Religion and Ethics and Health BBS

Religion and Ethics and Health BBS
[ Religion and Ethics and Health BBS ]

National Geographic and its flawed logic

Posted by Devo on February 18, 2026, 11:16 am

From the site True.Origin:

"Actually, National Geographic’s writers and most of the evolutionist community share a basic superstition about the origin of living things, and that is the real problem. This superstition is the magical ‘natural force’ that allows living things to acquire the organs, biological changes or anatomical features that they need. Let us have a look at a few interesting passages from National Geographic’s article ‘Evolution of Whales:’

“I tried to visualize some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had been found here and nearby... As the rear limbs dwindled, so did the hip bones that supported them. That made the spinal column more flexible to power the developing tail flukes. The neck shortened, turning the leading end of the body into more of a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimum drag, while arms assumed the shape of rudders. Having little need for outer ears any longer, some whales were receiving waterborne sounds directly through their lower jawbones and transmitting them to the inner ears via special fat pads. Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models and roamed farther from shore.”[10]
On close inspection, in this whole account the evolutionist mentality says that living things feel changing needs according to the changing environment they live in, and this need is perceived as an ‘evolutionary mechanism.’ According to this logic, less needed organs disappear, and needed organs appear of their own accord!

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology will know that our needs do not shape our organs. Ever since Lamarck’s theory of the transfer of acquired characteristics to subsequent generations was disproved, in other words for a century or so, that has been a known fact. Yet when one looks at evolutionist publications, they still seem to be thinking along Lamarckian lines. If you object, they will say: ‘No, we do not believe in Lamarck. What we say is that natural conditions put evolutionary pressure on living things, and that as a result of this, appropriate traits are selected, and in this way species evolve.’ Yet here lies the critical point: What evolutionists call ‘evolutionary pressure’ cannot lead to living things acquiring new characteristics according to their needs. That is because the two so-called evolutionary mechanisms that supposedly respond to this pressure, natural selection and mutation, cannot provide new organs for animals:

Natural selection can only select characteristics that already exist, it cannot create new ones.

Mutations cannot add to the genetic information, they can only destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information to the genome (and which thus forms a new organ or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed.

If we look at the myth of National Geographic’s awkwardly moving whales one more time in the light of this fact, we see that they are actually engaging in a rather primitive Lamarckism. On close inspection, National Geographic writer Douglas H. Chadwick “visualizes” that“ Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models.” How could a morphological change happen in a species over generations in one particular direction? In order for that to happen, representatives of that species in every “sequence” would have to undergo mutations to shorten their legs, that mutation would have to cause the animals no harm, those thus mutants would have to enjoy an advantage over normal ones, the next generations, by a great coincidence, would have to undergo the same mutation at the same point in its genes, this would have to carry on unchanged for many generations, and all of the above would have to happen by coincidence and quite flawlessly.

If the National Geographic writers believe that, then they will also believe someone who says: ‘My family enjoy flying. My son underwent a mutation and a few structures like bird feathers developed under his arms. My grandson will undergo the same mutation and the feathers will increase. This will go on for generations, and eventually my descendants will have wings and be able to fly.’ Both stories are equally ridiculous.

As we mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists display the superstition that living things’ needs can be met by a magical force in nature. Ascribing consciousness to nature, a belief encountered in animist cultures, is interestingly rising up before our eyes in the 21st century under a ‘scientific’ cloak. The well-known French biologist Paul Pierre Grass�, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences and a foremost critic of Darwinism, has once made it clear that this faith is just daydreaming:

“The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur� There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.”[11]
More recently, Henry Gee, the science editor for the Nature magazine and an undisputedly prominent evolutionist, pointed to the same fact and admited that explaining the origin of an organ by its necessity is like saying;

“... our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles. Yet evolutionary biologists do much the same thing when they interpret any structure in terms of adaptation to current utility while failing to acknowledge that current utility need tell us nothing about how a structure evolved, or indeed how the evolutionary history of a structure might itself have influenced the shape and properties of that structure.”[12]
Another scenario which National Geographic is trying to impose, without too much discussion, concerns the body surface of the animals in question. Like other mammals, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, which are accepted as land mammals, are generally agreed to have had fur-covered bodies. And they are both shown as covered in thick fur in National Geographic. Yet when we move on to later animals (true marine mammals), all the fur disappears. The evolutionist explanation of this is no different from the fantastical Lamarckian-type scenarios we have seen above. The truth of the matter is that all the animals in question were designed in the most appropriate manner for their environments. It is irrational to try to account for this design by means of mutation or facile Lamarck-type stories. Like all design in life, the design in these creatures is evidence for creation."

Here's the real "Origin of the Species"

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on March 5, 2026, 4:29 pm, in reply to "National Geographic and its flawed logic "

Mondo's Theory of Evolution^©

In the beginning, God saw fit to create and populate the universe with a scattering of divine cats, mostly Himalayan Persians.

As time pressed on, bad cat offspring devolved into frogs, lizards, worms, fish, amoebae, and vira [that's plural of virus in Latin, according to the rule that the plural of neuter nouns should end in "a" instead of "i" ... for you non-Latin scholars {heh heh heh}, simply viruses ], and eventually crawled into the sea, while good-but-not-divine cat offspring devolved to a second-tier position in the food chain as humans, the divine cats remaining at the top thereof.

