Was Darwin wrong?

[Goathead]

When I saw that my jaw dropped. That is what is written across the cover of the current National Geographic along with a picture of a green lizard. I couldn't believe it! My first thought was that the Christian fundies had already begun and that National Geographic was kow-towing to this extremist group of religious zealots. I then grabbed the magazine and flipped to the article. Across the top of the article written in big letters was: "NO. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming." Pheeewww! Man what a sigh of relief. I guess National Geographic knows how to be controversial to sell magazines. I wish they wouldn't scare me like that.

[Feathered Fish]

1. It is the only magazine

that I can stomach on a regular basis.

[VioletLake]

2. I had a similar reaction.

:wow:

[slutticus]

3. ...

NO

[GinaMaria]

4. What a great way to lure fundies into reading scientific fact!

that made my day.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

5. National Geo's next word is "NO"....hehehe NG sure shaking up those......

knuckle-dragging mouth -breathing flat-earthers

[seafey]

6. One thing he was wrong about...

His "survival of the fittest" theory has always bothered me, and the fact that the Nazis used this to legitimize their genocidal policies is not surprising. It is very political, and it's happening now again. (Health insurance, medical attention only available to those who can afford it, etc.) I think he also got it wrong that mutations were random- I think they are on purpose. I think they are something that comes about as a result of a need. But that's just speculation. I'm no scientist!

[DrWeird]

8. "I'm no scientist"

Clearly. You're not much of a historian either.

[seafey]

9. Meaning?... nt

[DrWeird]

10. Meaning, you've obviously never read Darwin...

or even taken a cursory glance at Darwinism, since it's widely repeated that Darwin never talked about "the survival of the fittest." And you obviously have no understanding of either mendelian or molecular genetics, or even general biology.

[seafey]

11. Actually, you're wrong, but...

I don't really need to continue discussing this in this tone.

But here's a reference for you in case you need it:

http://www.big-picture.tv/index.php?id=7&cat=&a=8

[DrWeird]

23. Some "futurist" nutjob.

Clearly you deny the truth of the four-sided harmonic time cube.

www.timecube.com

[Brotherjohn]

16. As a scientist, here's where you're wrong. Mutations occur at random, but

... they THEN are selected based on a "need" of sorts. Not consciously, per se, but simply because they work better.

The "need" you speak of IS there, but it is driven by environment. Environment determines which of many random mutations get passed on, based on which allow an organism to function better in that environment.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I see your innate desire for a "need"... a driving force. But that force is supplied to the pool of mutations AFTER they arise. The mutations don't "come about as a result of a need", but they are passed on "as a result of a need"

[immoderate]

17. Darwin didn't advance "social Darwinism"

Mutations can be random due to radiactive decay. Most are not survivable.

"Survival of the fittest" is constantly being demonstrated in nature. How do you deny it, other than to just deny it because you don't like it?

--IMM

[el_gato]

21. there are more examples of cooperation than there are of competition

[immoderate]

25. Does cooperation lead to "fitness"?

--IMM

[DrWeird]

7. I sure would like to read their hate mail.

They sometimes publish good ones.

I remember one time back in the eighties they did an article on microchips and had a photo of one being carried by a Leafcutter ant, just to illustrate its size. One angry reader was upset that they'd let such advanced technology fall into the hands of a little-understood and highly organized species. Apparently he thought the ants would use the microchip for nefarious purposes.

Another letter was angry that the NGS endorsed the metric system. Because that's communist.

[indigobusiness]

12. That's hilarious...

can't have that...LOL

"...let such advanced technology fall into the hands of a little-understood and highly organized species....the ants would use the microchip for nefarious purposes."

[Taxloss]

14. LOL!

The ant story is brilliant.

[Brotherjohn]

19. They just published one about their Global Warming article...

... where the writer said something like it "revealed their bias" and that there are "many qualified environmental scientists who take issue with the idea of global warming".

Well, that depends on what your definition of "qualified environmental scientists" is. There are also many "qualified biological scientists" who take issue with evolution, but most of their "qualifications" are holding positions at Christian colleges and publishing in creationism journals, and their numbers are utterly swamped by scientists who believe that evolutionary theory is our best explanation for the development and diversity of life on Earth.

(as an aside, this letter may have been in Smithsonian Magazine)

[obreaslan]

20. We can not let the ants steal our technology...

They will use it to enslave humans and create a Planet of the Ants! :crazy:

[On the Road]

13. Of Course Darwin Was Wrong

He wrote 150 years ago. He didn't know anything about modern biology. He made all sorts of basic mistakes and put forward impossible theories.

Doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with evolution. There's 150 years of scientific observation backing that up.

Creationists have a strange way of arguing -- attack the founder of a theory. Who cares if Darwin was right, wrong, or indifferent? The argument is about whether evolution happened.

[seafey]

15. I agree completely. nt

[Brotherjohn]

18. But as NG points out, some of his specifics may have been wrong...

... but the central tenets of evolutionary theory as he proposed them have held up and been backed up by 150 years of accumulated evidence.

[obreaslan]

22. 150 years? That's nothing....

The bible has been backed up for the last 2000 years. Well...not actually backed up...but it has been re-written quite a few times to serve the purposes of numerous people throughout the ages...

So there! :P

[Brotherjohn]

27. This calls to mind the typical response I've gotten regarding the bible...

... from religious types here in the South.

If you express a scientifically-based thought that is in contradiction to a literal reading of the Bible (as they interpret it), the response is an apoplectic "but the Bible says...!"

They see such a statement as actual evidence of something. They don't know WHY it's true, other than that they are TOLD it's true. They can't seem to grasp that therefore, they believe it on FAITH. That's why it's CALLED "faith", after all.

They can't put their heads around the idea that the bible isn't necessarily literal, or that their interpretation isn't necessarily the only one. It's really disheartening to hear this response. Really is a direct demonstration of how far critical thinking has gone (down) in this country.

[On the Road]

24. Yes, I Agree

Darwin, for example, thought that if you practiced selective breeding on a species, you could eventually transform a rose into a fir tree or a dog into an elephant. As horticulturists everywhere know, you quickly hit a limit on how far a species can adapt by breeding without changing the basic genetics.

And I also think that all the mechanisms of evolution are not known yet. There's more we have to learn about HOW evolution happened.

[vinessa4freedom]

26. If only

the dominionists looked at National Geographic. They would likely choose to ban it. I've got a huge chip right now. 2 members of my extended family think I'm going straight to hell because I'm a liberal and that I'm a candidate for heavy medication because I'm taking "Ancient Life" next semester. To top that off, the other day, a guy I thought was half-way intelligent said that, I quote- "B*** is the best president we've ever had" I'm surrounded by (fill in the blank)