All Annotations of The Social Affairs Unit - Web Review: The Theory of Evolution: Just a Theory?[Preview]

saved by1 people, first byRichard Holden on 2006-08-06, last byDiana on 2008-08-13

• The Theory of Evolution in its commonly-voiced form has long struck me as having so many dubious features that it is genuinely surprising that it has not attracted many more challenges than it actually has - although (I gather) a growing number of scientifically-trained commentators are also having their doubts.
• One reason for the failure of scientists to challenge Evolution is that the whole subject is tainted and pervaded by the religion vs. science question, such that anyone who questions Evolution is automatically dismissed as a "Creationist" who believes in the literal truth of the Bible and who is seen as having an agenda of religious fundamentalism behind his doubts.
• Nevertheless, there are so many deep implausibilities in the Theory of Evolution as it is commonly understood that it seems to me, as a non-scientist, that something must surely be radically wrong. Let me set out the doubts which I (and many others) have had about Evolution.
• Evolution appears to be plainly impossible. Animals cannot "evolve" into new and different species. If one breeds cats for a thousand generations, they will still be cats, won't they? They simply will not "evolve" into cats which look like kangaroos and are genetically different from felis domesticus. It simply won't happen.
• Even more importantly, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever seen an example of genuine evolution, that is, of one species producing an offspring which was clearly of another, different species
• Most claimed examples of evolution at work are highly dubious.
• this is, however, not an example of the evolution of a new species, but of certain members of the same species with favourable characteristics having a better survival rate than less favoured members of that species. The species itself has remained unchanged.
• The alleged general evidence for evolution throughout chronological history is often arguable, even logically fallacious.
• But no evidence is offered that the primitive horses were actually the ancestors of the advanced ones. The linkage is simply assumed. The reasoning here is obviously circular and fallacious - the very issue under discussion is assumed to have occurred, without further direct evidence.
• There are actually no "missing links" in the fossil record, a fact which, I understand, is continuously swept under the rug
• There are apparently no known transitional fossils in the whole fossil record of the plant kingdom, although millions of fossil plants have been found [Cited in William R. Corliss, ed., Science Frontiers II: More Anomalies and Curiosities of Nature (2004), p. 154]. What the actual fossil record allows us to infer is apparently that entirely new species appear, as it were, fully-formed.
• New organs in living bodies must appear fully-formed at once or they can serve no biological purpose and confer no advantage upon that creature. On the other hand, the complexity of most organs would seem to make this impossible. Charles Darwin himself was well-aware of this, and apparently regarded it as the most important criticism of his theory.
• The "fittest" do not survive.
• Moreover, the survival of any creature, regardless of its "fitness", depends wholly on there being a viable food chain.
• The incredible complexity of life, and its apparent ever-increasing sophistication over time, strongly implies a guiding force of some kind, and one which can produce a continuous array of new creatures of ever-increasing complexity. Whatever that force may be, it must therefore be capable of producing new species more complex than the previous ones - something which at first glance seems impossible, implying some kind of advanced problem solving force. Where is it situated? How does it go about "solving" the problems confronting it.
• The mechanism which brings about these sudden, fundamental changes, however, remains (so far as I know) completely unknown, but must be marked by a high order of creative ability. The drawn-out transitional process suggested by Darwin, however, does not appear to accord with the facts, coolly considered.
• we are necessarily universally handicapped (otherwise we would be God) and therefore always behind it in the race against time. Evolution and chaos may well be as one. But we will never know for sure. We can only construct infantile and fantastic theories about what our narrow and short-lived perceptions actually mean. The sum total of human knowledge about everything is almost certainly complete bollocks: mere amusement in the Grim Reaper's waiting room aka 'life'. But then, complete bollocks is just part of the sorry scheme of things entire. Don't fret Professor, just write your own script and appoint yourself as lead actor in your own play, just as the rest of us do. You may even get some applause if you manage to make it convincing; but then there's always those hissing ruffians up in the Gods!
• and if you can accept that some genetic mutations can engender others
• bred tulips
• that example has long since been debunked.
• it is extremely easy to see the flaws in your arguments. Rather then spending my time pointing out all of them out
• Look at the diversity among the children of the same set of parents.
• laughed off the stage!
• warmed over sheeps guts
• My God, this has to be one of the more silly pieces of creationist/ID apologia I've seen.
• It's clear you don't have enough understanding of biology to realize what a fool you've just made of yourself by writing this article.
• Please, learn some science.
• far more detailed than I have the patience for.
• All of those questions have been addressed. It boggles the mind how people think they can criticize evolution without understanding it. Please read up on the topic before you make a fool of yourself.
• What a hoot.
• She giggled and laughed louder with each outlandish comment
• Ever wonder why people who actually study the field don't find it implausible? Is it possible they know something that Professor Rubenstein doesn't?
• mean at more than a kindergarten level.
• it's been published in the professional literature.
• But just one is enough to establish the principle
• LOL!!! That one is purely ludicrous! There are transitional fossils -- "missing links" -- at the level of species, genera, and on up the phylogenetic levels.
• That's simple bullshit.

