See, this kind of shit irritates me. A CBS News Article has appeared (Source-
Christian Science Monitor) in which the reporter is trying to be 'balanced' concerning evolutionary biology vs Creationism re; Kansas. Worse, there is a side bar on the left hand margin with a list of 'questions for evolutionists' straight out the pages of well known Rev. Moonie nutcase
Jonathon Wells' lovely piece of obfuscation
Icons of Evolution. Throughout this entire travesty Wells' will refer to 'textbooks'. Having no idea what textbooks he's talking about it's not easy to frame a universal rebuttal. I'm using several textbooks written for the High School level and intro college level curricula. The questions are below the fold with my responses. By all means add you own response. Best response to each gets elevated.
Update: Here's
The CBS feedback page. Let 'em have it!
The origins of life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
The Urey-Miller experiment in 1953 shows how the building blocks of life, namely nucleic acids, may have formed. Needless to say additional experiments have been carried out since 1953 <gasp> using all kinds of initial conditions and pretty much all of them produce nucleic acids, because nucleic acids aren't very tough to make given nitrogen, methane, etc., and an energy source. The field of science which studies the possible development of life, called abiogenesis, is not part of formal evolutionary biology. Life could have started by Pink Unicorns or magic or by natural processes or when the Gort mothership purged it's sewage tanks. Evo is only concerned with how life changes once it already exists. Wells knows this and trying to discredit evo using abio is an example of deception on his part.
Darwin's tree of life. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
Amazingly, the science of evolutionary biology has moved on since 1859. And I have no idea what the fuck Wells is even talking about referring to Darwin's 'Tree of Life" ... anyway. I'm not sure what 'fully formed' means as used by Wells; What exactly would a 'half-formed' arthropod be? However the most advanced chordate in the Middle Cambrian is a worm like critter called a Pikaia which featured a stiff sliver of tissue running down its dorsal surface. I guess compared to a bird, or a turtle, or a human, that might be 'half-formed' even in Wells' screwed up head, so even his own claim works against him. Creationist claims about The Cambrian are covered in a bit more detail here for Kossacks. But even if Darwin had a shitty, speculative, mid 19th century "Tree of Life", I'm willing to wager sight unseen it looked more plausible than Wells model below ... (HT: I Disagree With the GOP)
Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for 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?
In the late 19th century a fellow named Earnest Haeckal faked some drawings of human embryos making them look like they started out as fish, turned into salamanders and lizards, worked through cutie lil mammals and ended up human. He got busted for it ... in like 1890! The actual drawings of human development used in biology books today are accurate and never, ever, use those old discredited 19th century drawings by Haeckal. Wells is pretending here (Translation-lying through his teeth) that they still do.
The 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 ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
Archy is a transitional fossil because it exhibits clear morphological traits of both reptiles and birds <shrug>. No one ever said that means every living bird descended from that exact individual that was preserved or that species.
Peppered moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection - when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
All the pics haven't been staged. However, there have been studies done in which plastic moths were used to observe the effects of differential coloring on predation. Oddly, real moths don't cooperate in such research or sit quietly on cue to be photographed waiting to be plucked off by a bird or snapped up by some other denizen. I've also seen plastic models and schematics of the earth moon system-clearly this means that's all fake and obviously the flat-earthers have been right all along.
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 occurred?
Because evolution means change in species over time. If species can change, backwards forwards, sideways, that's evo baby.
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?
Well again I have no idea what textbook Wells is referring to but I seriously doubt the book claimed that such wings were useful. Science book authors do attempt to make their material interesting and a four winged fly-freak might be just the ticket to drive home a point about how mutations can cause changes in morphology. Wells is pretending the lesson was supposed to mean more than that, which of course I doubt-and would wager all my networth- that it did not attempt to do anything except drive the aforementioned point home.
Human origins. Why are artists' drawings of apelike 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 like?
What the fuck is Wells talking about? Materialist wha-wha? Plenty of paleoanthropologists are Christians or any other faith you can choose, so this is not a 'materialist' idea now is it? Ahh but materialist can conjure so many ugly mental images. Greedy pigs fat with cash snorting cocaine and lighting joints with hundred dollar bills, atheists, you name it. The term is designed to paint evolutionary biologists and all of science as an ideology rather than what it is ... so that's why he used that term. Tsk tsk. We're pretty sure that our direct hominid ancestors were, well, hominids eh? Meaning they were habitual bipeds, had, you know, fingers and toes, hands and feet. Dunno what hair color or eye color, but we have a pretty good idea they didn't look like a squid Jon.
Evolution as a fact. Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact - even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
I have yet to see a modern science book which does not clearly delineate between a fact and a theory. If there are some districts using science books which fail to make this distinction DO NOT send you kids to that school.
Now, none of what I've written was hard to find. I happen to know it all by heart, because it's endlessly recycled by Intelligent Design Flat Earthers in my in box every goddamn day of my life. But anyone can point and click for five minutes or less on google and find out the scoop on any of those questions. And wouldn't knowing the questions came from a devout disciple of Rev Sun Myung Moon maybe tip off the average bear that that material just might not be entirely accurate? I mean I hate to castigate someone for their religious opinion, but anyone who refers to a batshit crazy 80 year old oriental fascist who has proclaimed himself the messiah-and had himself crowned the Savior of Man-lovingly as "My Father" might draw at least some skepticism from a hard-boiled reporter, wouldn't you think? The National Center for Science Education for example has all those answers, and they have prewritten media friendly soundbites available to the pres, free, online, no charge, they'll even get on the phone and help you with them. So does Talk Origins, or PZ Myers, who I got this article from, or me, or hundreds of others online. So why the fuck is this guy or gal, G. Jeffrey MacDonald, getting paid to write an article for a professional, allegedly high quality reputable news outlet like the CSM? And where can I get that kind of cushy work?
