Stefan Frello: No Replacement of Darwin

I give them credit for publishing this article.

1 Like

@evograd, this is an interesting article published by AIG showing the problems with Jeanson’s work. It is a credit to them that they published this.

1 Like

There’s a whole exchange of articles in ARJ:

I don’t think ARJ/Jeanson let these rebuttals be published out of the goodness of their hearts or because they’re striving to make sure their science is accurate as possible. I think Jeanson wants the ability to say “look, my thesis is being engaged by real scientists in a scientific debate over at our journal, and look, I’ve written rebuttals so their criticisms fail!”

That’s why I’m doubtful Jeanson will ever directly respond to my criticisms, because he doesn’t want to “lower” himself to responding to an anonymous blogger. That doesn’t make him look good, regardless of how valid or invalid my arguments might be.


Great article. If creationists really do think they are looking at the same evidence, then this article should demonstrate otherwise.

One of the major themes I have observed during my time in this debate is creationists just making stuff up to make it look like they have a counterargument. If Jeanson really thinks that vehicles fit into a nested hierarchy then Jeanson doesn’t know how nested hierarchies work. The only explanation I can think of for someone making this argument is a knee-jerk “creationism does that, too!!”. The nested hierarchy alone is a perfect example of creationists not using the same evidence.

The other argument I have discussed myself on occasion is the genome comparisons between humans and great apes. Creationists don’t seem to understand that if the great apes share a common ancestor and humans share a separate common ancestor then this should create equidistant relationships between humans and great apes. A lineage does not become more similar to another lineage over time. The only direction they can go is away from each other over time due to different mutations accumulating in each lineage. Therefore, we should see the same percentage of similarity between the chimp and human genome as we do between the human and orangutan genome. Obviously, this isn’t the case.


You are so right!

Look what the author had to say about Australia! Finally! The writer has taken my 2-year mantra about the uniqueness of Australia, and he wrote it beautifully and concisely! I am absolutely flabbergasted! The writer was even careful enough to include @John_Harshman’s “footnotes” on placental bats and rats! Perfect!

I salute Stefan Frello!!!

No Replacement of Darwin: A Review of *Replacing Darwin—The New Origin of Species
by Stefan Frello on April 25, 2018

“Biogeography: This is the study of the distribution of species over the world. Jeanson describes in some detail why he thinks migration from Eurasia to the rest of the world can explain the current distribution of animals. He concludes that “Migration fits the current geographic distribution of species” (Jeanson 2017a). This is a bold assertion. A few examples will show why.”

“Of 19 families of marsupials, 17 are endemic to Australia and the nearby islands. (endemic: a species or group of species living exclusively in a well-defined area). Jean Lightner, an associate of the Creation Research Society, has identified all these families as separate biblical kinds in her overview of mammalian ‘Ark kinds’ (Lightner 2012). It is therefore relevant to ask how it comes that all these animals migrated from the Middle East to Australia, leaving no trace behind them, if the biblical story of the Flood is true. Further, they were only followed by those placental mammals that have the best chance of traveling over the sea (a few families of bats and one family of rodents). What a coincidence! I love to think about the poor marsupial mole digging its way from Turkey (Mt. Ararat) to Australia, trying to keep up with kangaroos, koalas, wombats, and numerous crawling, hopping, and gliding marsupials.”

In Central and South America, there are four endemic families of monkeys (no family of monkeys live in both Central and South America and other areas). All four are recognized as separate ‘kinds’ by Jean Lightner, who recognizes a total of 15 primate ‘kinds.’ Judged by the homology of the mitochondrial genome (hereafter mtDNA), the Central and South America monkeys are closer related to one another than to other groups. This is reflected in the fact that they are all members of the so-called ‘parvorder’ (a group-level between family and order) Platyrrhini (New World Monkeys)."

“According to evolution, this is because all four originated from a single group of monkeys that made it to South America after it split from Africa by plate tectonics. According to creation, they must have made it to South America separately after the end of the Flood. What a coincidence! Correspondingly four of five ‘kinds’ of primates on Madagascar are lemurs, which are endemics of Madagascar. What a coincidence!”