• I'm sorry. I can't go on. Both my irony meter and my bullshit detector have burned out. One seldom sees such ignorance sprayed about in public by a man with the title "Professor" in front of his name. It's an indication of the depths to which education in the West has sunk. I am (almost) ashamed to have been a professor for 20 years once upon a time.

  
  
  

  Richard B. Hoppe, Ph.D.
  
  Affiliated Scholar in Biology, Kenyon College (Ohio)

• the author is extremely ignorant of evolutionary theory.
• willingness to comment on a topic about which one is ignorant
• The fact that a supposedly "educated" person can still be swayed by these kind of stock, long debunked creationist "Criticisms" of evolution is evidence of nothing more than how badly WE DO NEED evolution taught in the schools. Not less, but MORE.
• This kind of talk is no more enlightened than the ramblings of the Flat Earth Society. It's just sad.
• making really complete fools of themselves
• Rubinstein should hang his head in shame.
• Even the most cursory examination of the subject, such as reading an elementary university text on biology, would have provided examples
• Transitional fossils (no educated person calls them "missing links")
• This author of this really moronic piece
• grasp of a freshman biology student.
• As an analogy languages also evolve.
• Speciation had taken place!
• Everything in this article is just as much utter and complete rubbish
• First off, how did we get dogs from wolves?
• You don't think that if a wolf can become a french poodle in 10,000 years, that a monkey can become a man in a million?
• I think it's safe to say you shoudl just take their word for it. No?
• 99% of the 500,000 biologists accept evolution for a reason, sir.
• I found it hillarious!
• Unfortunately, there will be some idiots out there that will take this article and attach it to their Bible, as another "proof" that "evolution is just a theory!"
• crude errors
• Rubinstein knowledge on the subject of evolution seems to obtained from poor "pop" science combined with the claims of the antievolutionists.
• claims of a Holocaust denier
• Consider that the evolution of new species has been observed many, many times. There are in reality numerous transitional forms in the fossil record.
• A freshman who submitted this post entry for a biology course would be quite rightly receive an F.
• http://www.talkorigins.org/
• It's doubtful he's even read Darwin's original work The Origins of Species

• Please, Professor Rubinstein- head on over to Talkorigins.org, and read their FAQ.

  
  
  

  All your objections will be answered in easy-to-understand terms, and you may come to comprehend what the Theory of Evolution actually says- and, not so incindentally, learn what "theory' means in a scientific sense.

