Aug 302005
 

Recently Dr. William Dembski wrote “Calling Dennett’s Bluff
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/282

Jonathan Witt wrote “Daniel Dennett’s Sham Science“, August 29, 2005
http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?p=700

Others as well wrote related things, like:
http://telicthoughts.com/?p=243

But here, I want to call your attention to another very common bluff that we see at our posting boards, “the Darwin’s Bluff“.

Being at the root of it all Charles Darwin himself, who wrote:

“Finally then, the facts briefly given in this chapter do not seem to opposed to, but even rather to support the view, that there is no fundamental distinction between species and varieties” [Ch. 8, Darwin’s 1st ed. only of his book ‘Origin of Species‘]

Is that true?

Is true that “there is no fundamental distinction between species and varieties” as Darwin wrote?

Darwin also wrote:

“From these remarks it will be seen that I look at the term species, as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitraily, and for mere convenience sake.” [Ch. 2, all editions of his book ‘Origin of Species‘]

Is it true that the term “species… does not essentially differ from the term variety” as Darwin wrote?

A neo-Darwinian will tell: “Oh well, that was in the XIX Century, that was Darwin only, but now his theory has ‘evolved’ with full loads of new ‘evidence’…”

But I want to ask you, my dear reader: Is that really true?

Well, let me tell you that I have read the recent Statements of Edwin S. Darrell, like the next one:

“Publishers are recruiting top-notch authors – Kenneth Miller is one of the nation’s better biology instructors”

The response of Miller’s publishers (in pdf) to that comment can be seen next:

Prentice Hall and Biology co-author Kenneth Miller would like to thank Mr. Darrell for his support.”

However, there is historical evidence of a persistent deception found among Darwinists, as we can see from the living example of that book.

Jonathan Wells wrote:

So the real question is not whether Miller improved on his 1998 version of Haeckel’s drawings in 2000, or replaced them with carefully selected photographs in 2002. The real question is why Miller still persists in distorting the embryological evidence–“bending the facts of nature,” in Ballard’s words–to convince students that humans and other vertebrates share a common ancestor. Once again, it is not only the Ohio State School Board, but also Ohio’s science students, who are being misled by Miller’s misrepresentations

These very same faked “Haeckel’s embryos” were the best example of ‘evolution’ according to Charles Darwin himself, as he bluffed:

“The embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar” [Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species‘, 1859]… “by far [Haeckel’s embryos are] the strongest single class of facts in favor of my theory” [Charles Darwin’s 1860’s letter to Asa Gray, Darwin’s American supporter and writer of “Darwiniana“]

[emphasis and words in brackets, mine]

Michael Richardson, who demonstrated conclusively the fake of “Haeckel’s embryos” wrote for Science in 1997:

“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.”

I must add that today, Darwinism is turning out to be one of the most famous fakes of all times!

Jonathan Wells also wrote in “Inherit The Spin: Darwinists Answer “Ten Questions” with Evasions and Falsehoods

“In fact, several species of Galapagos finches now appear to be merging through hybridization–the exact opposite of producing new species. Yet some textbooks–and a publication of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS)–make it sound as though the finch studies showed how new species can originate. Miller and Levine’s Biology: The Living Science (1998) tells students: “It might take only between 12 and 20 droughts to change one species of finch into another!” According to Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (1999), the Grants’ observations showed that “if droughts occur about once every ten years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years,” making the Galapagos finches “a particularly compelling example of speciation [a technical term for the ‘origin’ of new species].” Both the Miller-Levine textbook and the NAS booklet neglect to mention that the data actually point to oscillating selection with no net change, and [doesn’t mention either] now to the merging of species through hybridization.’

The deception patrocined by Edwin S. Darrell himself is that he goes on at this board and everywhere else declaring that the five speculations of evolution are “facts“:

Darrell wrote: “Even among textbooks, most of them don’t bother to list the five evolution facts (as Mayr tallies them)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/233

However, Ernst Mayr himself ended declaring that those five points are only theories when he wrote “Darwin’s five theories of evolution“! As we can read by ourselves in Science magazine:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/305/5680/46/DC1/1

If they are just theories then, shouldn’t we be open to considering other theories as well…?

[Credits: Thanks to MWC for finding that link and for asking that question]

Science also presents an interesting review of such problems in:

Ann Gibbons. The Species Problem. Science 273(5281):1501 (Sep., 1996)

From that article:

“…Dolph Schluter, …studies speciation in what may or may not be two separate species of stickleback fish.”

