Evolution has the two following directions:
Method #1 is presented to the public; however, when the data does not fit, method #2 is used. 5 6 An example is the evolutionary belief that human ancestors had a much better sense of smell. Using these conflicting methods, evolutionists can explain almost any situation. This makes evolution a messy theory, rather than a clean, consistent scientific one.
Site Under Construction
This site is still under construction. It needs more references, citations, and debate arguments. If you would like to help, please view the community page.
Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why Evolution Is True. New York: Viking.
Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: Norton.
Dawkins, R. (2004). The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cotner, S., & Moore, R. (2011). Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood.
- Coyne, 2009: “This [fossil] record gives an unambiguous picture of change, starting with the simple and proceeding to the more complex.” ↩
- Dawkins, 1996, p. 91: “The message from the mountain is threefold. First is the message we have already introduced: there can be no sudden leaps upward–no precipitous increases in ordered complexity. Second, there can be no going downhill–species can’t get worse as a prelude to getting better. Third, there may be more than one peak–more than one way of solving the same problem, all flourishing in the world.” ↩
- Dawkins, 2004, p. 4: “I also believe, though this is more controversial today than it once was, that there are senses in which evolution may be said to be directional, progressive and even predictable. But progress is emphatically not the same thing as progress toward humanity, and we must live with a weak and unflattering sense of the predictable. The historian must beware of stringing together a narrative that seems, even to the smallest degree, to be homing in on a human climax.” ↩
- Dawkins, 1996, p. 135: “I’ve stressed that going downhill is not allowed, but not allowed by whom? And can it never happen? The answer to both questions Is about the same as for the case of a river not being ‘allowed’ to run in any direction other than long its established watercourse. Nobody actually orders the water to stay within the banks of a river but, for well-understood reasons, it normally does. Just occasionally, however, it overflows the banks, or even bursts them, and the river may be found to have altered its permanent course as a result.” ↩
- Dawkins, 2004, p. 4: “What the book says it that Homo habilis was ‘considered more evolved than the Australopithecines.’ More evolved? What can this mean but that evolution is moving in some pre-specified direction? The book leaves us in no doubt of what the presumed direction is.” ↩
- Cotner and Moore, 2011, p. 4: “Any feature that confers a benefit on an individual in its present environment is considered adaptive, and is referred to as an adaption. On average, individuals with this feature are more likely to survive and reproduce than are unaffected members of the population.” ↩