Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution is becoming a history, therefore messy, and not a dogma


Yes, yes, you say, gentle reader. Tell that to Darwin’s followers.

Well it is too bad about Darwin’s followers. The rethinking evolution meet at the Royal Society in the fall, however disappointing at first, is only the beginning of th end.

Darwinism worked so well as a dogma, foisted on school systems at public expense and defended by educrat lobbies.

Over the last decade ad a half, I have sifted through countless media releases announcing either that researchers had once again proven Darwinism or come up with a casuistical explanation for why it is true anyway.

That sort of thing happens when a field is not really a history but a cult.

But as this post at Creation-Evolution Headlines demonstrates, it is becoming a history now:

Revised fish story (Science Daily): “Today’s most successful fish weren’t always evolutionary standouts,” this article announces in its headline. The evolutionary story of teleost fishes—the most diverse vertebrate group on earth—is in need of revision. Teleosts weren’t winners in the competition. They weren’t necessarily the best innovators, either, compared to the holostean fish team. Some revisionists at U Penn want to rearrange some strands in the web of belief:

But this view of the teleost success story may be based on the false premise that teleosts dominate today because they have always been more evolutionarily innovative than other groups. A new analysis of more than a thousand fossil fishes from nearly 500 species led by the University of Pennsylvania’s John Clarke revealed that the teleosts’ success story is not as straightforward as once believed. Examining the first 160 million years of teleost and holostean evolution, from the Permian to the early Cretaceous periods, the scientists show that holosteans were as evolutionarily innovative as teleosts, and perhaps even more so.

Fat chance (PhysOrg): This headline undermines a hoary story by evolutionists: “Obesity genes probably didn’t evolve to help us survive famine.” The tale went that our ancestors gorged themselves when food was plentiful to compensate for lean times. Certain evolutionists now claim, “there is now evidence that nearly all the common obesity-related genes show no properties of traits that evolved because they provide an adaptive advantage.” So much for the “thrifty gene hypothesis,” a weak strand in the web of belief. Darwinians will just compensate by shoring up other strands.

Aquatic ape theory drowns (The Conversation): Alice Roberts of the University of Birmingham takes aim at a prominent TV host’s pet theory: “Sorry David Attenborough, we didn’t evolve from ‘aquatic apes’,” she states. The drawing resembles Lucy in a wetsuit. It was a cute story, but it does not account for our hairlessness as mammals or our propensity for being in water, even if it made for a book and TV shows. It’s both too extravagant and too simple, Roberts claims. “Occasionally in science there are theories that refuse to die despite the overwhelming evidence against them,” she says. Does her sermon go far enough? More.

What’s happening is that it is no longer enough to just come up with some Darwinian explanation for a state of affairs. We need accurate accounts, not Central Dogma coming from a Central Source.

See also: What the fossils told us in their own words

Follow UD News at Twitter!


Leave a Reply