• pure gibberish.
• Rubinstein would have done well to stop his misguided rumblings with "I am not a scientist."
• This article is utterly disgraceful.
• creationists.
• The arguments in this article are, each and every one of them, familiar and very bad indeed. Talkorigins is a good place to find responses to them all.
• We can't say that it is ancestral to present day birds-- but we can say that it blurs the line between dinosaurs and birds in a dramatic way
• utterly incompetent research
• grievous errors in logic
• "I'm hoping it is merely the most incredibly deadpan English humor, because I've just read an appallingly stupid article on evolution there.
• a basic text book or a short visit to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html might have already cleared a lot of your misconceptions.
• Professor Rubinstein, according to his biography, is an expert on the Holocaust. But consider, if we used the logic he uses here to examine his area of expertise, would we believe the Holocaust ever happened?
• The point is, of course, that we do have evidence that the Holocaust happened. It is undeniable, and you don't have to be an expert to understand it. In exactly the same way, we do have evidence that evolution happens
• it's just as undeniable,
• I'd second the recommendation of many other commenters to visit the Talk Origins Archive
• based on not the plausibility of evolution but the near-certainty of its occurrence.
• confer a very high degree of plausibility to the idea of common descent.
• These include the cellular nature of all life; the universality of the genetic code; the commonality of biochemical pathways; the genetic similarity of different organism, proportional to the distance from their presumed common ancestor; the universal use of DNA as an information store; the exclusive use of the same twenty amino acids in all organisms; the embryological similarity of similar species; the arrangement of the geological column; the occurrence of atavisms; the occurrence of homologous structures; the differential prevalence of genes for sickle-cell and glucose-6-phosphatase traits among African and Mediterranean peoples (they confer resistance to Plasmodium falciparum malaria); and the reuse of similar proteins for similar tasks, such as bacterial and human rhodopsin, which are both involved in light sensing.
• wow. Have you ever actualy read anything about evolution apart from what you found on the 'ignorant christians' webring?
• What is most odd is how did he gather such a list of conventional creationist “challenges” without bothering to have read any science?
• He runs the risk of being buried as he is already brain dead.
• Prof. Rubinstein should learn to use the search function at the TalkOrigins web site.
• that makes him look as big a fool as this piece did.
• I do find the comments on this article rather peculiar - I am not a creationist, I do not believe in Rubinstein's arguments. But why the hysteria of the reaction - reading the responses to Rubinstein's piece would make one believe that he had supported child sacrifice, not challenged - in a rather daft way - Darwinism.
• Maybe because Rubinstein's arguments are mindbogglingly stupid coming from someone who clearly isn't stupid.
• five minutes of research on Talk.Origins.
• Firstly, Prof Rubinstein has stepped straight into a vitriolic debate, since there are currentlys everal creationism versus evolution in schools arguments going on in the USA.
• So he cherry picked the "creationist facts"
• universal agreement.
• I am APPALLED by the manners and tone of the replies to this article. If this is what the Theory of Evolution does to people, then perhaps Christie Davies is right in his
• The Theory of Evolution is far from being as intuitive as these correspondents seem to think
• "why the hysteria of the reaction"
  
  You must be in Europe. An unholy alliance has formed in th US between the political right and the Southern Baptist fundamentalists with creationism
• Mainstream biologists have been caught leaden-footed in the propaganda war and sometimes now can over-react.

• This has to be one of the most egregiously ignorant commentaries I've ever seen from a Creationist. First, he sets out to admit he knows nothing about biology , evolution or science in general, then he proceeds to correct said biologists and evolutionists on all the "mistakes" they've made.

  
  
  

  Did it not occur to the good professor to ask a biologist? Or even take a course in evolutionary biology, so he wouldn't be regurgitating Creationist pabulum without even understanding why it's wrong?

