Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Jay Richards

2010 marks the 10th anniversary of an important book called Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (http://www.iconsofevolution.com). As part of our celebration of the book's publication we have invited a number of scientists and scholars to tell us what they thought when they first read Icons of Evolution and what they think the impact and importance of the book has been.

The book shook the allegedly rock solid evidentiary foundation of Darwinian evolution. Author, Jonathan Wells exposed how many of the textbook examples of "evidence" for Darwinism are speculative at best and in some cases even based on falsified information.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• science
• biology
• evolution
• intelligent design
• Jonathan Wells
• Charles Darwin
• Darwinism
• Icons of Evolution
• Discovery Institute
• Jay Richards

[haz020190]

sol and CAM ur still here!? way to fight the cause guys.

I have to admit, in the style of towelie, i just kinda got bored and wandered off

[sol3a1]

@biggbaddjohn "a shill and a jackass !!! Maybe fossilization is rare today" not really but where humanity is, we generally don't like carcasses littering the streets

But even where humanity is not, fossilization is a rare event

Could you explain how fossilization occurs and the different ways things fossilize? I'd like to read your understanding of the process

"Darwin said we should be "tripping over" transitional forms" where did you get that? You do know that all forms are transitional

[sol3a1]

@biggbaddjohn "What an idiot. mutation ALWAYS destroys information, or copies old information" evidence for this assertion please

You do know that the vast majority of mutations are neutral right? In many cases the difference between "good" and "bad" mutations are where the animal lives. A mutation that doubles bat fat is a "good" one when the animal lives in cold climes but a "bad" one if they live in a desert environment

For "catastrophic" mutations the embryo almost always dies in gestation

[sol3a1]

@biggbaddjohn "that's easy. life was created all at once, and the fossil record supports that model" really? Wow! That's news to everyone who does serious research into fossils and where and how they are found

If this "model", actually the "everything at once" is a postulate, shows everything at once, then why are their no large mammals found below the K-T layer?

Why are flowering plants only found in "younger" strata? Why are flowering plants never found with Jurassic or Cretaceous fossils?

[CamW30]

@biggbaddjohn - "he seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata”"

The key word in that phrase is "seemingly". Do you not understand the sentence? You really have no understanding of science, do you? It is painfully apparent that you never went to university.

Saying that you understand evolutionary theory doesn't make it so. You really do have to formally study evolutionary theory to understand it.

Reading about evolution is not the same as studying it; far from it.

[CamW30]

@biggbaddjohn - "Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection"

Here is another example of you not understanding what you are reading. The science of evolutionary theory has progressed in the last 150+ years. We now have evidence for why the "seemingly" rapid appearance of fossils.

Why is it that guys like you, with no science training seem to think you know more about evolution than those who study it for a living?

[CamW30]

@biggbaddjohn - "The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils"

The key word in that phrase is "seemingly". If you think tens of millions of years is rapid, then yes, these fossils did appear rapidly.

Cambrian organisms evolved calcium carbonate shells which fossilize more readily than their soft-bodied Pre-Cambrian ancestors. It takes very special circumstances for soft-bodied organisms to fossilize (see Burgess shale).

So, who's stupid (I'd actually say that you're just uneducated, though).

[CamW30]

@biggbaddjohn - "are you saying there is no empirical evidence for the Cambrian explosion"

No, I am saying that you really have no understanding of Cambrian fossils, nor the processes that made them possible. Maybe try reading the peer reviewed scientific literature on Cambrian fossils, rather than creationist propaganda.

I may be amusing, but you are extremely ignorant of the science involved. This is apparent to anyone who has done the hard work to understand the processes involved.

[CamW30]

@biggbaddjohn - "The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate."

Yes, but not in the way that you think. The "scientific" debate is very technical in nature, & deal with specific evolutionary mechanisms. The core features of the reality of evolutionary theory are not being debated.

The peer reviewed articles on this debate are available on PubMed. Not one of those articles denies the reality of evolutionary theory. The Cambrian fossils support evolutionary theory.

[CamW30]

@biggbaddjohn - " just because i reject you ridiculous theory dosen't mean i don't understand it."

Okay professor, what training do you have in evolutionary theory in specific, or even in the biological sciences in general? From your comments it is obvious that you do not even possess an undergraduate degree in any relevant field that would allow you to give an "informed" opinion on evolutionary theory.

You may reject evolutionary theory, but your rejection is just uninformed speculation.