Why darwin was wrong about dating
This is exactly what is written in the most popular college biology textbook, Campbell et al.'s (1999) , for instance.
In other words, the textbooks basically summarize what the recent literature is saying.
Dawkins uses this episode to discuss the opposition that evolution has experienced since it was first discovered.
He starts by approaching various anti-evolutionists, ranging from John Mackay from Creation Research, Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, to English school teacher Nick Cowen.
And if these changes occur often enough then getting accurate clock dates, particularly for distant events, will be very hard.
This is an entirely different thing from determining molecular phylogenies, however, which is what Wells is actually trying to debunk.
But unfortunately for Wells, there is considerable evidence that these phylogenies are reliable and in reasonably good accord with phylogenies generated from other data.
contains numerous instances of unfair distortions of scientific opinion, generated by the pseudoscientific tactics of selective citation of scientists and evidence, quote-mining, and "argumentative sleight-of-hand," the last meaning Wells's tactic of padding his topical discussions with incessant, biased editorializing.In the approximately two pages of text where Wells actually discusses the reducing atmosphere question (p.20-22), Wells cites some more 1970's sources and then asserts that the irrelevance of the Miller-Urey experiment has become a " None of this is meant to convey the impression that no controversies exist (both Cohen (1995) and the Davis and Mc Kay (1996) article cited by the above-quoted Kral et al.This is just plain false, as we shall see -- the experts in each field have supports evolutionary theory, and further they have supported their statements with evidentiary arguments.If Wells's contention about the experts is false, then Wells's argument collapses.