• Yes Danny, several of the replies to this article – many from professional biologists - border on the intemperate, but you need to understand why.
• Rubinstein’s article is spectacularly, jaw-droppingly sloppy.
• There are some very good biologists at the University of Wales – Aberystwyth. If Professor Rubenstein genuinely wanted to understand modern developments in evolutionary biology, did it not occur to him that he should pick up the phone and talk to some of his academic colleagues who actually understand the issues?
• get a creationist stream of consciousness that isn't even original.
• I am still wondering if Prof. Rubinstein published his article without being aware of the difficult conflict being fought between creationism (Biblical literalism) and conventional science, mostly in the educational arena but not only there. Apparently, he did not understand that there is no controversy at all among biologists on the subject of evolution. As a professional historian, he could have analysed the controversy as a contemporary social, political, cultural phenomenon, he could have described the arguments, he could have presented his personal insights as a historian on the subject. Maybe that was his intention. I am sure that by now he understands that he made a bad mistake, and is thinking how to rescue his reputation. May I suggest that he publish an explanation, a correction, a mea culpa, in the same internet site? The sooner, the better.
• This comment column is now beginning to sound like the screechings of an agitated ape colony.
• you need evidence to back you up
• Frankly, in many ways I don't much care about arguments based on opinion. Decide what you want to achieve, Get the facts about what works, then do it!)
• When I, for example, advocted abolishing the income tax - www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000214.php - it only received two responses. When I posted my article on evolution I did not expect it to attract a single response, not on a site unrelated to science or biology, let alone more than seventy.
• I am not a “creationist,” and would not allow any of what I wrote to be cited by fundamentalists, although there are a wide range of non-“creationist” critics of evolutionary theory.
• One thing does however bother me - namely the number of commentators who have dismissed Prof. Rubinstein's point about punctuated equilibrium and saltation as just another example of ignorance. For a start Rubinstein does not say that punctuated equilibrium is the same as saltation, merely that it "was recently revived, at least in part, in the late Stephen J. Gould's theory of "punctuated equilibrium"". The key words here are "at least in part", ie it is not the same. Secondly, equating "punctuated equilibrium" as a
• You may claim that you are not a creationist, but you have chosen to waddle, flap, and quack like a creationist duck. Not one of your arguments is original to you. They are standard fare from creationists, some cases even being 50 or more years old, and were wrong even then. One is ~200 years old. Expect to be tarred with the creationist brush and buried under a pile of down. But I suspect, as stated below, you already knew that.
• he is either arguing for either space aliens or a supernatural force. Since he never implies that he finds the space aliens idea plausible, he's left arguing that, while he is not a creationist, he believes in creationism.
• Is it worth pointing out that Prof. Rubinstein, while denying that he is a creationist, is not just regurgitating creationist arguments, but also specifically arguing for creationism?
• So while he claims to not be a creationist, he does believe in the actions of a creator. This is truly foolishness beyond the pale.
• I should point out to the previous commentator that believing in a higher force guiding creation - or setting the building blocks for creation - does not make one a creationist. Prof. Rubinstein may be a creationist - but this is no eveidence for such a claim. By that standard you could end up claiming Darwin was a creationist - after all he was a believer in God - and thus in all probability a believer in the idea that the basic building blocks of the world were created by God. Darwin the creationist - not a very strong argument.

• A belief in weak creationism, that is that a higher power is ultimately responsible for the entire universe, is compatible with evolution. Additionally, weak creationism is believed by most biologists. But a believer in weak creationism is not typically defined as being creationism.

  
  
  

  However, Prof. Rubinstein is arguing for strong creationism, that a higher power is constantly involving in the workings of the universe. Strong creationism is the belief set identified as creationists.

• Speaking of creationism, lets address you denial of being a creationist. I am not accusing you of being a creationist. Neither are the vast majority of people posting comments. What we are saying is that you have gotten your arguments either directly or indirectly from creationist sources. That the arguments that you are using are creationist is something that no one familiar with creationist literature will deny.
• Most obviously are bacteria who evolve an immunity to a particular antibiotic.
• I do not believe I have ever - EVER - witnessed a more educated fool than Mr. Rubenstein.
• The thing that he proposes be demonstrated - that a cat say, gives birth to a kangaroo - is a phenomenon that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Theory of Evolution. If such a thing were to happen, it would actually shake the theory to its very core - in fact I would say it may be the first directly observed piece of evidence in favor of creationism.
• The tenor of the responses are as to be expected. I think people are really too burnt out over religion to show this much excitement. What Dr. Rubenstein has stumbled into instead is politics. That is something I think we can agree really gets people worked up!

• In the United States, creationism/intellegent design is a political movement. It is well organized and well financed. They have their base stirred up. They want to win at any cost. If the pro-evolution camp does not want to lose, they had better get stirred up as well.

  
  
  

  In politics, if you don't respond in kind to a smear campaign, you lose.

