Posts Tagged ‘Darwin’

National Geographic Society over the years, like nineteenth century German embryologist Ernst Haeckel, have taken the same approach—the fabrication of inventions.

Of Charles Darwin’s alleged facts in The Origin of Species, the embryo drawings by Haeckel were “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor” of the theory. Darwin explains,

Continue Reading

In his autobiography, Charles Darwin notes, “Towards the end of the work I gave my well abused hypothesis of Pangenesis. An unverified hypothesis is of little or no value”—the First-Wave of evolutionary thought. Today, Darwin’s sentiments on pangenesis have re-emerged, however, this time on genetics.

In this week’s edition of the journal Science published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the focus is on epigenetics. An on-line issue even features a video by Science editor Guy Riddihough asking a number of top researchers a simple question: “What’s your definition of epigenetics?” And, “Their answers aren’t quite so simple,” according to Riddihough. Continue Reading

This year, 2010, has not been a good year for the “out of Africa” evolutionary theory of human origins. The following is why.

In October 2009, Time Magazine recognized Ardipithecus ramidus, now known as “Ardi,” the number one of “Top 10 Scientific Discoveries” of 2009. The journal Science declared Ardi the “breakthrough of the year.”

Ardi, an nearly complete fossilized female skeleton, was discovered by Timothy Douglas White, an American Paleoanthropologist and Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley in the arid badlands near the Awash River in Ethiopia in 1994.

Examination and description of Ardi took nearly 15 years before releasing publication. Although it is not known whether Ardi’s offspring actually developed into Homo sapiens, the discovery was expected to be of great significance since Ardi is the oldest known hominid fossil. Ardi had been theorized to be an ancestor to Australopithecus afarensis, more commonly known as Lucy.

Continue reading more

Just three years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in 1856, the first Neanderthal fossils were discovered in the Neander Valley limestone quarry located in Germany.  

In The Descent of Man, however, Darwin argued against the concept that the Neanderthals were the ancestors to humans based on the larger size of the Neanderthal skull.

“Nevertheless,” Darwin noted, “it must be admitted that some skulls of very high antiquity, such as the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed and capacious”—the skull was too large to be a human ancestor.

Darwin was right. The journal Science on May 7, 2010, published an article entitled “A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome,” confirming Darwin’s position that the Neanderthal could not be an ancestor to humans. According to Gregory Hannon of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Laurel Hollow, N.Y., the “publication of the full Neandertal genome is a watershed event, a major historical achievement.” 

Svante Pääbo of the Department of Evolutionary Genetics at the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany led the study team. “[Neanderthals] are not totally extinct,” Pääbo said. “In some of us they live on, a little bit.”

John Hawks, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Wisconsin, told BBC News: “They’re us. We’re them.”

“[T]he really surprising thing for many of us,” noted Professor Chris Stringer, research leader in human origins at London’s Natural History Museum, “is the implication that there has been some interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans in the past.”

This interbreeding finding is a monumental discovery since interbreeding is a defining factor for defining a species. Our current modern definition of species was developed by Ernst Mayr—Darwin’s Bulldog of the twentieth century.

In the 1942 book entitled Systematics and the Origin of Species, Ernst Mayr established the Biological Species Concept (BSC): species consist of populations of organisms that can reproduce with one another and are reproductively isolated from other such populations. Since humans and Neanderthals are now known to be isolated reproductive populations, they represent a single species—”They’re us. We’re them.”

Sequencing of the Neanderthal genome is a landmark scientific achievement. The sequencing is a culmination of a four-year investigation led from Germany’s Max Planck Institute.

Use of efficient “high-throughput” technology allowed the numerous DNA sequences to be processed at the same time from the bones of three different Neanderthals found at Vindija Cave in Croatia.

A major obstacle overcome in the study was the retrieval of quality DNA material from remains Neanderthal DNA contaminated with vast quantities of bacterial and fungal DNA. Even, the Neanderthal DNA had broken down into very short segments and had changed chemically. Since the contamination, breaks, and chemical changes were thought to be of a predictable nature, the researchers developed a software program to estimate the original DNA sequence of the Neanderthal genes.

The DNA evidence from the Neanderthal clearly aligns with the biblical account—the Neanderthals are human, descendants of Adam and Eve. Worldwide dispersion after Babel followed by environmental pressures afterward resulted in people groups with different physical characteristics, including humans with “Neanderthal” Characteristics.

Cellular biologist, David DeWitt, noted that the research was an “amazing feat” of science that continues to demonstrate the validity of the biblical record. “Finding Neanderthal DNA in humans was not expected by evolutionists, but it was predicted from a creation standpoint because we have said all along that Neanderthals were fully human: descendants of Adam and Eve just like us”.

