evolution Darwin propogated?
No. Darwin taught macroevolution:
Macroevolution: The hypothesis that processess similar to those at work in microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism. *
In other words, that monkey in the zoo is your great-great-great-grandfather, and some prehistoric goldfish may as well have been his great-great-great-grandfather.
When we talk about “missing links,” we’re obviously referring to macroevolution. Microevolution is fact (despite the name that carries negative connotations for many of us); it doesn’t require “missing links,” since it is simply the belief that species can change over time within that species. Such was the case with the finches Darwin studied on the Galapagos Islands, leading him to create his theory. Macroevolution, on the other hand, has precious little support to back it up. Have you ever seen a half-man, half-ape? How about a half-dog, half-cat?
You’re not alone.
I don’t think the writers of that article have ever seen one, either. Take a minute to re-read the examples of “missing links” above.
Giraffes with necks of varying lengths: Macroevolution, or microevolution? (Is it still a giraffe?)
A bird with distinct characteristics: Macroevolution, or microevolution? (Is it still a bird?)
Turtles with half a shell: Macroevolution, or microevolution? (Is it still a turtle?)
We still have giraffes, birds, and turtles today. Giraffes haven’t sprouted wings and become birds. Birds haven’t grown shells and become turtles. Turtles haven’t started walking upright and become humans. Obviously, their “evolution” didn’t get them far…or maybe, just maybe, giraffes and birds and turtles have always been giraffes and birds and turtles.
So where are those missing links?
They’re still missing.
In defense of Fox News, not all of their examples can rightfully be called microevolution. Still, give them a good looking into before you accept their word as fact–there’s lots of angles to come at it from, and they just chose one.
So today, we can celebrate the anniversary of one of the greatest lies ever told to humanity. Sound good?
*Credit to Dr. Jay L. Wile for definitions of macroevolution and microevolution.
{Like This Post}
Cherise on 12 Feb 2009 at 3:08 pm #
Wow, Beth, this is a really impressive comeback to that article! I must admit, looking at the list they came up with for transitional forms, I was wondering how on earth one would go about proving them false. Thank you for pointing out the major point I had missed!
Luckily it’s also Lincoln’s birthday, so we have an alternative to celebrating Darwin!
Beth on 12 Feb 2009 at 3:22 pm #
*blinks*
So I remembered Darwin, and missed my favorite president?
Absolutely tragic.
Happy Birthday, Lincoln! I’ll write you a post someday…
Cherise on 13 Feb 2009 at 12:21 am #
Aww, that’s ok! It’s still today, so you still have time to apologize!! (To tell you the truth, I wouldn’t have known it was coming either if I hadn’t gotten an email about it.)
spitfires on 14 Feb 2009 at 4:11 am #
It’s a very good point too- microevolution is the LOSS of genetic information to produce a different looking organism which is still within the scientific group “family”- it never has and never can “evolve” any more than that. It’s a huge problem for Evolution.
It’s interesting to think of why people are so excited about Charles Darwin’s birthday- why is it so important to them? I think it’s because Evolution gives an excuse to ignore God.
You said that in fairness to Fox News that not all their examples can be called microevolution. What would you classify those as?
Josh.
Beth on 14 Feb 2009 at 4:21 am #
Hey, Josh!
I agree with you on Darwin’s birthday–personally, I heard more about Darwin than Lincoln (after realizing they shared the date
). Both of them were celebrating their bicentennial. Lincoln emancipated the slaves and declared all men equal; Darwin was quite blatant with his racist ideas. It’s rather ironic.
About Fox’s examples: I had in mind their mention of the “walking manatee” fossil. Microevolution? Uh, no. I’m no scientist, but…come on. If it’s a fossil with legs, it wasn’t a manatee.
That’s what jumps out at me. Maybe there’s more, or maybe all of the examples really do fall into the microevolution category. It’d be interesting to spend some more time on it.
~Beth
Josh on 14 Feb 2009 at 4:45 am #
That’s fine. I didn’t know that you had a new blog… or I did, and I forgot. Highly likely. I’ll have to keep the address to your blog to remember it.