• Nobody is arguing against micro-erosion. We can see it happen in realtime. However, it's mere conjecture that micro-erosion would somehow add up over time, magically creating a *poof* of macro-erosion, like in the "mountain to lake" just-so fairy tale that erosionists are so fond of. Keep in mind that erosion of an entire mountain has never been directly observed, nor re-created in a lab. In fact, it's clearly impossible to do so. Erosionism is pure faith, not science, because it can't be tested or falsified. If Erosionism is to be taught in schools, teach it in religion class, where it belongs.

• Good heavens, Professor. All of your arguments have been completely destroyed, and what do you do? Not come back here with your tail between your legs, but actually repeat another glaring blunder! One which has already been pointed out to you in the comments!

  
  
  

  You are not likely to find evidence of an animal giving birth to a creature of an entirely new species within the next ten years - or ever. That is not evolution, or anything even resembling it. That you think it is simply goes to prove how little you know about this subject.

• So why did you parrot a bunch of warmed-up creationist clichés?
• but no serious biologist I know doubts that all living organisms are related to each other by ‘descent with modification’.
• Prof Rubenstein's article is fundamentally self contradictory. He accepts, he says , that humans are descended from primates - and yet a few sentences further on expresses his disbelief that one species can give rise to another.
• What of the claim that scientists have "failed to challenge" evolution? I direct your attention to Peter Bowler's "Evolution: The History of an Idea", in which the author describes a substantial number of theories in evolutionary biology which were proposed, challenged by scientists, and discarded as being at odds with the evidence.
• From studies of guppies in tropical streams to finches in the Galapagos to peppered moths to anolis lizards on Caribbean islands, researchers are doing work on characterizing the evolution that does, in fact, happen.
• evolution in HIV virus strains
• Peppered moths were never claimed to have speciated. The point at issue in that research was whether it was a case of natural selection acting on a population. That's a different issue than speciation. And those researchers who actually work on peppered moths are quite clear that natural selection has been at work there.
• he also developed the theory of sexual selection). Even in his day there were already other theories of evolution - the Lamarckian theory of "the inheritence of acquired characteristics" being one of the more well known.
• we would end up with a different type of cat.
• I think all the name calling really adds cred to your counter-arguements. Jeez, relax. Don't you think everyone should all be allowed to question theories? In the very least on the internet. This article is free, you get what you pay for, don't act like someone ran over your missing-link-cat.
• But surely you accept that there are variations on the species of 'cat' e.g. siamese, tabby etc... which have arisen through both mutation and the interactions of various genes...

• Furthermore these different breeds (much like with dogs) have different aesthetic and functional characteristics e.g. size, colour, speed etc...

  
  
  

  Surely this alone must be enough to prove that natural selection is a viable theory for evolution.

• Dude, do the world a favour and read "The beak of the finch" by Jonathan Weiner.

  
  Posted by:

• This article proves nothing about the falicy of evolution, but it does absolutely prove one thing:

  
  
  

  99% of the people responding to the article are assholes. Get over yourselves people. If you disagree with someone, disagree, but no need to be such pedantic assholes. Try not to be so full of yourselves.

• An assumption common to many comments found here is that ideology and serious science are things that can be neatly distinguished. This is a superficial view of what science actually is and can do that has been questioned in the philosophy of science for decades by many many scholars; so those who question Dr. Rubinstein's qualification to write about evolution should question *their* training in philosophy of science first.
• All of the comments here prove that evolution is our modern day dogma.
• Shame on you.
• This article is absolute filth. Here is a logical rebuttal.
• The last commentator should be ashamed of what he has said - it is not acceptable to call for someones dismissal simply because one disagrees with what they say - or they say something which is wrong about a subject plainly outside their academic area. If Prof. Rubinstein consistently made highly dubious historical claims - and continued to do so - there might - might - be a case for saying his contract should not be renewed. Here he is not talking about his own academic expertise - but on a subject which he himself says he has no expert knowledge. Shame on the previous commentator.
• Unless you take this drivel seriously. Then it becomes slightly scary.
• I'm not even going to try and prove you wrong

• "NEEDLES" to say, so-called scholars like you face extinction anyway. And here's something else controversial: Thank God for that!

  
  
  

  Now go back to your cave.

