sign up! webstats forums guestbooks calendars

Was Darwin Wrong?

Write message
Name *: E-mail *:
Homepage: Location:
Message *:
  All fields with a "*" must be filled out!
Page: < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Entries: 156
08.05.2008 21:40, Félix de Sousa, Raul :
Dear Gert Korthof,

Your website has always appeared to me as one of the most useful places to find interesting ideas about the origin and evolution of life. Since you do not avoid controversy, you have assembled and evaluated an eclectic variety of approaches, many of which would hardly find their way into regular academic publications. I therefore invite you to access my website: les.htm and decide whether I deserve to be mentioned among your citations.

Thank you very much for your attention.

08.05.2008 15:10, gerry from Philippines E-mail :
Thanks for an instructive website.

The title of Darwin's work:

On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

is misleading but I believe he knew it.

Because he said nothing in the book about the origin of species but about how species already extant lead to newer species.

Instead of the word, origin, he should have used another word like succession, so that the title should be:

On the Succession of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

The use of the word origin makes the work of Darwin a protracted fallacy of petitio principii or begging the question.

Most or all of the ideas in the book are founded on our knowledge on how living things reproduced other living things starting with ourselves, and our knowledge of how humans produced tools and machines.


gertes at

06.05.2008 10:51, gert korthof :
Yockey <i>Information Theory, Evolution, and The Origin of Life</i>, 2005. Cambridge University Press, 272 pages.
It seems this is not a second edition because the 1992 title contains 408 pages. Usually a second edition has more pages than the first.

06.05.2008 09:23, Gert Korthof Homepage :
Andrew J.
I scanned the figure of the flagellum from Massimo Pigliucci (2002) Denying Evolution, page 241. I assume that the figure is produced by Pigliucci because there is no source mentioned in his book. I would be happy to credit it to you, but if I would do so, I am problaby violating Pigliucci's ownership.

05.05.2008 22:33, Andrew J. :
This figure is found on the page orthof8.htm

05.05.2008 22:32, Andrew J. :
Your figure labeled "A: cross section of a bacterial flagellum" does not depict a bacterial flagellum. Rather, it depicts a eukaryotic flagellum. Just though I would let you know.

05.05.2008 20:06, Da Vinci from Turkey Homepage :

"Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life" is a different book. It is published in 2005.

05.05.2008 09:34, gert korthof :
Peter Clausen,
could you please specify which photo on which page? I have some 91 pages!

05.05.2008 09:28, gert korthof Homepage :
Da Vinci from Turkey:
the review of Hubert Yockey is here:

Thank for pointing out broken links. I will check them.
Thank you for the compliments.

Gert Korthof

03.05.2008 10:48, Da Vinci from Turkey E-mail Homepage :
Hello Gert,

There are two broken links in this page in Note 1.

The main reason I write here is to learn whether you have read Hubert Yockey's Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life[i] or not. And will you write a review of it?

And I want to thank you for this great website.

03.05.2008 09:59, Peter from USA E-mail Homepage :
Hello Gert,

You have a photo on your website that belongs to me. Please credit the photo to (above or below the photo).

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Peter Clausen


Please specify which photo!
28.04.2008 14:06, Kurt Lightfoot :
Gert, thanks.

My main comment is a strong support for your “3rd synthesis” strategy.

I think your strategy serves important opportunities:
1. Anticipates the future and helps create it
2. Helps prioritize your scarce reading/writing time [this is the ultimate limit --- maybe WasDarwinWrong? can become a “think tank” at some point? ;~) ]
3. Sustains WasDarwinWrong? as the web leader in evolution resources

Regards, Kurt

26.04.2008 12:35, Gert Korthof :
Kurt, thanks very much!
Errors are corrected.
Thanks for the compliments.

PS: the emailnotification of your comment failed. I discovered your comment by accident.

25.04.2008 04:35, Kurt Lightfoot :
Gert, there are a couple of typos on your home page. I’ve indicated them in (*) and the corrections in [*].

In 1859 Charles Darwin established the First Evolutionary Synthesis. This was the first synthesis because Darwin was the first scientist to construct a synthesis of all biological (knowlegde) [knowledge] of his time on the basis of the concept of evolution. In the 20th century (1930s) the incorporation of the Mendelian and population genetics created the Evolutionary Synthesis or Neo-Darwinism, which in fact is the Second Evolutionary Synthesis. Now, in the (21th) [21st] century the ingredients of the Third Evolutionary Synthesis are gradually becoming visible: molecular genetics, developmental biology (evo-devo), genomics, ecology, symbiosis, life history, hybridization, horizontal gene transfer, systems biology, Earth System Science (including Niche Construction and Gaia), origin of life, astrobiology, sociobiology (incl. evolutionary psychology), evolution of consciousness. Clearly, there is work to do!
Gert Korthof, The Netherlands.

I really like what I see in the above. It allows you to prioritize your time to review leaders with goals similar to the above such as James Shapiro and Robert Reid, etc. So… for me…. that means you’re positioned to continue to be the best evolution site on the web!!!!

Cheers, Kurt

28.03.2008 08:04, Gert Korthof E-mail :
Scott, thanks for your comment. I did read Sanford's book. It is so technical that I need further research and thinking to evaluate its claims.
I do not remember that he claims a young earth in his book. I think he is silent about it.
However, if he is a YEC he should read Michael Behe, who accepts common descent of all life on the basis of evidence. Common descent conflicts with independent creation of the human species.

23.03.2008 02:39, Scott Buchanan from USA E-mail :
Dear Gert,
Thanks for maintaining this site. A lot of good info here.
A creationist friend gave me a copy of "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome" by J. C. Sanford. It looks like this book is becoming more popular among creationists. Sanford was a professor at Cornell with some big accomplishments in plant breeding, so he has credibility. You can get a good sense of its contents from a lengthy customer review of the book on

Here is a two-part review of it: http://newtonsbinomium.blogspo y-of-genome-i.html
http://newtonsbinomium.blogspo y-of-genome-ii.html

Sanford claims that in humans there is not sufficient means for natural selection to overcome the effects of deleterious mutations, so they are accumulating in the population. He claims, "There is a long-standing belief that if the rate of deleterious mutations approached one deleterious mututation per person per generation, long-term genetic deterioration would be a certainty (Muller, 1950)", then cites studies (Kondrashov, 2002 ; Nachman and Crowell, 2000) that the actual rate is more like 100 or more nucleotide substitutions per person per generation.
Sanford claims that nearly all the junk DNA is actually functional in one way or another, and sees beneficial mutations as vanishingly rare, so essentially all these 100+ mutations are viewed as neutral or harmful.
Sandford cites a study by Bergman (2004) who has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 “mutation” hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word “beneficial” (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed “beneficial mutations” were only beneficial in a very narrow sense- but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes-hence loss of information. [note, this 2004 paper was presented at an Intell. Design confc, not proper journal].
He claims that you need a high reproductive rate coupled with correspondingly high genetic-selection-related mortality for selection to really have effect on the population genome. In the developed world today, there is litte of this selection operating, so (he claims) deleterious mutations just accumulate.
This deterioration of human genome fits with his creationist viewpoint that humans (Adam and Eve) were created only several thousand years ago with wonderful genes and long lives, and have been going downhill since the Fall.

Well, this is a longer note than I intended. If you get a chance to read this book and email me a few specific rebuttals of its key claims, or if you post a review on your site, I would appreciate it. I will be talking to my friend in mid-April about this.
Best regards,
Scott Buchanan

Page: < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Entries: 156
Get free forums, guestbooks, calendars, shorturls and web statistics at motigo.
Site Information