Huh, I didn’t know that about Lincoln neither- maybe we could give him a national holiday. Was Darwin himself blatantly racist, or was it people accepting his theory and logically extending his line of thought (like Hitler and Stalin?)? I never heard that Darwin himself was racist, although I do think Evolution justifies it.
I would think nearly all the examples you mention are mutations- loss of genetic information, mistakes as the information was copied down to the baby (shorter necks, missing shells) except maybe that bird fossil. Some birds today have teeth or claws, at least for some part of their life so it’s not a singularly reptilian trait. I’m sure there’s heaps of information on the’creationontheweb.com” website about it too. It has masses of information on evolution etc, and I’ll bet it has at least one article on that subject.
Josh
Beth on 14 Feb 2009 at 4:56 am #
Mutations, or a creature adapting to its changing environment (like Darwin’s finches). Neither provides evidence for macroevolution.
Darwin didn’t promote racism under that name, but the full title of The Origin Of Species reveals some of the issue: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. You don’t often hear the whole thing.
I haven’t read Darwin’s book The Descent Of Man myself, but Answers In Genesis has this to say in one of their articles:
“Now, Darwin is known to have used the word races to apply to animals, but his use of the term races as it also relates to people became clear a few years later with his book The Descent of Man. In that book, Darwin called those with dark skin ‘degraded,’ and wrote that he would rather be descended from a monkey than such a ‘savage.’”
Hm. It makes me appreciate Lincoln.
ETA: Speaking of which, Josh, I forgot you’re coming at it from an Australian’s point of view. I guess Lincoln might not be the same there as he is to most people over here.
Justyne Kayce on 15 Feb 2009 at 5:03 am #
Anyway, excellent points! You’ve really hit the nail on the head; any truely scientific, logical person would see the truth in no time.
May your pen stay sharp!
~Justyne
Your Evil Twin on 15 Feb 2009 at 12:34 pm #
Alright, alright. Your wonderful post has finally forced a comment from me, much as I tried to hold it in. I can completely see the debater in you shining out in this one, and you know how a whiff of debate pulls me right in. I am convinced that it was all a conspiracy.
I have to say that this is fantastic. Reading the except, I actually didn’t consider it at all, and your post has both shamed and inspired as well as impressed me. Grammatically incorrect as that may be.
Secondly I have to say that the scrollbar on the side of this thing doesn’t work on Safari. This is simply another sign of how badly this whole site sucks. *glares* Even though your wiles might have lured me here against my will, you will still taste my wrath at having abandoned the ranks of HSBers, quaint as we may be. We are loyal to each other, and never forget such betrayal from one in our ranks… sit in your tech-savvy blog with the cool people and tremble, traitor.
Mwahahahaha.
That was, of course, the best note on which to end this, but being me, I could not resist one more comment. I forgot to stop your page loading when I opened it and therefore had it loading pictures in the background for half an hour and slowing my dial-up to a crawl. Which meant that at last I got to see your tournament photos, and envy you Grace… And I have to say that all of you look so absurdly, hilariously American in your suits and jackets and shirts that I sat and giggled over it all for ages, which made me happy. Which just goes to show that some good can come out of stupid new blogs after all…
Beth on 16 Feb 2009 at 2:14 pm #
What, does no one wear suits and jackets in New Zealand? How…quaint.
I must say I’m very proud of you, twin. Even though your comment didn’t live up to your usual standards as far as length goes, it was a nice gesture.
So…tell me more about this business with the scrollbar in Safari?
Oh. And the debater in me keeps permanent residence online.
Grace on 16 Feb 2009 at 3:38 pm #
Why does Altariel envy you me?
I expect y’all are having a ridiculous amount of fun in NM without me!
Altarigator on 17 Feb 2009 at 7:37 am #
Isn’t it obvious? I still can’t believe you guys got to meet each other… *sighs utterly enviously*
Nevermind the scrollbar. It’s just the smallness of the comment box that does it, but now I have discovered how to stretch it it’s sweet. Funny thing, a stretchy comment box. You can make it go right off the page forever and ever until your comment is three lines long and you can hardly see any of it. How useful.