Every fossil discovery has a unique story, and the story of the Archaeoraptor is no exception. In November 1999, a feature article in National Geographic titled “Feathers for T. Rex?” played out to be one of the worst debacles in the now storied history of the new fossil discoveries. The article claimed to provide “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.”

Discovered at Xiasanjiazi in China’s northeastern Liaoning Province, the fossil named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis appeared to have the body of a bird with the teeth and tail of a small, terrestrial dinosaur. The “discovery” seemed to fit the missing link criteria by filling in the gap of the popular reptile/dinosaur-to-bird scheme. The Archaeoraptor was displayed to have a long, bony tail like that of dinosaurs along with the specialized shoulders and chest of birds.

The Associated Press was the first to notice the story, and soon the major news networks were reporting the discovery of the new missing link that looked like a “fierce turkey-sized animal with sharp claws and teeth.”

The celebration was on. Philip Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Alberta, Canada, weighed in, proclaiming the Archaeoraptor to be the first dinosaur capable of flying. The story had barely broken before questions about the fossil started taking flight, leaving the National Geographic suddenly embroiled in one of the hottest scientific controversies in decades.

The questioning was started by Storrs Olson, the eminent curator of birds at the prestigious Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History. In a letter to the National Geographic Society, Olson stated that the story reached “an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism.”

Olson was on target, and the National Geographic found itself in the embarrassing position of having to retract the entire article because, as it turned out, the Archaeoraptor fossil was a fake—a neatly contrived composite of a bird and a dinosaur tail.

In reflecting on the incident, Olson laid blame for the fossil fiasco clearly on “zealous scientists” that have abandoned the scientific method to become “proselytizers of the faith” promoting “scientific hoaxes,” and “the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.”

Several months later in the March 2000 issue of National Geographic, the magazine published a letter to the editor from Xu Xing, one of the scientists who had first examined and discussed the fossil discovery. The letter stated, “After observing a new, feathered dromaeosaur specimen … [t]hough I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.”

Seven months later in October 2000, National Geographic published a five-page article by veteran investigative reporter Lewis Simons describing how the hoax evolved. In the article “Archaeoraptor Fossil Trail,” Simons pined on the painful discovery: “An investigative reporter does some digging to unearth the truth behind a case of fossil fraud.”

Simons explained how farmers in China had developed a profitable hobby of selling the fossils they “discovered.” They doctored the fossils to follow basic market economics to increase the value of their “discoveries.” In the excitement, evolutionists were conveniently blinded by their belief in the theory. 

The Archaeoraptor illustrates the problem when the theory becomes more important than the evidence. Tragically, Charles Darwin touted this approach in a letter to John Scott in 1863: “I would suggest to you the advantage … let the theory guide your observations.”

Evolutionists continue in the Darwin tradition—let the theory mask the interpretation of the evidence.

Even in an era with unsurpassed technological advances, fraud in science continues to invade deep into the ranks of esteemed institutions. Storrs Olson, of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History, in 2000 lamented that there “probably has never been a fossil with a sadder history than this one.”

Proof of the hoax was not long in coming. Later in March 2001, Nature published the results of the fossil investigation. Using high-resolution X-ray computed tomography (CT), the investigators concurred that the fossil was a forgery built in three layers. Timothy Rowe concluded that Archaeoraptor represents two or more species and that it was assembled from at least two, and possibly five, separate specimens. If there is any light at the end of the tunnel, Rowe gave a positive spin in the Nature article on the Archaeoraptor forgery, saying that technology may prevent future forensic fraud.

The Archaeoraptor disaster follows a fraud legacy starting with Haeckel’s embryos that founded Darwin’s “most important” evidence for evolution. 

Darwin had a significant influence on Karl Marx. Struggle and survival are central to Darwin’s theory of evolution. The full title of The Origin is –

On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection and the Survival of the Fittest in the Preservation of Favoured Races.

Darwin’s premise on survival and struggle in nature paralleled Karl Marx premise on class struggle. Marx summarized the importance of “struggle” in the first line of chapter one of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848 -

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

Karl Heinrich Marx was born in Germany on May 5, 1818. In 1843, Marx moved to France, but ordered to leave by the French authorities after participating in an assassination attempt on Frederick William IV, King of Prussia in 1845. After a time in Belgium and Prussia, Marx and his new comrade, Friedrich Engels, finally settled in London, England in 1849.

By the time Marx had moved to London in 1849, Darwin had already moved his young family from London to the Down seven years earlier. Even though Down is located just sixteen miles from London, ironically they never met even though Darwin greatly influenced the works of Marx and Engels.

Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx -

“Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.”

Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 -

“This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”

The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote -

“Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”

Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote –

“Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?”

To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. However, Darwin graciously replied -

“Dear sir; I thank you for the honor that you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital and I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, but understanding more of the deep and important subject of political economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge and that this in the long run is sure to add to the happiness of Mankind. I remain, Dear Sir, Yours faithfully, Charles Darwin.”