“By the leading textbook definition, the sticklebacks probably don’t count as two species. The two groups of fish interbreed occasionally and produce viable offspring, which disqualifies them from [being two different] species status under a strict interpretation of the “biological species” concept…”

“… [evolutionary] scientists would still like to winnow the definitional diversity, so that when researchers such as Schluter publish on stickleback speciation, others won’t voice doubts that he was looking at separate species in the first place. “Perhaps the best we can do is to agree to disagree in a rational manner… and agree on a limited set of concepts“, says entomologist Stewart Berlocher of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaing” [emphasis and words in brackets, mine].

Is this a comment from beforehandedly banished Intelligent Design researchers? Or rather, from other ‘mainstream’ researchers?

Darwin also wrote:

What geological research has not revealed is the former existence of infinitely numerous gradations, as fine as existing varieties, connecting all known species. And this not having been effected by geology is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against my views.” [Ch. 10, Darwin’s 6th ed. only of his book ‘Origin of Species‘].

So, not only the lack of fossil intermediates, as Stephen C. Meyer demonstrates it, but also the living facts of genetics and its sub-fields oppose any Theory of Evolution on the basis of a non-existent ‘Speciation’.

Michael J. Behe confirmed also the other aspect that Darwin feared will be destroying his theory. Charles Darwin wrote:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [Ch. 6, all editions of his ‘Origin of Species‘]

As a lawyer, Edwin S. Darrell should know that historically, Darwinists are the ones that time after time are the instigators attempting to rule out any critical analysis of those ‘puffed-up’ claims still done by the Darwins of today.

Every example of evolution in agriculture and medicine that Edwin S. Darrell provides time after time can be completely understood within the changes inside species, which means that new varieties or subspecies are being originated, never going beyond the realm of species.

Example:

McKinnon JS & Rundle HD. Speciation in nature: the threespine stickleback model systems. 2002. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17(10):480-488.
http://facstaff.uww.edu/mckinnoj/McKinnonRundle2002.pdf

Complete viability and fertility of hybrids is the norm… given the ease with which various hybrid crosses can be raised in the laboratory ” Indeed, several studies have demonstrated that speciation can occur in the absence of genetic incompatibilities

Here, McKinnon & Rundle were referring to another of the deceptions crafted (intentionally or naively) by Schluter, D. (2001) Ecology and the origin of species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 372-380.

My Comments:

This oft-quoted oxymoron is based on Schluter’s own work, “several studies have demonstrated that speciation can occur in the absence of genetic incompatibilities” ! ?

The extreme of incongruity is reached by Schluter et al, as those varieties of sticklebacks are deliberately deemed as if pertaining to different ‘species’, in an attempt to justify a biased reasoning as ‘support’ for a non-existent ‘speciation’.

‘Speciational’ researchers are proving nothing on ‘speciation’ even if their discourses on paper are deceiving. They are doing just works on ‘varietal interbreeding’ with a more than abundant fertility, the well known increased hybrid vigour, totally opposed to sterility..

The topic here is variation, the description of varieties or sub-species and their interbreeding producing fertile offspring.

Here we are just reading about sub-speciation, about ‘the origin of varieties’, this is just subspeciation!

However, how are Darwinists trying to sell this evident ‘variation’ within similar groups of organisms?

Well, they still pack it and try to sell it as if this was proving Darwin’s ‘origin of species’, as a non-existent ‘speciation’.

However, big heads declare, on blurring the facts, things like the next one:

Eric Reynolds. KCFS Member # 189. Posted June 23, 2005 12:58 Eric Reynolds. Member, AAAS
Posts: 34 | Registered: Apr 2005

The distinction between macro- and micro-evolution is arbritrary and meaningless.

That is exactly the problem, that Darwin, Ernst Mayr, the Grants, Schluter, Eric Reynolds, Edwin S. Darrell, Daniel Dennett, etc., etc., et alet alare deliberately blurring the difference between varieties and species, and with that, they are blurring also the differences between a real subspeciation versus a speculative speciation, blurring also the differences between factual microevolution versus a mythical macroevolution, blurring also the differences between the real origin of varieties from already present organisms versus an atheistic, illusory and false Darwinian ‘origin of species‘.