• "Dr Colossus" - what's the need for the personal abuse. To disagree with someone there is no need to call them names. In fact all it does is make you look like a nutter. I can't see why people think they need to defend reason by reserting to name calling.
• If this is actually the opinion of a true academic, then I hope this article exposes Dr. Rubinstein as a crackpot and I hope that the University of Wales will review any other articles he has written and consider reviewing his competency as a professor!!!

• Proof that if you even slightly question or disagree with the dogmas of modern science you get instant mob justice.

  
  
  

  85% of the comments here were regurgitation of previous comments and a personal attacks and cheap shots at the article’s author’s credibility.

  
  
  

  "Hey everyone else left insulting comments; I might as well jump on the bandwagon!"

  
  
  

  I’m not taking any sides but if any of you behaved this incordially in person it would be evident of your almost complete lack of tolerance and lack of common courtesy and respect, even if you believed he were wrong.

  
  
  

  Can one be wrong in sharing his opinion? It seems obvious from these comments that you can be. Not only that, but if you don’t agree its grounds for a piously-intellectual mob lynching.

  
  
  

  Professor, even if I am the only one stating this, I respect your view and have many times felt the same, however being that I am, according to many of these commenters not as educated as they are I’m not revealing my own position on the issue.

  
  
  

  To the majority of the commenters, your attitude and tone is utterly disgusting and disgraceful, were you not raised with any manners?

• I'm rather shocked at how vitriolic these comments are. Can no one simply answer the man's questions point by point?
• Since when is it incorrect for "scientists" to ask questions... and be wrong? Everything is open for discussion - how else will you be able to teach these people?. Be reasonable and open rather than reactionary and hostile.

• The comments to the article are perhaps the most concentrated collection of arrogance I've seen in a long time. How is it that scientists who readily admit ignorance on a vast multitude of topics can be so religiously dogmatic on whatever today's scientific 'truth' happens to be.

  
  
  

  /sigh... Today's scientific fact is often tomorrow's scientific fiction. You guys need to play in your sandbox a bit longer...

• Professor,
  
  Excellent article, keep your chin up, most of the comments here are negative and hateful and that is to be expected. These evolutionists have shown their true colors as not logical, thoughtful scientists, but emotional adherrents to the cult religion of Darwin. Anytime you attack the basic faith of someones religion as you have so aptly noted as dogma, you need to expect this kind of hatred and violent attack. Anyone who questions their faith has seen this, and experienced their hysterical attacks.
• God created Evolution.
• Each one has only a part of the picture. And from a rational, intelligent perspective, it is the only solution that fits all the evidence.
• And as a personal point, I think that this whole argument of Creation vs. Evolution left the scientific realm years ago, and now resides firmly in the Twilight Zone, where ego, politics, money, power, and conformity of thought to "What I Believe" are much more important than freedom of thought, opinion, and speech. And I firmly believe that religion is a very small part of it from the Creationists' side. To paraphrase Darth Vader, "I find your faith disturbing..."
• Transitional species nonexistant you say? Do a Google, sir, and you will discover that you are not very well informed.
• creationist claptrap tagline, "just a theory."
• Washington crossing the Delaware is a theory, supported by written accounts. But we can feel pretty sure that this theory holds true despite more tangible evidence.
• Columbus "discovered" America. No, he landed in the Carribbean.
  
  Magellan circumnavigated the globe. No, he was killed in the Phillippines.
  
  St. George killed a dragon...come on now.
• The human eye is an impossible creation. There is no way it could have just come to be. So is this microcomputer I hear so much about. I mean, there is no way this immensely complex device sprang out of nowhere. Only god could create such a technical miracle.
• We don't have the benefit of such through documentation of the last several millions of years. We do, however, have the power of observation and logic. We have seen how society and technology have evolved. It is the way of the world. Does it happen in nature? Yes. There are people out there who for thousands of years have used their mystical powers to enact evolution upon nature. They are called breeders. Ever been to a dog show? Ever seen a dog that fits into your shirt pocket? People have been breeding horses for thousand of years, they know about evolution even then. Ok, I know I am giving human influenced examples, but the concept is there. We didn't create the mechanism of change, we just accelerated it.
• So, how would evolution spawn such a thing? It can’t
• I would, however, like to respond to those posters who are critical of the nature of the responses. I think a little inflammatory language is more than understandable under the circumstances. Here we have a PhD from a respectable UK institution spouting utter gibberish which is almost identical to the propaganda of right-wing, anti-intellectual religious fundamentalism.
• words parrot the false arguments of reactionary political and religious groups who seek nothing less than to discredit the intellectual heritage of our species.