There, now, that should satisfy everyone's enduring questions about the origins of the species.

Here is just ONE of your blunders.

Posted by DFM on February 22, 2026, 7:03 am, in reply to "National Geographic and its flawed logic "

"Mutations cannot add to the genetic information, they can only destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds unequivocally new, meaningful information to the genome (and which thus forms a new organ or new biochemical structure) has ever been observed. "

ANY change in the genome adds to genetic information BY DEFINITION.

How does it gain information?

Posted by Devolution on February 22, 2026, 9:04 am, in reply to "Here is just ONE of your blunders."

Explain it in detail.

Information is stored in DNA. As it changes in time, it gains information.

Posted by DFM on February 24, 2026, 8:36 pm, in reply to "How does it gain information?"

How does the information gained prove evolution?

Posted by Devolution on February 25, 2026, 4:02 am, in reply to "Information is stored in DNA. As it changes in time, it gains information."

Explain it to me.

"Explain it to me." I cannot because you are too stupid to understand.

Posted by DFM on February 25, 2026, 7:02 am, in reply to "How does the information gained prove evolution?"

You are not going to explain?

Posted by Devolution on February 25, 2026, 7:19 am, in reply to ""Explain it to me." I cannot because you are too stupid to understand."

Then why make the claim of adding information?

You NEVER accept anything differing with your personal view

Posted by Mugwump on February 25, 2026, 4:29 pm, in reply to "You are not going to explain?"

Why would any sane individual waste their time on you when your idea of a detailed response is "No, it doesn't?"

You're right

Posted by Devolution on February 26, 2026, 4:40 am, in reply to "You NEVER accept anything differing with your personal view"

Right

NO. You must educate yourself. The explanation is OBVIOUS to me.

Posted by DFM on February 25, 2026, 8:10 am, in reply to "You are not going to explain?"

I have repeatedly tried to explain the rudiments of Evolution to you, and you have NEVER understood me. Why should I try again?

So, you made a claim that you are unable to back up

Posted by Devolution on February 26, 2026, 4:35 am, in reply to "NO. You must educate yourself. The explanation is OBVIOUS to me."

Nice

My problem is your REFUSAL to think scientifically.

Posted by DFM on February 27, 2026, 5:13 am, in reply to "So, you made a claim that you are unable to back up "

You have trouble explaining it to me

Posted by Devo on March 4, 2026, 11:29 am, in reply to "My problem is your REFUSAL to think scientifically."

Is it because you can't?

Because your scientific background is insufficient to understand.

Posted by DFM on March 4, 2026, 7:47 pm, in reply to "You have trouble explaining it to me"

I CAN back it up, but you have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding my reasoning

Posted by DFM on February 26, 2026, 3:17 pm, in reply to "So, you made a claim that you are unable to back up "

Your reasoning is ignorant of the evidence

Posted by Devolution on February 27, 2026, 7:04 am, in reply to "I CAN back it up, but you have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding my reasoning"

It really is

Your kindergarten level of response is typical of your ignorance.

Posted by DFM on February 27, 2026, 8:08 am, in reply to "Your reasoning is ignorant of the evidence "

Not ignorant about anything and you still have not provided adding information

Posted by Devolution on February 27, 2026, 9:06 am, in reply to "Your kindergarten level of response is typical of your ignorance."

You are very weird.

You…

Posted by mark on February 28, 2026, 2:21 am, in reply to "Not ignorant about anything and you still have not provided adding information "

…won again. That’s; you - 127 Them 0

I’ve been keeping count. Keep up the good work.

I think they get lost in some of the more technical aspects of your arguments.

People just don't counter what I post

Posted by Devolution on February 28, 2026, 5:15 am, in reply to "You… "

They can't counter them.

yes they have and yes they do

Posted by trish on February 28, 2026, 7:50 am, in reply to "People just don't counter what I post "

Devo. The internet is FOREVER. It doesn't take long to find times when people tried (really tried) to reply to you. You dismiss it all, no matter what. After a time, people just stop spinning their wheels and go on without you.

If you want discussion, it's a two way street and requires more than three word replies

When have people countered my posts?

Posted by Devolution on March 3, 2026, 11:30 am, in reply to "yes they have and yes they do"

When

dumb question. You know they have and are just looking for attention

Posted by trish on March 4, 2026, 9:56 am, in reply to "When have people countered my posts?"

I am not going to dive through posts and get you links.

So, you can't support your posts with any reasoning?

Posted by Devo on March 4, 2026, 11:05 am, in reply to "dumb question. You know they have and are just looking for attention"

Wow!!

NOT reasoning that you could understand with your lack of scientific education.

Posted by DFM on March 4, 2026, 9:08 pm, in reply to "So, you can't support your posts with any reasoning?"

Trish: "requires more than three word replies"; AHAH!. But Devo is INCAPABLE of replies of more than

Posted by DFM on March 1, 2026, 7:42 pm, in reply to "yes they have and yes they do"

three words. I don't recall any replies of greater length that are not copied and pasted. He is incapable of posting any comprehensible criticism of Evolution in his own words.

« Back to index

[ Religion and Ethics and Health BBS ]