I must say, the most amazing thing about this article is not the article itself, because it is wholly ignorant. The writer assumes one must be able to observe evolution over one generation, among many other things. But what I find really interesting is that Jason Kottke linked to it. Maybe too much NyQuil?
It's actually sort of funny. One commenter proposes it may be a farce. I think (s)he may be on to something. Here's a chunk:
Even more importantly, to the best of my knowledge no one has ever seen an example of genuine evolution, that is, of one species producing an offspring which was clearly of another, different species. Of course, there are hundreds of billions of living beings in the world, and it would be remarkable if anyone spotted a clear-cut evolutionary change. On the other hand, people have been looking for evidence of evolution for nearly 150 years, and scientists would certainly be sensitive to the emergence of any new species, with the evidential value this would have for proving Darwin right. UPDATE
Pharyngula: A Historian Discraces Himself [Bonus: check out Pharyngula in pirate mode!]
|
 
|
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
|