• But Jesus Christ people (no pun intended); you're proving his point that the scientific community is nothing more than a religion, seeking to silence those dare offer a dissenting opinion and resorting to name calling when it's too "inconvienient" to offer something like, say, oh I don't know, an actual logical retort using facts? Hell, substitute the word "Christianity" for "evolution" and the word for "faith" for "theory", and you pretty much have yourself an "intelligent design" message board.

  
  
  

  I have spent a lot of energy in the past trying to argue that science and religion are not the same animal. I hope the next time I do, the person I am debating has not seen this message board.

• As for a working example of evolution, does this count. The story of the mule that gave birth to a foal.

• Great blog post it obviously has put the fear in a lot of individuals whose faith is so deeply rooted in the belief of evolution. It will hopefully get people out of their dogmatic way of clinging to evolutionary way of thinking. It’s about time we stop letting this way of thinking hold mankind back. Questioning the thinking of evolution is the start down the right path Prof. Think of the many other people through out history who knew that everything was not brought about by pure chance and random chaos with no propose but survival of the fittest. Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler just to name a few.
  
  
  
  For all the venomous speaking of atheist believers in evolution who try and fail in claiming real scientists don’t believe in the bible or saying no real scientist doubts evolution. I never hear them tell people they should never get vaccinations or immunization because after all Louis Pasteur believed in the creator and did not accept darwin's faith in evolution. What about getting an MRI I doubt you will hear any say don’t do it do you know who pioneered that technology! Raymond V. Damadian, M.D and he reject’s evolution and can see the hand of the creator in science so you know the MRI is dangerous! Stay away from it! Don’t fly in planes because the Wright brothers were Christians. You can’t sail around the world because Christopher Columbus was a Christian. Burn all of Newton’s writings because not only did he write more on scripture then science he also gave credit where it was do to the creator in his scientific writings. He obviously was a mad man not one of the greatest thinkers and scientists in history.

  
  
  

  Don’t feel the pressure to stop asking hard questions Prof. it puts you on the path to finding out the answers. Some of the greatest minds in history not only questioned evolution but after doing so completely rejected it!

  
  
  

  Ota Benga

  
  
  

  A couple of links to help answer any questions with facts.

  
  
  

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1022re2ch3.asp

  
  
  

  http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-103.htm

• Wow! What brought out all the evolution fanatics? What brought out the darwin attack dogs? Was it not the honest doubts and misgivings of an Atheist? Did he not know that all opponents must be silenced with intimidation and belittlement, and the rest must keep their opinions to themselves, lest people will think there are problems with the theory of evolution and thus cause its toppling like the image of Saddim. Be careful what you say--the evolution fanatics will get you!

  
  
  

  Another thing: for the posters that don't know. There is a difference between speciation and metamorphosis--what evolution is supposed to be all about.

• Seems like you are not the only historian growing in doubt about the evolutionary hypothesis. Check out what Professor Paul Johnson have to say about the "Darwinian Fundamentalists", to be published in the Forbes Magazine:
• Actually, seems like they have taken a full-front assault against your blog. But no need to worry, as a recently graduated historian myself, I agree with Mr. Paul Johnson: "Yet the Darwinian brand of evolution is becoming increasingly vulnerable as the progress of science reveals its weaknesses. One day, perhaps soon, it will collapse in ruins."
• Too bad for the fundies. Let us sit side by side with Thomas Kuhn and watch a Revolution change the Scientific Structure´s Paradigm.

• It takes more blind faith to believe in the theory of evolution than to believe that God exists and He created the world.