At Karl Marx’s funeral in Highgate Cemetery in London, Engels spoke at Marx’s graveside March 1883 –

“Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history”

The American researcher Conway Zirckle explains why the founders of Communism immediately accepted Darwin’s theory -

“Marx and Engels accepted evolution almost immediately after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Evolution, of course, was just what the founders of communism needed to explain how mankind could have come into being without the intervention of any supernatural force, and consequently it could be used to bolster the foundations of their materialistic philosophy.”

Darwin had an undeniable and profound influence on the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the development of Communism. Although not intended by Darwin, the effect of the theory of evolution emerged as the single most significant social engineering movement of the twentieth century.

Speculations run wild on what the twentieth century would have looked like without the theory of evolution and Karl Marx. What’s your speculation?

Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809. The Parish Church of St. Chad’s Register of Christenings and Burials gives the following entry on 15 November 1809 “Darwin Cha^s. Rob^t. Son of Dr. Rob^t. & M^rs. Susannah his wife/born Feb^r. 12 ^th.”

St. Chad’s was a parish of the Church of England. Darwin’s religious heritage, however, was largely rooted in Unitarianism. Darwin’s father, Robert Waring Darwin, and mother, Susannah, only maintained cultural and social ties with the Church of England. Of their six children, only the two sons, Charles and Erasmus, were baptized in the Church of England.

As a young boy, Charles Darwin was taught at home by his mother assisted by Rev. George Case, pastor of the Unitarian Chapel on High Street (see picture). After Susannah’s death, at the age of eight Darwin entered the Shrewsbury Grammar School with affiliations to the chapel.

Darwin’s mother, Susannah, was the grand-daughter of Josiah Wedgwood who was one of the founder members of the Unitarian movement. Free-thinking was the cornerstone of the movement. The Unitarians rejected the validity of the Bible, specifically the concept of the trinity, and the basic tenet of Christianity: Jesus is the son of God.

Charles Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus, from his father’s side, was a also a free-thinker. Erasmus published the book entitled Zoönomia that foreshadowed The Origin of Species.

In Zoönomia, Erasmus espoused the basic tenets of evolution: “Would it be too bold to imagine that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which the great First Cause endued with animality… possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down these improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end?”

What Darwin’s father, Robert Darwin, thought about God remains a mystery. There is no record of his father regularly accompanying the family to the Unitarian Chapel or the Church of England.

Eventually, a memorial was placed in the Unitarian Chapel on High Street bearing the following inscription:—”To the memory of Charles Eobert Darwin, author of the ‘Origin of Species,’ born in Shrewsbury. February 12th, 1809. In early life a member of and constant worshipper in this Church. Died April 19th,1882.”

A one point, Darwin stated – “I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted.”

How Darwin arrived at that point? 

Richard Dawkins, the most popular evolution advocate, explains that the mechanism of evolution is “nonrandom survival of randomly varying hereditary instructions”. For Dawkins, evolution occurs through the nonrandom selection of randomly generated genetic mutations. This defines modern neo-Darwinism.

Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, in their new book entitled What Darwin Got Wrong, delivers a stunning exposé on the Dawkins’s inane assertion that 1) natural selection is a logical theory, and 2) natural selection is nonrandom.

Seasoned by decades of scientific investigation, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini begin by demonstrating that even “Darwin’s theory of natural selection is fatally flawed”. Not only flawed, they view the concept of natural selection is simply an “intensional fallacy”.

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are not lone critics. With over 20 pages of references, the authors demonstrate that the theory of natural selection is no more than circular reasoning: a tautology.

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini explains: “[T]here is at the heart of adaptations theories of evolution, a confusion between (1) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected and (2) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits… Darwinism is committed to inferring (2) from (1)”. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini conclude, “We think this argument, although ubiquitous in the literature, is fallacious.”

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini also address Dawkins’ issue of “nonrandom survival”, by pointing out that nonrandom processes require a mechanism to overcome entropy—randomness. The obvious question is – what is the mechanism that natural selection uses to overcome nature’s tendency towards randomness?

To answer this question, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini quotes from Gabriel Dover (2006), the British geneticist that coined the term “molecular drive”: “Selection is not a process as such with predictable outcomes based on fixed, selective ‘powers’ of individual genes controlling aspects of phenotype.”

The evidence demonstrates that natural selection does not deliver “predictable outcomes”. Lack of evidence for a predictable outcome, highlights the fact that natural selection does not have an operational mechanism to overcome randomness to increase complexity—the essence of evolution.

Despite over 150 years of investigation since the publication of The Origin of Species, no known natural law has been discovered to guarantee  natural selection as a nonrandom process. Currently, there are no known natural mechanisms to overcome the general tendency of all nature towards randomness without an intervention. Contrary to Dawkins’ assertion, natural selection is simply a random process.

