Was Darwin Wrong Analysis
Was the Darwin theory of evolution wrong? In this essay, Mr. David Quammen try to defend the Darwin Theory of Evolution by saying that he wasn’t wrong and also state that “ the evidence for evolution is overwhelming” ignoring all the flaws that the same theory present in their statements. Quammen explains that Darwin theory has two aspects: the historical phenomenon and the main mechanism causing the phenomenon. The fist one said that all living creature are descended from a common ancestor and the second one refers to natural selection. This ‘overwhelming evidence” presented by Darwin are divided into four categories: Biogeography, Paleontology, Embryology and Morphology. In the biogeography Darwin includes evidence from
…show more content…
This happened to do to the Cambrian explosion in which many of the major groups of animals appears in a geologically short time with no evidence of common ancestry. The category of embryology also fails to prove what Darwin's theory, by showing that "the embryo is the animal in it less modified state” a state that shows the structure of it predecessor. This idea was a restatement of Ernest Haeckel’s a German Darwinist in his notorious “ ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” a false doctrine that experienced experts discarded over a century ago. The last one category is the morphology. This one which Darwin himself called and Quammen quoted the “very soul” of natural history, is the one that provides the basis for the other three. This one is based on the idea that creatures they look the same because they evolved from a common ancestor through a process called “ descent with modification”. From this category, Quammen cites as the principal evidence: the antibiotic resistance. He states that “there’s no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory that this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs”. Antibiotic resistance only involves small changes inside of an existing species, so nobody doubts that they can occur, or they are the product of the process of selection. But Darwin theory state that this process of selection could produce a new species. Yet no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by selection, natural
This happened to do to the Cambrian explosion in which many of the major groups of animals appears in a geologically short time with no evidence of common ancestry. The category of embryology also fails to prove what Darwin's theory, by showing that "the embryo is the animal in it less modified state” a state that shows the structure of it predecessor. This idea was a restatement of Ernest Haeckel’s a German Darwinist in his notorious “ ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” a false doctrine that experienced experts discarded over a century ago. The last one category is the morphology. This one which Darwin himself called and Quammen quoted the “very soul” of natural history, is the one that provides the basis for the other three. This one is based on the idea that creatures they look the same because they evolved from a common ancestor through a process called “ descent with modification”. From this category, Quammen cites as the principal evidence: the antibiotic resistance. He states that “there’s no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory that this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs”. Antibiotic resistance only involves small changes inside of an existing species, so nobody doubts that they can occur, or they are the product of the process of selection. But Darwin theory state that this process of selection could produce a new species. Yet no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by selection, natural