| previous page: Statements 45-58 | Quotations 17-24 | Statements 59-66 |
| (quotes on separate page in original) | |||
| Q17 | "I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change... Hence, if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, I have at least ... done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." Charles R. Darwin, "The Descent of Man," bound in one volume with "The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life," [1871], Modern Library, Random House: New York, nd., pp.441-442 | So why is this relevant? | irrelevant |
| Q18 | "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection." Charles Darwin, ''The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life' A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302 | Why is this relevant? | irrelevant |
| Q18a | Breaking this quote up: "'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection'. No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). |
Why 'purposeful'? | FALSE |
| Q18b | Nature or species do not have the capacity to rearrange them nor to add to them. | An unsuported assertion | FALSE |
| Q18c | Consequently no leap can occur from one species to another. | A conclusion drawn from false premises, and demonstrably false. | FALSE |
| Q18d | The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence - one who know what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in the laboratories" I. L. Cohen, Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America. Member New York Academy of Sciences. "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities" New Research Publications, Inc., p. 209 | Completely untrue. DNA can be altered by any number of factors both inside and outside the laboratory | FALSE |
| Q19 | "No one has yet witnessed, in the fossil record, in real life, or in computer life, the exact transitional moments when natural selection pumps its complexity up to the next level. There is a suspicious barrier in the vicinity of species that either holds back this critical change or removes it from our sight." Kevin Kelly, Executive Editor of Wired Magazine, "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines," [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, p.475 | Since when has the Executive Editor of Wired Magazine been considered to be an authority on evolutionary biology? Why are his views (which are ill-informed, by the way) quoted? | weird |
| Q20 | "But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2% of a wing ... How, in other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated forms? ... one point stands high above the rest: the dilemma of incipient stages. Mivart identified this problem as primary and it remains so today." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University | Another quote taken out
of context to give the impression that Gould was saying something he
wasn't. The quote is taken from an essay by Gould entitled "Not
Necessarily a Wing". The full text can be found here:Gould - Functional Shift
I suggest that you read the whole essay. To quote another passage from the essay: "...believe that Darwinism has, and has long had, an adequate and interesting resolution to Mivart's challenge (although we have obviously been mightily unsuccessful in getting it across). Second, a paper recently published in the technical journal Evolution has provided compelling experimental evidence for this resolution applied to its most famous case—the origin of wings." But please - read the essay, not snippets possibly presented out of context. |
misrepresentation |
| Q21 | "The non-utility of specific characters is the point on which Natural Selection as a theory of the origin of species is believed to fail" Professor D.H. Scott, Extinct Plants, p. 22 | This is, I presume: "SCOTT,
Dukinfield Henry. Extinct Plants and Problems of Evolution: Founded on a
Course of Public Lectures delivered at the University College of Wales,
Aberystwyth, in 1922." Please note: 1922 |
out-of-date |
| Q22 | "No recognized case of Natural Selection really selecting has been observed" Professor Vernon Kellogg, Evolution, p.91 | Vernon L. Kellogg (1867-1937). I can't find a reference to a work by him entitled 'Evolution'. It must have been published about 70 years ago in any case. | out-of-date |
| Q23 | It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." Luther D Sutherland, 'Darwin's Enigma', Master Books 1988, p7,8, 89 | Luther D Sutherland, ? Do
you mean Luther D Sunderland? Known for misquoting Colin Paterson with
deliberate intent to deceive in spite of being asked by Paterson not to
do so? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html |
misrepresentation |
| Q24 | "In other words, it's Natural Selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground. This is why prominent Darwinists like G. G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection. To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is design in nature—and hence a Designer." G. S. Johnston, The Genesis Controversy, Crisis, p. 17, May 1989 | Another load of bollocks from a creationist | Bollocks! |
| (back to main page) | |||
| previous page: Statements 45-58 | Quotations 17-24 | Statements 59-66 |