What is the role of natural selection, then? For Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, “We think of natural selection as tuning the piano, not composing the melody.” This is not the nonrandom force of evolution as championed by Dawkins.  

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, like Richard Dawkins, are evolutionists and “out-right, card-carrying, sign-up, dye-in-the-wool, no-holds barred atheists.” On the subject of natural selection acting as a nonrandom agency, however, the contrasts could not be more acute. 

Consensus that natural selection cannot possibly be a nonrandom process has reached a tipping point. Mutations are random. Natural selection is random. Dawkins contention of “nonrandom survival of randomly varying hereditary instructions” is now clearly emerging as simply “breathtaking inanity.”

Of all the facts in The Origin of Species, embryology was the most important in support of the theory. In a letter to Asa Gray in September 1860, Darwin wrote – “embryology is to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favor” of the theory.

Then, just two months before the release of the first edition of The Origin of Species in September 1859, Darwin wrote to Charles Lyell, “Embryology in Chapter VIII is one of my strongest points I think.”

Darwin was fascinated by embryology. Writing in his autobiography, Darwin recalls: “Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the Origin, as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal.”

To the point, Darwin writes – “We have seen in the first chapter that the homological [similar] structure of man, his embryological development and the rudiments which he still retains, all declare in the plainest manner that he is descended from some lower form.”

Darwin along with Fritz Müller (1821–1897) and Ernest Haeckel (1834–1919) were following in the footstep of Karl Ernst von Baer (1792–1876). Baer promoted the concept that a species’ embryological development (ontogeny) retraces the species’ entire evolutionary development (phylogeny).

In the case of man, then, the human embryo begins as a single cell and is progressively transformed into a tadpole, then to a fish, to an amphibian, to a monkey, and finally to man. In other words, at the different stages of development, the embryo is actually a series of ancestor species. The sequences of the embryo retrace the steps of evolution. Haeckel coined this process with the now-famous phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”

In the case of the appendix, then, the rise and fall of the appendix should be seen in the human embryo to demonstrate our presumed evolutionary human ancestry—from a functional to a non-functional organ. The question is does the evidence match the theory? The answer is – NO.

The reasons why the answer is NO, include  

• The appendix is not consistently found throughout the animal kingdom, occurring in only a few diverse mammals
• Not until the fifth fetal week does the appendix begin to develop
• Only after the fifth fetal month does the proximal end start differentiate into the true caecum
• Maximum growth of the appendix does not occur until after birth when the neonate takes on essential bacteria to reside in its colon
• Lymphoid follicles do not appear in the appendix until two weeks after birth at the same time that colonization of the large bowel with bacteria.

Contrary to the theory, at no point in the development of the appendix in the human embryo does arise and decline into a vestige organ. Rebecca E. Fisher, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow from the Center for Functional Anatomy & Evolution Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in a review article entitled “The primate appendix: A reassessment” concludes that “the evolutionary history of the appendix has also proven difficult to trace.”  

The evidence on the development of the appendix now clearly stands to demonstrate the utter fallacy of the long-standing “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” theory of evolution.

Jerry Coyne’s (2009) contention in Why Evolution is True that, “our appendix is simply the remnant of an organ that was critically important to our leaf-eating ancestors, but is of no real value to use” is another clear example of deception used in the promotion evolution. The evidence is clear: the appendix is not an evolutionary leftover.

The “vestige” status of the appendix originated with Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man (1871). In Chapter 1, Darwin writes -

“With respect to the alimentary canal I have met with an account of only a single rudiment [vestige], namely the vermiform appendage of the caecum… It appears as if, in consequence of changed diet or habits [disuse], the caecum had become much shortened in various animals, the vermiform appendage being left as a rudiment of the shortened part… Not only is it useless, but it is sometimes the cause of death”

Darwin’s concept of the appendix continued unchallenged until late in the twenteth century when clinical research began to demonstrate that not only does the appendix function to balance the bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract, the appendix plays an important immunological function. 

Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, stated in Scientific America -

“Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body.”

Martin continues noting, “the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the appendix probably helps to suppress potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity. The appendix–like the tiny structures called Peyer’s patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract–takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in the physiological immune response and in the control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens.”

Jerry Coyne (2009), professor at the University of Chicago, writes in his new book, Why Evolution is True that, “We humans have many vestigial features proving that we evolved. The most popular is the appendix.” Coyne claims that: “our appendix is simply the remnant of an organ that was critically important to our leaf-eating ancestors, but is of no real value to use.”

Classifying the appendix as “no real value” exemplifies how evolution adherents persist to be woodwinked by ideology. Mounting scientific evidence continues to demonstrate why evolution is NOT true.