Oh, and no one wears suits and jackets for school and conferences and stuff, only for… well, just weddings and balls and funerals, pretty much. Probably no one wears them anywhere else apart from the Prime Minister. People go to conferences and camps in shorts and t-shirts, and they wear shorts and t-shirts to work, and executives and business owners just wear more expensive shorts and t-shirts. Suits and Jackets are a very American thing… truly quaint indeed.
Now, look what you’ve done, DT. You have corrupted my personal morals and standards and lowered me to the point of leaving two whole comments on this abomination. Despite the fact that you haven’t even left me one. It’s disgusting. With italics.
And whatever to the shortness dig. I’ve still easily given you the longest comment here yet, without even trying. This horrible new blog just kills people’s talkativeness, I tell you. You’ll see.
Yes, someday you’ll see, and you’ll regret this decision, DT.
Altariel on 19 Feb 2009 at 11:35 pm #
You’ve changed your profile pic too! This is awful! I don’t know you anymoooooore!
*bursts into tears and sobs on her DT’s shoulder*
paulhastings0 on 20 Feb 2009 at 6:58 am #
“abomination”… wow, this person is cool.
Beth on 21 Feb 2009 at 4:56 am #
Totally.
BrianM on 21 Feb 2009 at 6:20 pm #
Darwin, in my book, wasn’t a very bad scientist.
Darwin (as a good scientist) devoted a whole chapter to the problems with his theory.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall in a future chapter attempt to show, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record.”
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”
So, yeah. To date, most of these “difficulties” have not yet been resolved. And it’s taught as more than a theory… yeah.
> Brian
Beth on 21 Feb 2009 at 6:24 pm #
True, true. Modern-day evolutionists have far more faith in the theory than Darwin did himself.
DanielG on 24 Feb 2009 at 8:03 pm #
Hey, finally saw this. Random comments, in no particular order:
> And it’s taught as more than a theory.
*sigh* for some reason very few of the general public understand what a “theory” is in scientific terms. Theory in the scientific sense usually means a fairly well established, coherent explanation. The public often uses “only a theory” to mean “vague at best, and with a high likelihood of being wrong.” This is like the word “hacker”, the general public doesn’t usually correctly use the technical definition.
BTW, keep in mind the fact that very few scientists nowadays actually believe that massive numbers of transitional forms are necessary for evolution – opinion is heading more and more towards the punctuated equilibrium variants of evolution. So, the fact that Darwin thought there ought to be lots of transitional forms means very little anymore. Actually, the theory has changed quite a lot since Darwin’s version, so in many ways what Darwin said about such-and-such is somewhat irrelevant.
A general comment about the article: Duh, or course transitional forms look microevolution-ey (is that a real word?) – they’re transitional. That means (comparatively) small change. Small change = microevolution-ey. I’m simplifying here, but the basic thing that struck me was that talking about transitional forms in the context of micro/macroevolution is kind of pointless. Anyway, just a thought.
Speaking of which: the examples you gave. Giraffe = probably macroevolution, since the short-necked giraffes they talked about were more like horses and would probably count as a separate species today. Sinornis = probably macroevolution, since from what I recall it really was sort of part-bird, part-reptile. Turtle = macroevolution again (seriously, it’s a transitional form between a shell-less blob thing and a turtle.) This is what I see, anyway.
(By the way, Darwin taught both microevolution AND macroevolution in some form.)
Something I would really like to see a good creationist rebuttal to: genetic mutational markers. For example, where random harmless mutations build up in unused portions of the genetic code, so you can see where different lines in the evolutionary tree diverged by what random harmless mutations they have in common. That this happens is pretty undeniable from a genetic standpoint, and statistically common descent is more or less the only way to explain it. It’s even empirically verifiable on a shorter timescale. I’ve yet to see any good creationist rebuttal.
(random: For some reason, as I type this, I keep wanting to express relationships using PHP expressions. LOL. I guess I’ve been doing too much coding recently.)