Do you think that by following that confusing way of thinking started by Darwin and by a neo-Darwin Grant will ever be possible to practically discern the differences between varieties and species, even with the clear facts in front of every biologist of today?

If for evolutionists there is no problem to confound speciation with subspeciation, or to distinguish between species and varieties, and to rely more on imaginary scenarios than in the evidence, then, something completely out of the realm of science is going on, something really ideological and based only on the religious manifestos of materialism and of atheism.

This is regress rather than progress.

As a lawyer, Edwin S. Darrell should be more interested in what the real facts demonstrate instead of blindly following the deceptions that Darwinism is still attempting to sell!

To read other related articles go to:

Evolution: Debate it
By: John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer
USA Today
August 26, 2005

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
By: Philip S. Skell
The Scientist
August 29, 2005

Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and the Life Sciences in the 21st Century
PDF, Originally published in “Uncommon Dissent” (ISI Books, 2004)
By: Roland Hirsch
August 30, 2005

The Ayatollah of Atheism and Darwin’s Altars
By: Paul Johnston
The Spectator (UK)
August 31, 2005.

DaveScot presents interesting examples at: Aristotle and ID

Debate: Intelligent Design and Darwinism – Definition of Terms
By: Homunculus

Tavis Smiley interviews Stephen C. Meyer at PBS (August 29, 2005):
Read the Transcript
Hear the Audio (mp3, 3.29MB)

 Posted by at 8:00 am

  12 Responses to “Calling Darwin’s Bluff”

  1. But who cares, this debate is not about the science. Evolution has to be true in spite of evidence as “we cannot allow divine foot in the door.” That should be clear to everyone following this debate.

  2. Dear in_unison,

    Bertvan just found an interesting and related article:

    http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/001552

    Taking Darwin Down by Emma Schwartz
    Legal Times (http://www.legaltimes.com)08-29-2005
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/285

    I enjoyed it!

  3. Thank you fdocc, excellent post. I am still trying to catch up on things after my absence. You’ve exposed the farce of Darwinism. The empirical evidence for ID is mounting everyday and the facade of Darwinism is melting in the light of empirical science.

  4. And yet, those changes “within species” have wrought speciation!

    Yes, Darwin was right — there is a vast continuum of life. The drawing of lines between species is often arbitrary. It’s easy to determine the herring gull from the lesser black-backed gull in the North Sea — but that is only because this is one of the chief places this ring species overlaps. Darwin understood that.

    Do you not? If you wish to claim that Darwin is in error, then please tell us how these lines can be drawn to support your claim that there is no “macro” speciation?

    And while you’re at it, deal with Spartina townsendii, which was observed to rise in the late 1860s, and is in every way a wholly new and different species.

    Those who don’t understand evolution should study it, and leave the ad hominems to occasions when they merit. My law degree does not wipe out my science training, nor does your lack of a law degree make you correct.

  5. By the way, Jonathan Wells’ views were rejected by the Texas State Board of Education, as they should have been. Wells’ book is a major exercise in deception. You fail to cite my written testimony from the second hearing in which I detailed Well’s errors.

    Haeckel’s drawings may have appeared in one text; as a result of intervention by Dr. David Hillis and others, publishers instead now use photos of embryoes which more accurately show the points the books were making.

    Wells, of course, can’t deny the photos.

  6. Dear reader,

    Please, keep posting examples, in that way the point of the real subspeciation will be more and more strengthened, while the speculated Darwinian “speciation” will dim and will be relocated in the fictional literature.

    Changes “within species” can only produce “subspeciation” not ‘speciation’.

    Subspeciation or variation means different genetically compatible races, which means new varieties, new subspecies, being this independent of morphology or animal behavior, as the great example of the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull demonstrates, at least for everybody having eyes to see (in the next quotation “viable hybrids” means the fertile offspring):

    A crossfostering experiment with these gulls showed that, as in Darwin’s finches, misimprinted birds are capable of producing viable hybrids, i.e., once the premating isolating mechanism is broken

    [Harris, M. P. (1970) Ibis 112, 488-498; Harris, M. P., Morley, C. & Green, G. H. (1978) Bird Study 25, 161-166]

    See the context of that quotation on how finches are able to interbreed producing fertile offspring:

    Grant PR, Grant BR. Genetics and the origin of bird species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jul 22;94(15):7768-75. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/15/7768

    And from other websites specialized in birds:

    “Herring Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull interbreed to a limited degree where their ranges overlap, producing birds of intermediate appearance, which could be confused with Yellow-legged Gulls.”

    http://www.bird-center.net/articles/Hybridisation_in_gulls

    Also see:

    “Lesser Black-backed Gull: (Larus Fuscus.)

