Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Evolution
Jonathan Wells Files
ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey
experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on
the early Earth -- when
conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in
the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in
which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully
formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting
the evolutionary tree of life?
HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common
ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular
argument
masquerading as scientific evidence?
VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in
vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though
biologists
have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar
in
their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link
between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably
not descended
from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years
after it?
PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged
on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have
known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks,
and all the pictures have been staged?
DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos
finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by
natural selection
-- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and
no net evolution occurred?
MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair
of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for
evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled
mutants
cannot survive outside the laboratory?
HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify
materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a
mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed
ancestors
were or what they looked like?
EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution
is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are
based on misrepresentations
of the facts?
Copyright 2001 Jonathan Wells. All rights reserved. International copyright
secured.
File Date: 1.31.02
This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial
use.
A return link to the Access Research Network web site would be appreciated.
Documents on this site which have been reproduced from a previous publication
are copyrighted through the individual publication. See the body of
the above document for specific copyright information.
|
< Click to view >
|
 |
WindowView thanks Access Research Network (ARN) for permission, as requested, to reproduce the article appearing on this page.
This and many other articles by ARN authors can be accesse by clicking the ARN logo.
The content presented here is unique to ARN and copyright is held by ARN.
