As the triumvirate of naturalism--Dawkins, Dennett and Harris--go about pronouncing religion terminal, others are predicting that Darwin's "dangerous idea"--long on life-support--is about to have the plug pulled.
According to Dr. John A. Davidson, emeritus experimental researcher in biology, Darwinism "has failed to survive the acid test of experimental verification" and is finished as a theory. How so? In Dr. Davidson's words, "It is now 147 years since the publication of Darwin's celebrated 'On the Origin of Species,' yet not a single species has been observed to be formed through the mechanism he proposed. That mechanism, the natural selection of randomly produced variations is apparently incompetent to transform contemporary species even into a new member of the same genus. The most intensive artificial selection has also proven to be unable to transcend the species barrier."
As I recall from my graduate radiobiology class, after zillions of generations of radiation-induced mutations on drosophila (the common fruit fly), three things resulted: deformed flies, unchanged flies , and dead flies. What was never observed was a bee, wasp, or sparrow. You're right, Dr. Davidson, the time to put Darwin's fanciful tale to rest is way past due.
40 comments
How ironic that you refer to "Darwin's "dangerous idea"" of natural selection to be on Life Support.
I'm with Traitor 1 here. Evolution works on much bigger time scales than 147 years. Unless we live for a few million years, we are unlikely to see the kind of evolutionary proof demanded by creationists. I guess we’ll have to be content with the fossil record.
I've attempted to respond on the blog by pointing out that he's left out one of the products of radiological procedures on Drosophila, namely strains incapable of reproducing with the original lines but otherwise perfectly viable. Since all comments are pre-screened, however, I doubt it will ever show up.
Don't you love fundie goalpost shifting (in this case his dismissal of the fruit fly experiments)? They want new species, so we show them new species. Then they say, "Sorry, we wanted THIS in reality" and give you a target that can't be reached without disproving your own theory.
Man Called True, that's exactly right. I was in a discussion once in which the poster who insisted that speciation had never happened was given a list of about 100 scientific papers detailing observed instances of speciation, both in the lab and in the wild. The fundie shot back with, "But they've never observed a cow turn into a horse, have they? See?"
It is now 147 years since creationists first declared that the ToE was doomed, that very soon it would be rejected by the scientific community, etc. etc.
How someone could claim to be a "Dr." yet be so ignorant of the basics of the subject he is claiming expertise in overwhelms me.change. Just "change." Not "change into another species."
And speaking of time...147 years is not long enough for the processes Darwin wrote on to occur. Watching for 147 years and declaring that evolution never happens is like putting the kettle on the stove, watching it for 1/1,000,000 of a second, and declaring that, since it hasn't boiled yet, it will never boil.
The only thing this "proves" is that bothe "Dr." Davidson and "Regis Nicoll" are utter nincompoops.
You just know that if somehow scientists were able to give them fruit flies breeding wasps, they would deny asking for that and begin claiming evolution says flies become humans...
1. You didn't attend a graduate anything biology class. If you had, you'd know better than to expect a sparrow, since basic biology is a prerequisite to anything dealing with genetics.not happen -- it is mathematically impossible for evolution not to take place on Earth or anywhere else where things have sex this close to a star.
Reg counting to 2 zillion.
mr. pagan, if you think "Darwinism" sounds evil, you must experience the base malevolence that is "Neo- Darwinism."
Did you honestly expect a bee, wasp, or sparrow? Did you not study genetics before radiobiology? Of course you wound up with dead flies. Had you wound up with dead sparrows, you wouldn't be a scientist, you'd be an alchemist. Or possibly a wizard.
Oh look, another ignoramus predicting the imminent death of ToE. We haven't seen that in, oh, a good five minutes now.
How can you be a doctor in biology and use the inane term "Darwinism"?changes to the same species. It will only be a new species once the accumulated changes make it impossible to breed with the original species.
Cats with opposable thumbs and antibiotic-resistant bacteria show that the "dangerous idea" is alive and kicking.
Well if you expose a fruit fly to massive radiation it results in huge mutations. Such massive mutations do not occur all at once. thus you get deformed flies.
Could you point to a real study by scientists that show Darwinian evolution is on the way out?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
