Term
| Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery? |
|
Definition
| Although we don't know exactly, ideas of what sort of molecules were originally on earth have been determined through research, and by using these molecules and a variety of models, scientists have been able to create the building blocks of life numerous times. Is that not solid evidence? |
|
|
Term
| Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life? |
|
Definition
| The Cambrian explosion did not involve the finding of fully formed creatures such that we find on Earth today. Rather, unrecognizable precursors to today's organisms can be found in fossil records from the Cambrian period. |
|
|
Term
| Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry — a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence? |
|
Definition
| Homology as evidence for common ancestry is not a "fact," but a tool with which to test common ancestry. If scientists believe two organisms may have close common ancestry, then homology is employed to test this hypothesis. |
|
|
Term
| Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry — even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked? |
|
Definition
| embryology in organisms will, in fact, be similar if those two organisms are closely related. For example, a cow and a rabbit, both mammals, have similar embryonic stages than either would have with an alligator, a reptile. |
|
|
Term
| Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and it’s supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it? |
|
Definition
| "missing link" is a flawed concept. In fact, the archaeopterix is the first known creature to display traits of both reptiles and birds. Furthermore, the claim that its ancestors are younger is false. |
|
|
Term
| Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection — when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged? |
|
Definition
| These photos are not meant to prove that moths rest on tree trunks, they are supposed to demonstrate the way camouflage is a beneficial adaptation in some species. |
|
|
Term
| Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred? |
|
Definition
| Even though there was no net evolution, the fact that the beaks of the finches changed at all is prime evidence that evolution does occur. Had conditions not returned to normal on the Galapagos, new species certainly would have diverged. |
|
|
Term
| Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution — even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory? |
|
Definition
| Even if the wings are useless, a second set of wings on fruit flies is a prime example of mutation. Just because this one is not beneficial does not mean that there aren't some that are. |
|
|
Term
| Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident — when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like? |
|
Definition
| Despite increasing complexity of our ancestry due to new evidence, that we evolved from ancient species is well supported and widely accepted. |
|
|
Term
| Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts? |
|
Definition
| Although Darwin's theories have been augmented to fit more recent discoveries, the original ideas still hold true and have been repeatedly observed in the study of living things. |
|
|
