“Evolution, the Grand Experiment” Chapter Three: Darwin’s False Mechanism for Evolution: Acquired Characteristics; Antiquity–1889 A.D.


Introduction
Chapter 1 Review
Chapter 2 Review

Chapter three’s first header says, “Darwin Never Succeeded in Understanding Inheritance of Traits During his Lifetime.”

No disagreement here.

This is the first time Werner goes into some detail about Darwin’s theory. He gives this an entire page full of text. Only two small pictures on this page. One is the painting of young Darwin and the other is a small one illustrating spermatozoa.

Werner explains that Darwin published his book in 1859 and he says the following description:

Darwin proposed that all forms of life evolved from a primordial prototype. The modern theory of evolution suggest that over the course of millions and millions of years, this primordial single-cell organism evolved into a multicellular  invertebrate, which evolved into a vertebrate fish, which evolved into a semi-aquatic amphibian, which evolved into a land-based reptile. Then one type of land-based reptile changed into a bird, while another type of land-based reptile changed into a mammal. The mammal then slowly evolved into humans.

Werner explains that this chapter will show how Darwin’s idea of acquired characteristics was eventually proven wrong. Immediately following this statement, Werner explains that “acquired characteristics” is an idea that was commonly connected to “Lamarck”. A full name is not given here nor in the footnotes. Of course he’s referring to Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de la Marck.

The chapter connects Darwin via a quote to LaMarck, and then we read on to discover how Darwin’s (not LaMarck’s acquired characteristics have been disproven).

Example #1: (on this page is a photo of a man lifting weights and two photos of a baby and a child, ostensibly the man lifting weight’s children. The text reads, “even though this man lifts weights every day and develops large muscles, his baby will not be born with large muscles. Darwin did not understand this.”

Also written on this page: “Darwin incorrectly thought that enlarged muscles from exercise would be passed on to the next generation.” There is no direct footnote citing these claims.

Example #2: “Neck stretching. Scientists incorrectly thought that a horse could eventually become a long-necked animal by stretching its neck to eat food.”

There are photos of a horse grazing and a giraffe.

Then there’s some more text: “Stretching neck muscles has no effect on the DNA in the reproductive cells of the horse. A longer neck cannot be passed on to the next generation.”

No citation is given.

Example #3 and #4 given without citation is that suntanning will not cause your children to be “darker” and disuse and shedding of body parts. It says that an animal will not lose its back legs if it starts to be a swimmer (we know where this is going … whales). There’s also a picture of a person with her arm in a sling. Ostensibly, if this woman reproduced, her baby would be born without a limb or a broken arm.

The chapter ends saying that acquired characteristics was laid to rest by August Weisman’s tail cutting experiment. Basically Weisman cut off the tails of mice, and when they reproduced, their babies’ tales were always in tact. Finally, the laws of “use and disuse disproved”.

I’m not going to critique this chapter in much detail. We have only heard about controversies for evolution. Werner associates Darwin with LaMarck. Yes, Werner included a quote that uses the word “disuse”, but there’s no real connection to Darwin supporting the idea. Werner is lumping Darwin into these ideas of acquired characteristics, but without reference. I need substance! This is why I called Mark Tetzlaff out after I read his FIRST review for having an “insubstantial” critique of Dawkins. Perhaps this is what all creationists do? They make claims without sources and hope their readers are dumb enough to take them for their word.

We have not yet read of any controversies regarding creationism, despite the fact that it’s a much older “theory.” In a book that is supposedly fair and honest, where is the honest fairness?

“Evolution, the Grand Experiment” Chapter 2, Evolution’s False Start: Spontaneous Generation 322 B.C.-1859 A.D.


Introduction
Chapter 1 Review

Dr. Carl Werner opens chapter two of “Evolution, The Grand Experiment” with the words, “Even Scientists Can Be Wrong!”

In sum, the chapter discusses and old disproven theory called: “Spontaneous Generation (SG).” SG was a theory life came from non-life or non-parentage. For instance, that maggots come from rotten meat idea. Werner also hopes to show how science and scientists aren’t always accurate and are often wrong, and it takes a brave scientist to point this out.

