Evolution, the Grand Experiment Chapter 5: Similarities: A Basic Proof of Evolution?

click to enlarge

Chapter five is a “basic proof of evolution .

On the cover of the chapter, there are two photos. One is a shark, the other a dolphin. The captions read, “A fish with fins,” the other “a mammal with fins.”

Dr. Carl Werner writes a header for the top of the next page that says (most certainly in a sardonic tone): “Many Scientists Believe That Similarities in Animals Are Evidence for the Theory of Evolution.”

This is the best chapter so far. This is the chapter where I get to say, “See, Dr. Werner doesn’t understand science, and he damn well shouldn’t be writing about it.”

He says, “Evolution teaches the following: The universe was formed 10 to 20 billion years ago as a result of the big bang explosion in space. Ultimately, as an indirect consequence of this explosion, life began in the ocean in the form of a single-cell organism about 4 billion years ago.”

Evolution DOES NOT teach that the big bang happened. Astronomy teaches that the big bang happened. Evolution pertains to the origins of life on the planet Earth. Evolution is biological. Astronomy is cosmological. Had he demonstrated that he knew the difference, maybe we could take Werner seriously.

What’s great about this chapter’s first page is, if you remove some of the vagaries or quotation marks with sarcastic implication, it might not be that bad.

For instance, instead of Werner saying, “The term “related animals” theoretically means that two or more animals evolved from a common ancestor …” would become, “The term related animals means that two more more animals evolved from the same ancestor.” Take out “theoretically”  and the quotation marks and you have a relatively decently presented evolutionary statement.

Werner represents evolution okay if you take into account that he says, “For example, all dinosaurs, birds, whales and apes have a single bone in the upper arm, two bones in the lower part of the arm, and multiple bones in the wrist/hand/fin regions. To some scientists, these similarities suggest that all of these animals are closely related to one another. According to the theory of evolution, all four of these animals evolved from a common ancestor that also had one bone in the upper arm, two bones in the lower arm and multiple bones in the wrist/hand/fin regions.”

This paragraph would make sense, only it included the word “theoretically” again. If you add one silly word, it casts a shadow of doubt on the statement. It’s writing tricks. If you throw in one or two semantic nebulous words, it confuses audiences.

Werner finishes the page with this: “Scientists who oppose evolution (and even some scientists who support evolution) believe that similarities in different animals do not prove evolution. They suggest this line of evidence is, at best, circumstantial. This chapter will deal with the pitfalls of using similarities as a proof for evolution.”

As you can see, Werner has no desire to prove evolution or at least demonstrate it is possibly correct. He’s only concerned with proving it doesn’t exist. He made a bold claim that even scientists who support evolution don’t believe similarities support evolution.

Surely he would be so kind as to provide just one indication that he has doubt in “creationism”. Since chapter one, he said there were two sides. He hasn’t show any “pitfalls” for creationism yet.

The next page shows a great example of evolution, but it casts a shadow of doubt across the page through “words”.

It shows a dinosaur’s arm bones, a bird’s arm bones, a whale’s arm bones and a chimp’s arm bones. Theoretically, we should believe that these similarities don’t imply a common ancestor. In creationism, it implies a common designer. That same designer found it was necessary to wire the brain to the larynx by way of the heart via the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Do creationists not know that this is a shared “design” even for giraffes? There is a nerve that runs from the brain, all the way down the neck, around the heart and back up to the throat. What an amazing and efficient designer.

Should god exist, he has much to account for. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is only one such evidence.

How about useless male nipples? Or a remnant of a uterus lingering in men’s physiology hanging off the prostate gland? Or how about the 8 percent of humans who have a thirteenth rib, which is a remnant of our primate ancestry? Why would god give humans a coccyx? How about those asinine wisdom teeth that were once necessary for grinding down plants for digestion? Or that nasty design flaw … the appendix? Or how about goosebumps, a remnant of being able to tuft up hair when in danger? How about extrinsic ear muscles which were once used for precisely determining sound sources without moving the head? Or what about that third eyelid we retain which connects us far back in the evolutionary chain? What perfect all-knowing creator equips us with so many useless physiological attributes that connect us to other animals through evolution, but they don’t provide any benefit to us now?

Did he do this to confuse evolutionists. Is evolution a modern day parable in which Jesus wanted to confuse the majority of men to know the truth?

Let’s get back to Dr. Werner’s juvenile effort to disprove evolution to his target readers who are obviously idiots. There’s a page on pandas and red pandas. Surprise surprise, these two animals both share the word “panda” in their names, but they are actually not related. The red panda isn’t even a bear at all! Shouldn’t the person responsible for animal nomenclature be accused of this error? Oh, wait, what did you say Christian? The animal namer was Adam? As in Adam and Eve? Yes. Oh, okay. My bad.

Dr. Werner, you are truly a master of evolution. It’s like saying prairie dogs and dogs have the same word in their name so they should both be canines. What’s amazing is that Werner says DNA evidence shows red pandas and pandas are not related, and that’s why evolutionists can not be trusted.

Funny how creationists use DNA evidence to support their views, but not to oppose them.

The next page says, see how similar seals and sea lions are? But did you know they aren’t related? One descended from a skunk or otter, the other from a dog or bear. See, scientists are stupid.

It doesn’t make any sense.

The pages that follow show animals that look alike but aren’t related. E.G. Dinosaurs with wings, bats and birds. (Dinosaurs and birds are actually proven to be related). Another page shows “animals with eyes” and it shows photos of a shellfish, a human (mammal) and an insect. The next page shows animals with duck bills and the photos show a duck-billed platypus, a dinosaur and a duck.

The end of the chapter includes a quote from Darwin and a quote from Duane Gish.

What I love about this book is how stupefying immature you’d be to take what Werner says, scratch your head and say in a Goofy voice, “Well, this makes sense. Evolution is dumb.”

I also love how it shows two animals side by side and says, “Do similarities prove evolution? What do you think?”

Don’t answer wrong now! Don’t forget, most Americans don’t believe evolution is true. You don’t want to get stuck on the loser team, now would you?

Would you?

You can see for yourselves, Dr. Werner does not take science seriously. He makes bold claims without any effort to back up his asinine ideas. I’ve made more references in this review than Werner made in an entire book chapter.

Creationists, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I accidentally cut off the question at the bottom that reads, "What do you think?" Go ahead science expert. Tell us what you think.

8 thoughts on “Evolution, the Grand Experiment Chapter 5: Similarities: A Basic Proof of Evolution?

  1. Goodness Gracious and By Mighty Thor’s Enormous Testicles… Creationists writing a book without notes or references to other scholarly works

    …now where have I seen books like that before ???? Yes that’s right…in kiddies books..and in books of fiction and fairy tales like Hans Christian Anderson, Grimm and the Bible !!!

    I’ve been discussing the goings on on here and that small town backwater happy clappy “we’re not listening and just will throw bible verses at you like bullets” bible group of self-congratulating smug christofascists and he gave me some advice…summed up very shortly and bound to cause upset.

    “Creationism is lies” make your own logical conclusion

  2. I enjoyed your review. I especially like this line “Dr. Werner, you are truly a master of evolution.”

    The only criticism I have is this: Criticizing the readers is a little unfair. Many people who read the book believe in evolution (like yourself) and to lump all of the readers into the category of “idiots” is like shooting yourself in the foot.

    Dr. Carl, author, Master of Evolution

    1. Dr. Carl,

      Thanks for taking the time to respond.

      I was recommended the book by this young gentleman who claimed to have read Richard Dawkins’ recent oeuvre, “The Greatest Show on Earth.”

      Here’s a link to his masterful reviews.

      He claimed that “The Grand Experiment” was an honest depiction of science without claiming to side with any side of the “controversy”.

      I find it hard to believe that you think this book is taken seriously by people who “believe in evolution.”

      In regards to the book’s remedial references, its limitations in knowledge and expertise, general ignorance of evolution (e.g. saying evolution includes the big bang theory as pointed out above) and endorsements exclusively by Christians and creationists, I welcome you to provide some, any, a portion of “evidence” that men or women who accept evolution find this book helpful in any way.

      While I possibly have you here or could get you to return, I would love to know why there isn’t one criticism of creationism. There are plenty of written stabs at evolution. Why wouldn’t you demonstrate a more familiar and expert knowledge of evolution, if presenting the “facts” was the general intention of this book?

      I hope you find the rest of volume 1 reviews as insightful as this one has been.

      What an exciting week this has been. I’m delighted and honored to have you respond to Le Café.



  3. Werner,

    Your story on seals and sea lions all but proves that you are either spectacularly ignorant of the things you wrote about, or you are very deceptive.

    You should learn how to understand phylogenetic trees and take a primer course on how to understand evolution.

    You do not seem to understand that dogs, bears, otters, skunks, etc. are ALL decended from a common ancestral stock.

    You seem to think that flashy pictures and snide commentary will beguile your target audience (school children) into actually thinking that the stories you tell are true.

    Shame on you.

  4. One small wonderment: Dr Werner claims a BS in biology and then a PhD in Medicine all by the age of 23. Now if he meant an MD, such a thing is not very possible but even a PhD, making allowances such as entering university at age 16, enrolling in a BS/PhD program to pare the number of years required etc. all have to be employed to make his claim true.

    I am unable to discover the gentleman’s CV. Does anyone know where he received his doctorate?

  5. One of my readers, Steve P, and I figured this out, and I never posted it. I wish I had. Steve P found most of this information. I’m cutting and pasting from our email correspondence.

    He’s an MD that practices in St. Louis MO. So, he is not a biologist in the strictest sense of the word. His “research” has been little more than a quest to verify his own bias and confirm his version of the “truth”.

    He’s a big speaker to any young earth group that will have him but especially to Christian homeschooling groups since they apparently use his book as the basis for discrediting evolution.

    It’s no wonder that his book has no references and offers no criticism of creationism – his support of creationism is his bread and butter.

    Here’s a link for some CV info:


    “Doctor of Medicine”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Missouri%E2%80%93Kansas_City_School_of_Medicine

    1. I’m going to quote Steve in full here (I hope he doesn’t mind). It’s well-written and I enjoyed that he was anxious to dig into the matter more:

      To give credit where it’s due, it does indicate that he was a very well performing high school student and from what I can gather there are several of these programs around the nation that operate in the same manner. However, a bit of reading indicates that it can create cohort issues in that the students don’t develop close ties to their peers in the program due to its accelerated nature. Also they have a high drop out rate due to the stressful nature of the programs.

      One thing it definitely points out is that he cannot, by any means, can claim to be an expert in evolutionary biology. I’m not sure what the curriculum was in the 1970’s but here’s what it is currently:


      I only see two biology courses listed and their focus is solely on human biology.

      The sad part about all this, is that this man sees examples of evolutionary biology on a daily basis. Does he not prescribe antibiotics for his patients? When he sees a broken wrist in his ER rounds, can he not understand why it’s broken so easily? It’s compartmentilization at its best.

      Not to diminish the hard work that becoming a legit doctor requires but it is incredibly frustrating that they have reached the level of being irreproachable in many peoples’ minds. It’s like my BIL always says, “You could sell a dog turd to some people.” It seems that if you’re an MD, you can sell them a turd and make them think it’s a miracle cure.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s