National Geographic displays ignorance of evolutionary theory

Incremental improvements in racehorse times in short events is not an evolutionary trend.

Intraspecies improvements or variations as anything other than selective breeding and other factors–even the way jockeys ride.

But you write some piece about evidence of “evolution” you can bet the main stream journals and publications will find a place for you to publish your opinions.

My dad was an evolutionary physician/farmer, he used Chinina bulls and Angus cows to get leg and body in the calves, bigger longer bones to put meat on. Not evolution. Hybrid drought and corn borer resistant corn is still corn.

International botanists would correct this Iowa boy and say Maize.

I would suggest I have not evolved from Aristotle–what say you?

How stupid, horses can be selectively bred–hell that’s been going on in agriculture for a long time–memo to National Geographic–don’t be so dumb.

Social evolutionary theory is similarly junky.

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, and he didn’t know the cellular biochemical basis for inheritance, so he thought that selective intraspecies changes mirrored the bigger phenomenon–and so?

But National Geographic can play fast and loose.

Good grief, maybe they should stick to taking pictures of exotic people and places.


7 responses to “National Geographic displays ignorance of evolutionary theory

  1. Yes, and top fuel drag cars are getting faster, too. Is that evolution, or just AGW??

  2. “…though he says many factors could be at play, including breeding.”

    So is National Geographic proposing that we improve the breeding of people? The genetics crowd headed by Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson et al certainly was in favor of this. Genetics ran out of favor for a while, when Hitler used what he learned from Sanger to eliminate the undesirables.

    But it seems to be making a comeback, especially among the elitist global warming crowd.

  3. “National Geographic displays ignorance—.” Remember the faked transitional fossils NG bought from China? Even after they were warned.

  4. “Seed after its kind”. Simple and still true.

  5. Race horses are GMO and should be banned!

  6. When Nat Geo started spouting nonsense about AGW I knew it had lost its way. I see that Scientific American is no better.

  7. Stick to politics of AGW – you’re better at it. This is indeed a force of evolution. It’s a form of selection. Your implicit argument is the illusory distinction between micro/ macro evolution. But there is not distinction. All BS created by evo deniers.

    But to call people “stupid” when you have it wrong – priceless!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s