Falsely Portray "Micro-Evolution" as the Basis of Faith in Macro-Evolution
For years these examples, of genetic variation and human manipulation,
have been used|
by the metaphysical scientific community to imply that macro-evolution, an unobserved metaphysical theory, is therefore true.
Some scientists admit the fallacy of this non-empirical assumption.
R.B. Goldschmidt, American Scientist 40:84 (1952)
It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species of genus, etc. by macromutation.
It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations.
Because small changes (micro-evolution) can be observed or produced in roses, dogs,
fruit flies and Mickey Mouse cartoons, in no way verifies macro-evolution than the
"biogenetic law" of embryological recapitulation, a fraudulant theory, was claimed to do
in the past.
óW.R. Bird, Origin of the Species Revisited, Vol. 1, pp. 196-197.
"Raup and Stanley call the biogenetic law `largely in error'; Ehrlich and Holm note its `shortcomings'
and its place in `biological mythology'; Danson says that it is `intellectually barren'; de Beer refers to
the `evidence against the "biogenetic law" of recapitulation in Haeckel's sense'; Encyclopedia Britannica
calls it `in error'; and even Mayr of Harvard describes the biogenetic law as `invalid.' In fact, Haeckel, the
formulator of the "biogenetic law,' supported it with `faked' drawings."
To better understand the flaws in macro-evolutionary interpritations
of the fossil record CLICK HERE
Return to Contents