Modern science says Darwin wrong

September 7, 2013 • Dear Editor

Dear Editor:
I am starting to understand what is happening with the evolution/creation debate. We have an individual who received a PhD in mathematics perhaps 30 or 40 years ago, using textbooks written 20 or 30 years before that. He’s decided that he is the one who will defend a 150-year-old theory. But research has continued far beyond his area of expertise.

For example: He says in his letter dated Aug. 13 that humans could not have appeared in a creative flash just a few thousand years ago because the human genome doesn’t reflect that.

But he is wrong, because in recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the Earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us.

[auth] In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report titled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion — that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the (Y) chromosome is common to every man now on Earth,” as Time magazine.

Shall I continue? What about Darwin’s idea that all life stems from one common trunk and branches off? Well, consider this: In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

These letters to the editor are limited by space but do you see what is happening? Dr. Burleson is saying that he has the “truth” and all these researchers apparently have “disinformation.” It’s pretty presumptuous to say that these experts in their fields are wrong and he, a mathematician, using outdated information, is right. Unbelievable!

I have more to say but it will have to be saved for future letters. But prepare yourself; your precious theory is going to continue to fall apart right before your eyes. I’m just thankful that the Roswell Daily Record has allowed citizens to shine a light on this ridiculous theory.

Katherine Lawrence

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

« »