For the record, scientists like atheists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins admit often that science is and can be proven wrong. That’s what makes it science. An idea is generated, it is tested, and if it is tested wrong, it gets thrown out.

I also want to remind my readers that this book was chosen by creationist Mark Tetzlaff for the following rationale:

“I believe that Dr. Werner is a honest researcher. He examines the evidence in great detail and contrasts how evolutionists and creationists interpret the evidence. In his book, he never states his opinion or interpretation of the evidence, but simply explains the evidence, how others have interpreted it and leaves it to the reader to make their own choice. This book does not provide answers to our origin or development, but it does provide a tremendous amount of information that teaches us a great deal about the world in which we live.”

Let’s explore Dr. Werner’s honest research … Continue reading

Evolution: The Grand Experiment, a Book Review


In response to the challenge I made to Mark Tetzlaff, here is the beginning of my review of the book “Evolution: The Grand Experiment” by Dr. Carl Werner.

Since none of you have probably even heard of the book, let me describe it. It’s a hard cover book approximately 262 pages long. It is written by the good Doctor Carl Werner and filled with photography from his lovely wife Debbie.

You could read along with me if you’d like. The first few pages of the book can be found at Amazon.com.

Tetzlaff recommended this book, because he believes “that Dr. Werner is an honest researcher. He examines the evidence in great detail and contrasts how evolutionists and creationists interpret the evidence. In his book, he never states his opinion or interpretation of the evidence, but simply explains the evidence, how others have interpreted it and leaves it to the reader to make their own choice. This book does not provide answers to our origin or development, but it does offer a tremendous amount of information that teaches us a great deal about the world in which we live.”

Tetzlaff’s recommendation can be found in the comments of this post.

Continue reading

NOVA: Riddles of the Sphinx


Last night, Tina and I enjoyed the new NOVA detailing the history of the Sphinx. What better way to spend one’s sick days than watching documentaries about history.

As an icon of the ancient world, I’ve long wondered about its origins and history. There were a few things that stood out that I don’t think I have heard before.

Click for larger image

One, it was carved down into the limestone. If you’ve studied Africa, there are these brilliant buildings in Ethiopia that are built down into the dirt. Their rooves are parallel with the dirt that is level around it. This was done for protection. See this link for picture. This is how the Sphinx was sculpted. Little magic Egyptians dug around the base of the structure and then carved into it.

The little Egyptians didn’t bring stone in like the pyramids, place it down and carve it out.

There are some bricks at the Sphinx’s base that confuse how it was made. It’s as if the bricks once covered the entire animal, but fell away from the top. That’s not what happened.

Continue reading

Le Café lowers pants, shouts: Hey, I’ve got your blue moon right here!


Ethan Siegel

Starts with a Bang! is one of my must-read blogs. Ethan Siegel is a quirky theoretical astrophysicist.

Recently Siegel tackled the phenomenon known as “Blue Moon”. If you have any curious bone in your body, you’ll go read about it. A blue moon is not what you think it is. Or at least, not in the way an astrophysicist says it is.

You should spend a little time over there at SWAB. There was a post about Saturnalia that preceded the blue moon post.

Creative Fertility


Tina blogged about her experience over the past 24 hours over at Beautiful Symmetry. Her perception of how things are progressing is not positive.

Regardless of knowing that the first time we tried this IUI fertility treatment that we likely might not conceive, it’s certainly easy to get our hopes up. Tina’s deflated right now. Between the hormones coursing through her body and the sheer roller coaster of emotions and mood swings, she finds herself close to teetering on an edge that she doesn’t feel comfortable approaching.

Although nothing is set in stone. I seem to remember that the nurse told us that indications of an impending period doesn’t mean not pregnant. It means that the body is dealing with a whole slew of information and medicine, and needs to straighten it all out.

So go read her blog and send her a big hug. And if you have a rotary phone, send her a rotary phone text telling her you love her. She could use a real honk right now.