This was the second part of the serial documentary that began on the 5th of July. The documentary explained similarities in nature from an evolutionist perspective. For instance, the program related that the fur of animals, living on the north and south poles respectively, had a similar structure despite the distance in between the poles, but proceeded to claim that they evolved under similar environmental conditions. Animal Planet did not produce a single piece of evidence that would explain how these fur designs could have evolved and yet, it was imposing its biased views on the viewer. Clearly, Animal Planet knows no limits when it comes to telling tales and the program states: each animal is a success story in the book of evolution.
The basis of Animal Planet"s story line in its documentaries is not scientific but philosophical. There is no mechanism in nature that would give furless animals the genetic make-up to grow fur. For example, if reptiles were to live in the poles for millions of years, they still would not have their skin grow fur. In the genes of reptiles, we find data for scales and in the genes of polar bears and
In short, the claims made by Animal Planet lack scientific substance and are biased views based on belief and it is evident that this belief is very incoherent. For instance, the air-conditioned tanks used in the World War II in
We advise Animal Planet to abandon its irrational stance of attributing complex designs blindly to nature.2003-07-19 00:00:00