Darwin's Theory Challenged

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Except that the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection can both stand alone, or co-exist, without issue. The truthfulness of the one does nothing to discredit the other. There can be many mechanisms by which the character of life is altered.

The piece started by presenting a non sequitur in order to support its argument. They seem to be saying that the sudden appearance of a physical characteristic invalidates other beliefs. It doesn't, quite simply because the trait that they point to is readily repeatable, from generation to generation. It is not a genetic divergence, it is a fixed genetic trait/ability. it's like saying that my kid having blonde hair, when mine is brown, is evidence of evolution.

People who have an over abundance of food in their formative years display a tendency toward certain physical traits later in life. DUH! Smoking fathers have a higher tendency toward having obese children. What about the effects of nicotine on the brain, smokers' social tendencies, and the like? Completely discounted. Causation is not shown.

All of this has the ring of junk science, to my ears.

This article seems to know the difference between darwin and evolution in the beginning, but slowly combines them both at the end, especially the last sentence. Some of the info is pretty decent, some of it I could do without. It's interesting and at least people are out there testing.