Transcript KHALIL_Darwin.1

Was Darwin Wrong
By David Quammen
Introduction
In Quammen's opinion, utmost people who discard
Darwin's theory of evolution do so out of unawareness,
so he continues to lay out some of the proof for it. But the
evidence he lays out is overstated, and the difficulties
with it are unnoticed.
Quammen describes that Darwin's theory has two
features: the "historical phenomenon" that all species of
living things are derived from mutual descendants, and
"the central mechanism affecting that phenomenon,"
which is natural mixture. The evidence offered by Darwin
typically fell within four categories: biogeography,
paleontology, embryology, and morphology.
on the four categories of evidence on which Darwin
depend on support his idea of the historical
phenomenon of evolution count on his theory about
the mechanism of evolution. But what is the evidence
for Darwin's mechanism?
"There's no better or more immediate evidence
supporting the Darwinian theory," Quammen writes,
"than this process of forced transformation among our
inimical germs”. The major evidence Quammen quotes
is antibiotic resistance.
The Main Plot
Darwin's concept is in serious concern. Antibiotic
resistance includes only minor variations within
current species. In plants and animals, such changes
had been known for eras before Darwin. Nobody
suspicions that they can happen, or that they can be
shaped by selection. But Darwin claimed that the
procedure of selection could create new species -definitely. That's why Darwin titled his magnum
opus The Origin of Species, not How Existing Species
Change Over Time.
to suppose that the eye, …
could have been formed by
natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in
the highest possible
degree.”
Key characters
Darwin
Earth's living creatures.
Scientists
The setting
Lands , forests, oceans , deserts,
In America, Africa Asia, and almost
all around the variety of
environments and regions in the
world .
The Main Point
The proof Quammen presents for Darwin's theory falls far
short of approving it. Biogeography, paleontology,
embryology and morphology all depend on homologies,
and the only way to decide whether homologies are due to
common origin rather than common design is to provide a
natural mechanism. Darwin's mechanism, natural
selection, has never been observed to produce a single new
species. Scientific theories (Quammen admits) should not
be recognized as a matter of faith, but only on the source of
evidence. And given the evidence, any normal person is
justified in doubting the truth of Darwin's theory.
Rhetorical Device used
Theories
Scientists
Religions believes
Academic Vocabulary
Biogeography, paleontology, embryology
and morphology all depend on homologies
What shocked me ?
I would assume that a famous publication like National
Geographic would own the ability to internally review
such basic beliefs, in an effort to present only the truth
to its readers. Yet, that same long-discredited material
which even projecting evolutionists admit makes them
“embarrassed” is exactly what David Quammen tried to
represent in this article as a “proof” of evolution. The
question is: Why is the use of such material which is
known to be fraudulent allowed to continue?
Good piece of professional media writing/
research and observation
I think that If Quammen's article had truthfully
presented not only the evidence for Darwin's
theory, but also the problems with that evidence,
it might have made a valued contribution to
scientific literacy in America. As it stands, though,
the article is nothing more than a attractively
illustrated propaganda piece. The readers of
National Geographic deserve better.
Thank you