Conclusion: Jeanson fails to account for biogeography, while the topic is among Darwin’s original arguments in favor of evolution."

1 Like

Has anything like this ever happened before at AIG?

1 Like

Stefan (aka Stephen) Frello has been quite active in debating Kent Hovind! Below is a YouTube link to a debate published just last month (Feb 6, 2019). He writes from Copenhagen, Denmark.

I presume Stefan Frello reads discussions here at PeacefulScience.Org. But I don’t know if he has ever signed up.

A month or so, I had a brief telephone conversation with Dr. Kent Hovind. He was willing to hear my “elevator summary” on @swamidass’ Genealogical Adam scenarios.

His response was predictable… he didn’t see any reason for God to use Evolution for anything. But Hovind was most gracious on the phone and I thanked him for his time!

1 Like

That’s one for me to store away! :slight_smile:

Perhaps I should clarify that statement a little bit, because reading it again I think I wasn’t clear with that second sentence. Here’s a reworded version:

That’s why I’m doubtful Jeanson will ever directly respond to my criticisms, because he doesn’t want to “lower” himself to responding to an anonymous blogger. That wouldn’t make him look good, regardless of how valid or invalid my arguments might be.

I meant to say that it’s much less impressive for him to write a rebuttal to an anonymous blogger than it is to an accomplished public scientist, so he would be less inclined to bother. It wouldn’t fit the narrative of “look, real scientists are taking my arguments seriously and making formal academic responses in a journal! Creation science FTW!”

1 Like

Kent Hovind is a convicted tax evader and has denounced his US citizenship. I suggest that PS, @swamidass and other scientists here do not associate with him.

And the logical fallacies are … ???

Do you really want to defend Kent Hovind here?

1 Like

its no credit at all. Its common practice to present vigorous opposition claims to yEC thinkers. Especially excellent ones like Jeanson. Its saying we can take yoiur best criticism UNLIKE YOUR SIDE.
Where in sciency publications do they include creationis REVIEWS of their evolutionist jazz???
No Where!
This criticism was poorly done. A flunk passing beyond a fail.
However the conversation in scientific terms is what is the progress here.

That is not true. I just posted two articles by Behe, and I can post more, published in “evolutionist” journals.

Are your criticisms out of the goodness of your heart?! This is giving a fair chance that creationists don’t get. As usual. I’m sure Jeanson has no need for REAL SCIENTISTS.
I didn’t find the criticism of Jeanson very good. Just typical stuff .

Marsupials has been my 5year mantra etc.
Biogeography being important to Darwin’s evolutionism is one of the great hilarious errors in Anglo=American scientific thought.
It is true YEC thinkers fail on explaining marsupial uniqueness in australia and the lack of the others there. No way around it. they can’t figure it out. So they are quiet.
Yet the answer is simply that creatures did migrate to Australia but slightly changed. marsupial traits were only acquired after migration across the board of many creatures. so marsupial wloves, lions, mice, moles are just the same as elsewhere on the planet with a few minor adaptations.
Its that simple. YEC and evolutionism both agree biological mechanism dos not exist to change creatures bodyplans. yet both are wrong.
Marsupials are a wonderful sample of how biology actually changes.
Biogeography is a fantastic friend of creationism. Darwin using it as a biological evidence for evolution is just a poor understanding of what biology science is.

Yes but this is not the publications that are historical in discussing biological origins.
its cool this blog exists and indeed is the same DNA as any publication if one thinks about it.
Yet those others ignored creationists even whle attacking the ID ones.

I’m glad you at least admit to that.

The evidence does not support this view.

1 Like


This is patently false.

And even if it were true, it would still prove speciation can be accomplished through evolutionary principles.

They never had a good answer and avoid it. I love this to be pushed on them. also because the big groups rejected my essay saying mechanism did not exist to change placentals into marsupials and they were not that kind about it.
So they try to say competition of marsupials prevailed over the others who did get there and the opposite elsewhere. This is impossible. no such clean cut could be made.
Axtualy evolutionists got them good on this but never press the point.
however its simple.
its not just in Australia but was everywhere. its a general equation. they group many orders , despite perfect duplicates, as unrelated.
Its all classification issues and not real problems with creationist biogeography.