00:06 | What is your area of research interest? 00:34 | What made you doubt the widely accepted neo-Darwinian explanation? 02:15 |Is there really a multitude of indirect forms in the fossil record confirming the gradual emergence of new species? 03:23 | Was the “sudden” appearance of new forms of living organisms during the so-called Cambrian explosion an individual event Read More ›
The paradigm of cladistic classification based on assumed common ancestry should be reconsidered in favor of a traditional phenetic classification based on maximum similarity.
As a follower of the evolution debate, I love it when new “missing links” are found. Not only does the media plunge headfirst into a crusade for Darwin, but suspiciously, it is only after unveiling the breakthrough that evolutionary biologists admit how precious little evidence they previously held for the evolutionary transition in question. Take the recent media coverage of Read More ›
[Editor’s note: This article was posted as part of a series of articles both for and against ID at OpposingViews.com.] “What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. … The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.”1—Leading 20th Century Read More ›
Authored by developmental biologist and Senior Discovery Fellow Jonathan Wells, this book takes aim at 10 common “icons” used to bolster Darwin’s theory in widely used biology textbooks. The “icons” commonly cited to support evolution in textbooks turn out to be scientific urban legends, long-refuted fakes, or misrepresentations of the scientific data. One of the most famous “icons” discussed is Read More ›