Charles Darwin had no understanding of molecular biology. That's why he was free to speculate that if an animal flapped its arms long enough they might someday turn into wings – wings he could leave to his offspring. But today we know that's not the way molecular biology works.
45 comments
It is not that Joseph has any understanding of molecular biology. He does not display much knowledge of biology, either. One is even tempted to say he knows nothing at all. Look at how he threw in molecular biology. It looks like mumbo-jumbo in the context.
If you read the whole link, you'll find that Farah, who is the founder, editor and CEO of World Daily News and has set himself up as some sort of guru on the subject, literally doesn't understand the difference between the theories of Darwin and Lamarck. His talk about chimps still being chimps after 50 generations shows he has absolutely no understanding of time (humans and chimps are separated by at least 150 thousand generations), either.
If you read the whole link, you'll find that Farah, who is the founder, editor and CEO of World Daily News and has set himself up as some sort of guru on the subject, literally doesn't understand the difference between the theories of Darwin and Lamarck. His talk about chimps still being chimps after 50 generations shows he has absolutely no understanding of time (try 150 thousand generations), either.
Why am I not surprised by the source?
Farah started WorldNetDaily and saw fit to include Pat Boone's opinions.
Biology teacher's nightmare.
Hey, it's in WorldNetDaily, the Neo-con fundie excuse for the "National Enquirer", although that may actually be an insult to the journalistic integrety of the "Enquirer".
Nope, sure isn't.
I'm not entirely sure that's how it worked in Darwin's time, either.
At least not according to Mendel.
Ok, let's assume you're right (even though you're not).
You seem to think that discrediting Darwin can somehow discredit evolution. Even if Darwin was wrong about molecular biology, what does that matter if molecular biology still supports the idea of evolution?
So not only is your argument wrong, it wouldn't even have made any difference if it was right.
Darwin actually was, technically, a Lamarckian, but he downplayed Lamarckianism in favor of natural selection. It was later on, during the early development of the modern synthesis (i.e. the integration of Darwin and Mendel), that Lamarckianism was rejected completely.
You know who was seriously Lamarckian? Rudyard Kipling. Just So Stories is Lamarck all over.
He WOULD have been free to speculate that ...but being a lot smarter and more observant than you, he didn't. He understood what happened long BEFORE he had molecular biology to explain the mechanisms, which is why he is lauded as one of our greatest scientific pioneers.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
