A while back I wrote an article on ‘micro-evolution’ and used the commonly quoted ‘Peppered Moth’ studies to illustrate natural selection and evolution. However, a recent commenter pointed out that in fact, the British entomologist Bernard Kettlewell’s experiments that set out to prove the classical story of natural selection have since been found to be largely incorrect.

I should have looked into it more closely and so, I agree with him – I did get it wrong. This is not an accurate illustration of natural selection, there are far better examples to use.

However, the commenter finished his remarks with this: “The main beef that anti-Darwinist people secular and religous have with evolution is the lack of proof for Macro-Evolution, which would be like a fish turning into a frog or intermediary for a frog, for example. This is a big hole that even Darwinists acknowledge.”

Sorry, but no, Darwinists (don’t you hate that word – it’s commonly used by believers to imply belief. But I digress) don’t acknowledge anything of the sort. There is an abundance of proof that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution – micro, macro, tiny, big – call it what you like it’s all the same thing. I suggest some research into the following areas: anatomical homologies, RNA codes, endogenous retroviruses, embryology, pseudogenes, chromosome fusion and the like will help with the understanding of how species evolve from a common ancestor.

I don’t pretend to be an expert in any field, I just ask questions, investigate as widely as I can and draw my own conclusions. It’s easy to draw different conclusions if the only ‘evidence’ you look at is from those who have an agenda.

I’m not certain about many things in life – I’m only 99.99 percent certain there is no god or gods for example – but life isn’t about absolute certainty.

It’s about accepting rational, researched and scientific arguments. It’s not about saying ”Science can’t prove it therefore god did it”.

Sorry, no I don’t accept that. It’s settling for the mediocre and the dumbing-down of life and the experience of it.

Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: , , ,

One Comment to “Oops : I Got It Wrong”

  1. Andy says:

    Ok, I’ll give this commenter his final moment in the sun, but he makes a lot of statements using the ‘I know what I’m talking about, you’re just an amateur’, method to try to lend weight to his (well, they aren’t actually his) arguments.
    To address each:
    Macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate accepted scientific terms with very distinct meanings. They are not “all the same thing”
    Sorry, you are wrong. Creationists like to say they are distinctly different processes when in fact, they are the same. ‘Macro’ evolution is ‘micro’ evolution on a much longer timescale.
    The science is stil unsettled over macroevolution and its mechanisms even among Darwinists. Leave the Wikipedia alone.
    The fossil record is also unfavorable towards macroevolution.

    My brief comments on these statements: Firstly, nope, sorry you are wrong again. Science is not ‘unsettled’ over evolution and implying that I get my knowledge from Wikipedia is frankly as insulting as saying you get yours from the ‘Discovery Institute’ (maybe you do, I don’t know).
    If you have anything else that is original or considered to say rather than repeating ad nauseum the same line, drop a comment. Otherwise, don’t bother as you’re only wasting my time and yours.

Leave a Reply