Almost at the end of Wells’ list we come to ourselves: Q: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists’ drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident — when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked […]
Continue readingTag: creationism
the 8th ‘question’ on wells’ little list
Q: MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution — even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory? I don’t know that a lot of textbooks actually do […]
Continue readingcreationism – misconception or worldview?
My brother sent me an e-mail yesterday, saying "This should wind you up…" with a link to an article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper. He was right, it wound me up all right.
Continue readingwells again – this time, darwin’s finches
Naturally, Wells had to include ‘Darwin’s finches’ in his list of evolutionary icons. He asks: DARWIN’S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution […]
Continue readinga follow-up on peppered moths
One of my readers has pointed out that the most excellent Panda’s Thumb had an article on peppered moths, a wee while ago now. It includes a link to a radio interview that is well-worth listening to. Pop over there & tune in.
Continue readingpeppered moths – another ‘icon’?
You’ve probably heard about ‘peppered moths’ in class. They’re an example of the ability of natural selection to shape a population in a relatively quick time. But Jonathan Wells asks: Q: PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection — when biologists have known […]
Continue readinganother one of jonathan wells’ ‘icons’ of evolution
This one leads us into the concept of transitional fossils (the so-called ‘missing links’ whose apparent absence is dear to many creationists). Wells asks Q: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed […]
Continue readingwells is peeved with haeckel’s embryos
Another misleading offering from Icons of Evolution: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry — even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
Continue readingwells’ third ‘icon’ – homology
The concept of homology is another of Jonathan Well’s ‘icons of evolution’ – ideas that he wrongly labels as ‘key’ to teaching evolution, and then describes as incorrect, misleading, or out-of-date. Let’s see what he has to say about homology – & why he’s wrong.
Continue readingthe cambrian ‘explosion’
Wells’ second ‘question’ centres on what’s often been called the Cambrian ‘explosion’ – the seemingly rapid appearance in the fossil record of a wide range of different organisms. (‘Rapid’ = over a period of 10-20 million years or so.)
Continue reading