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