  
  
  

  Check out answersingenesis.org (I'm not in any way associated with the web site or organization).

• It seems that there is a slight ignorance on the part of most posters on the number of professional, well educated, modern scientists speaking within their field of expertise who hold strong objections to the theory of evolution. It is not challenged solely by people, who, like myself, have only a very basic knowledge on the topic.

• Huxley destroyed the Darwinian myth with a single devastating and lengthy paragraph which ended as follows:

  
  
  

  "For the arthropods, represented by their highest group, the insects, the full stop seems to have come in the early Cenozoic: even the ants and bees have made no advance since the Oligocene. For the birds, the Miocene marked the end; for the mammals, the Pliocene."

  
  
  

  There is not a single documented example of a new species arising in historical times. Instead we see rampant extinction without a single replacement.

• It is time to abandon the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. With the able assistance of some of the finest evolutionary minds of two centuries, I have offered an alternative which, as nearly as I can determine, can acommodate everything we really know about the great mystery of organic evolution.

  
  
  

  Commenting on ontogeny and phylogeny, one of my sources:

  
  
  

  "Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
  
  Leo S. Berg, Nomogenesis page 134

• Rubinstein is right on folks. Evolution is finished, with not a new genus in two million years and no new species in historical times.
• At a philosophical/theological level, it could be said that science and religion meet up at the ‘top’.
• It pains me to read the hundreds of comments refuting Rubinstein's comments. I am what you all would classify rhetorically, and derogatorily, a "creationist." How many of you does it take to say he is an ignorant man and he is not well-read? You claim he will change his views if he educated hisself by taking a trip to the library; if "your kind" are the ones writing all the books, it will be a little hard to form an educated opinion wouldn't it?
  
  I am perplexed in my beliefs though, I believe God created the heaven and earth and all things in it, but yet I am drawn to the fact that evolution must be true...how else can you explain the development of such an ignorant and arrogant class of humans from one Charles Darwin?
• It is my understanding that the offspring of a lion/tiger mating are sterile, thus conforming to Dobzhansky's definition of separate species. Remember the mule?
• I find it hard to believe that any objective person can still accept any aspect of the biggest hoax in the history of science.
• Evolution is NOT a theory. It is an undeniable phenomenon of the past.
• Pardon me, but Professor Rubenstein freely expressed his ignorance of current evolutionary thought, brought up what he has heard, and left himself wide open to (1) being taught gently and having his elementary questions answered by honest scientists, or (2) being derided, scorned, belittled, and written off by people who call themselves scientists but who are certainly not tolerant of others' lack of knowledge. Interesting, isn't it, that the most vicious attacks contained the least enlightenment, and the kindest were written by those sympathetic to Biblical concepts, even though the Professor made it obvious and clear that he does not consider himself a creationist! Frankly, I don't consider him a creationist either, judging by his rejection of the fundamentalist stances toward the Genesis accounts of Creation by a Supreme Eternal God and the chronology that follows showing a young earth. However, in questioning both evolution and creationism, he virtually said, "Show me the truth and show it to me scientifically." I applaud his honesty and his desire for reasonableness. He is far from being the first to question the assumptions behind these two life origins accounts. And it is the assumptions that are at the bottom of the controversy: I
• that because "almost all scientists" agree, that makes it truth.
• I have never met a creationist who objected to the rich evidence for variation within kinds of plants and animals.
• But a chihuahua, a poodle, a collie, and a Great Dane are still all the same species--canis familiaris--domesticated dogs--able to crossbreed--even though I daresay that any evolutionist coming upon their fossilized bones would declare them different species!
• who have been taught that it is science only if one assumes that there is no Creator God, and that it is not scientific to assume that there is a supernatural Power. I believe this is a fundamental thinking error. Only when ALL possibilities are fully explored will the pieces finally fit together.
• it never ceases to amaze me how many people completely ignore his opinion and claim its too complex to answer those questions. Credit to those who successfully downplayed the Professors argument with real points, but scrawling through comment upon comment of people rubbishing his argument when they apparently have no reason to because they have even less knowledge of evolution than the professor.