Crappy anti-evolution article: Just an opinion? Posted Sunday, May 15, 2005 5/15/2005 08:30:00 PM

This article at The Social Affairs Unit Weblog titled The Theory of Evolution: Just a Theory? is probably one of the stupidest anti-evolution essays I have ever read (thanks to Pharyngula for leading me to it). I can understand someone being anti-evolution for religious reasons but this guy is a historian that just has no idea what he is talking about and fails to present any form of logic. Be sure to read Pharyngula analysis. I tried to post my own comments to this blog but it appears they have shut-off their commenting system. I guess too many people pointed out the flaws. Anyway, here is the comment that I tried (twice) to post:

I realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but your readers need to recognize that this article is in fact not only an opinion but an uninformed one. You may in fact "have as much common sense as the next man" but your knowledge of the theory of evolution is extremely lacking. I am not a biologist and have only one college level anthropology class behind me but it is extremely easy to see the flaws in your arguments. Rather then spending my time pointing out all of them out I'll refer you to one facet of modern evolutionary theory that you have misunderstood: Punctuated Equilibrium.

According to the theory (yes, theory, everything is a theory unless you happen to be God) of Punctuated Equilibrium says "instead of a slow, continuous movement, evolution tends to be characterized by long periods of virtual standstill ("equilibrium"), "punctuated" by episodes of very fast development of new forms." Please read this website: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html and you may realize some of the flaws in your arguments. Simply put evolution doesn't just happen in one cat giving birth to a raccoon. There are ecological changes that call for the species to adapt or parish. The moths in Lancashire are a great example of this. No, the moths did not become a new species but after many, many years with enough incremental changes the Lancashire moths of the future will be different enough to be categorized as a new species. You even included another example at one point mentioning that "Most species extinctions appear to be the result of unpredictable natural catastrophes, like the meteor which allegedly wiped out thedinosaurs 65 million years ago". You are correct. A natural catastrophe disrupted the natural equilibrium in the ecosystem causing a period of fast development of new forms.

[note: my's comment(s) showed up two days later.]