Science, Creation & EvolutionSmoking-Gun Evidence of Man-Monkey Kindred: Episode II -TailAndreas, here is the introduction to that reveiw: Overall, this textbook has much to commend its use. It does contain factual errors, among them those listed below. It also suffers in an overall sense in not conforming in its present draft to the TEKS requirement 3A, specifying that the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories be taught. Some specific issues address this in the following, and in general terms, a small chapter on "weaknesses in evolutionary theory" might be inserted to fully cover TEKS 3A, logically placed immediately after the treatment of evolution in chapters 14 through 16 of Unit 5.
In several places, it suffers from changing definitions to suit its purposes. For example, the term ‘evolution’ is used implicitly and in a few places explicitly as simply ‘change over time’ or something similar. While this is one dictionary definition of the word, it is not sufficient for the realm of biological upward macro-evolution or origin-of-life issues. This book even goes so far as to equate the change of automobiles over the past several decades as equivalent to evolution, except that automobiles change faster This demonstrates a total lack of understanding the difference between an unguided or random change mechanism of biological evolution (guided only by natural selection and after the change has been made) and an intelligent, directed improvement change associated with cars (or other human influenced changes). Further, to use ‘change over time’ as a sufficient definition of evolution ignores profound issues now apparent in numerous fields of science that might be loosely described as ‘macro-evolution mechanism and pathway’ issues. That is, while micro-evolution (or normal variations within populations of various features such as hair and eye color, or the length of the Galapagos finches’ beaks, or the coloration of peppered moths) exists, there are only rare and controversial examples of this actually extrapolating to upward or even lateral changes in organism structural homology or other characteristics. The editors and writers choosing to ‘change definitions’ here and in other places (such as the term ‘fossil’) is extremely harmful to the student’s understanding, misleading and confusing, and is factually incorrect in the context of biological evolution.
Also you are being dishonest with what you did share from this reveiw. Here is the whole section: P 402 Paragraph 2
“It’s very easy to see the difference between an adult bird and an adult mammal, but can you distinguish between them by looking at their embryos? An embryo is the earliest stage of growth and development of both plants and animals. The embryos of a fish, a reptile, a bird, and a
mammal are shown in Figure 15.9. At this stage of development, all the embryos have a tail and pharyngeal pouches. In fish, these pouches develop into the supports for the gills, while in mammals, reptiles, and birds, they develop into parts of ears, jaws, and throat. It is the shared
features in the young embryos that suggest evolution from a distant, common ancestor.”
While nicely toned down from previous incarnations, this fully debunked idea of 'embryonic recapitulation' stems essentially from drawings originally constructed by Haeckel in the late 1800's. It is time to put this myth to rest, and to teach students its falsity. The section should not
be deleted, but rather should be revised and extended to include the full story (now widely documented) about how Haeckel both faked his drawings and selected the most similar stage of embryonic development to depict. Importantly, earlier stages of the same species look less alike
than the ones depicted! Development pathways of various body parts come from different parts of the embryos. In short, it was a fraud, that has been exposed by further scientific research and
scrutiny.
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |