Essay 2
The Darwin-Tinted Spectacles
Revised Version Apr 2018
An all-science account that examines the explanatory limitations of Darwinism in greater detail. Evolutionary biologists repeatedly state that we can ‘see evolution’ in living populations, while paleontologists make similar statements about ‘seeing evolution’ in the fossil record. Through careful examination of the major elements of evolutionary theory, this essay contests the integrity of such claims and asserts that they are generally based on false extrapolation. Genetic change, natural selection and adaptation can indeed be seen in living populations; but if evolution is defined as the origin of new species, the vast majority of these observations do not come close to fulfilling that definition. In the fossil history of life, the ‘evolution of the whale’ is showcased as one of the best examples of large-scale transmutation seen across geological time. However, upon detailed analysis of the so-called ‘transitional forms’ of the whale, it becomes apparent that they fail to elucidate the most important part of the structural change: how a foot-powered mode of locomotion mutates into a vertical tail-powered mode of locomotion. The only place where evolution may be reliably seen is in the Darwinian imagination.
To read the full essay click on the PDF link below. Scroll down to leave a comment about this essay. New comments may take a few days to appear.
Read the PDF version: Darwin-Tinted Spectacles 4-18
Excellent essays, plenty of ammunition!
Well written, researched and well-argued points, although I am unsure about the squirrels which is more of an emotional dilemma. I know very little about biology but can follow the logical points made.
The author refers to the Berkeley website Understanding Evolution on which I found the following:-
It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no first-hand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
I interpret the above to mean that because fossils have been found which show an end result, despite there being no evolutionary proof, macroevolution must have happened otherwise how would the fossils have occurred. Gulp – that’s a leap from logic to faith. There are two different languages being used; add in a lot of technical jargon and that’s communication killed off.
It creates the unsolvable dilemma of trying to have logical discussions about illogical things.
The squirrels are indeed an emotive issue, but the intention is to show that the Darwinian paradigm pervades popular thinking as well as academic science.