The tournament went well.  We had fun, we competed, we had fun, we drove home, we had fun, we were still driving home, we had fun, and we got home.

I’m getting rather tired of typing up these post-tournament summaries, you know?

Take a look into the minds of some of ARC’s intellectuals—their words are forever immortalized in the sacred pages of my quote book:

“I have a funeral…” —Jonathan

“Did the train die?” —Avery

“Sorry—I’m obsessed with facial hair.” —Brian

“I don’t like being around you.” —Jonathan

“Beth is a corrupt guard.  She’s eaten everything.” —Alex B.

“I shun the bush.” —Avery

“We’re just acting guy-ly.” —Paul

“My ‘J’ is obese.” —Jonathan

What can I say?  We had fun.

I’m a pretty bad writer—both in the techniques used, and the results they yield.  I tend to dive into a project without more than a vague idea of where it’s headed, which usually makes things difficult as I go on.  Organization just isn’t one of my best qualities.

Surprisingly, such was not the case with my NaNoWriMo novel of two years ago, a fantasy/allegory that’s been under construction ever since.  Because of the allegorical elements, I always had a clear idea of where it was supposed to be going—the problem came with all the stuff in between “Chapter One” and “The End.”  As more and more plotlines and characters came on board, it became more and more difficult to keep things straight in my mind.  In the end, it’s almost as difficult to write a story with a clear purpose in mind as it is to write something from nothing.

So at long last, Beth, the stubborn writer, has buckled down and written an outline.

To my knowledge, there’s two types of fiction writers: those who are disciplined enough to place a priority on outlining, to whatever extent that my be, and those who would rather insist that outlining stifles the story and they’re better off without it.  (That’s me.)

Firsthand experience: write the outline, and everything will be better.

I don’t know.  Maybe there’s brilliant writers out there who can carry an outline in their heads, but I’m not one of them.  The purpose isn’t to lay out everything exactly as it will be written; just give yourself a roadmap of how the story develops.  Once you’ve got it down, deviating will be easier, because you have the backbone firmly in place and you can backtrack if needed.  Be as detailed or as vague as you like (somewhere in between works for me).

So there you have it…confessions of a writer wannabe.  (Cherise, you are now entitled to a big “I told you so.“)

On February 12, 1809, Charles Darwin was born.

On November 22, 1859, his book, On The Origin Of Species, hit the bookshelves.

On February 12, 2009, modern-day scientists still praise the man and his work, leaving the rest of us to wonder when “science” became “science fiction.”

Yesterday, Fox News published an article about Darwin’s anniversary.  “‘Missing Links’ Reveal Truth About Evolution,” they state.

"With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory.

Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory.

One frequently cited “hole” in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka “missing links.”

Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false."

The article goes on to present an impressive list of ‘missing links‘–it was a very interesting read.  Let’s check out a few of their examples:

"– Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today’s have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology’s New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.

– Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.

– A turtle on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China’s coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell, but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts."

Are you convinced?

Let’s get one thing straight:  We’re definitely talking about evolution here.  Microevolution is the term.

Microevolution:  The theory that natural selection can, over time, take an organism and transform it into a more specialized species of that organism. *

Ask yourself a question:  Is this the evolution Darwin propogated?

No.  Darwin taught macroevolution:

Macroevolution:  The hypothesis that processess similar to those at work in microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism. *

In other words, that monkey in the zoo is your great-great-great-grandfather, and some prehistoric goldfish may as well have been his great-great-great-grandfather.

When we talk about “missing links,” we’re obviously referring to macroevolution.  Microevolution is fact (despite the name that carries negative connotations for many of us); it doesn’t require “missing links,” since it is simply the belief that species can change over time within that species.  Such was the case with the finches Darwin studied on the Galapagos Islands, leading him to create his theory.  Macroevolution, on the other hand, has precious little support to back it up.  Have you ever seen a half-man, half-ape?  How about a half-dog, half-cat?

You’re not alone.

I don’t think the writers of that article have ever seen one, either.  Take a minute to re-read the examples of “missing links” above.

Giraffes with necks of varying lengths:  Macroevolution, or microevolution?  (Is it still a giraffe?)

A bird with distinct characteristics:  Macroevolution, or microevolution?  (Is it still a bird?)

Turtles with half a shell:  Macroevolution, or microevolution?  (Is it still a turtle?)

We still have giraffes, birds, and turtles today.  Giraffes haven’t sprouted wings and become birds.  Birds haven’t grown shells and become turtles.  Turtles haven’t started walking upright and become humans.  Obviously, their “evolution” didn’t get them far…or maybe, just maybe, giraffes and birds and turtles have always been giraffes and birds and turtles.

So where are those missing links?

They’re still missing.

In defense of Fox News, not all of their examples can rightfully be called microevolution.  Still, give them a good looking into before you accept their word as fact–there’s lots of angles to come at it from, and they just chose one.

So today, we can celebrate the anniversary of one of the greatest lies ever told to humanity.  Sound good?

*Credit to Dr. Jay L. Wile for definitions of macroevolution and microevolution.