    Habits: These birds can be interbreed with the Herring gull.”

    http://skelligsrock.com/wildlife.htm

    And another Gull example in the next posting:

    “all three (Herring Gull, Yellow-legged Gull and Caspian- Gull) apparently do(occasionally) interbreed.”

    http://www.virtualbirder.com/bmail/idfrontiers/200204/w1/index.html

    //////////////

    Other quotations for those interested in hybridization (next examples, from plants) at

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez

    “we used independently formed hybrids (Spartina x townsendii and Spartina x neyrautii) that originated from natural crosses between Spartina alterniflora, an American introduced species, and the European native Spartina maritima. The hybrid from England, S. x townsendii, gave rise to the invasive allopolyploid, salt-marsh species, Spartina anglica.”

    Hybridization rather than genome doubling seems to have triggered most of the methylation changes observed in Spartina anglica.”

    Salmon A, Ainouche ML, Wendel JF. Genetic and epigenetic consequences of recent hybridization and polyploidy in Spartina (Poaceae). Mol Ecol. 2005 Apr;14(4):1163-75.

    And also the next one:

    “”these findings indicate that the genome of S. anglica has not undergone extensive changes since its formation. This contrasts with previous results from the literature, which report rapid structural changes in experimentally resynthesized allopolyploids.”

    Retrotransposons and genomic stability in populations of the young allopolyploid species Spartina anglica C.E. Hubbard (Poaceae). Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Aug;19(8):1218-27.

    The current and deliberate blindness of Darwinism prevents biology to see the clear evidence of genetic compatibility and subspeciation:

    Why evolutionists are deliberately blurring the differences between varieties and species?

    Why evolutionists are deliberately ignoring the genetic compatibility which exists between varieties?

  7. And yet, those changes “within species” have wrought speciation!
    Yes, Darwin was right– there is a vast continuum of life. The drawing of lines between species is often arbitrary. It’s easy to determine the herring gull from the lesser black-backed gull in the North Sea– but that is only because this is one of the chief places this ring species overlaps. Darwin understood that.

    Once again edarrell has demonstrated his comprehension deficiency. Is the 2 variety of gull evidence of macroevolution or just variations of gull? Like a typical Darwinists edarrell fails to understand the issue and trot out the usual obfuscation.

    If you wish to claim that Darwin is in error, then please tell us how these lines can be drawn to support your claim that there is no “macro” speciation?

    LOL! Darwinists have to first provide enough points for the interpolation before anyone can draw a line. Providing 2 point and assume that there is a straight line between them is not evidence in the first place.

    Those who don’t understand evolution should study it

    Why don’t you tell us when you’ve study it.

  8. You tell us: Are the lesser black-backed gull and the herring gull two separate species, or not? What is your measure?

    Tell us how you draw the line. Go ahead, be my guest.

  9. Do you know the difference between micro and macroevolution?
    Do you know if the 2 gull are capable of interbreeding genetically?
    Do you have the genetic example of the detail incremental genetic morphology from an ancestral species to an extant species?

    Open your mind and think edarrell instead of your constant mindless diatribe of Darwinian propaganda.

  10. I know there is no difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution, and of course, so do you.

    If the two gulls — two? are you certain that’s all there are? — can hybridize, what does that mean for species? Hybridization is the crossing of two species; the only question is, can the offspring mate successfully? If not, that tends to demonstrate that a new mutation has taken place, one that ID denies possible. If so, that raises another question about whether there is a third species (such as the observed rise of Spartina townsendii in the 1860s).

    Yes, there are genetic examples of the ring species.

    My mind is open; our data are open, too, and available for you to analyze any time. Instead of dealing with the real evidence, however, ID apologists on this thread have accused me of being a lawyer — it’s true, I have sworn an oath to uphold the truth. Instead of offering serious discussion, creationist diatribes from 40 years ago have been trotted out, apparently without thought that the mere trotting out disproves the claim that ID is science and not religious dogma (though, we must note, not Christian dogma).

    Remember, Paley’s position was that all species are distinct, and cannot interbreed. Darwin observed that nature does not draw such a bright line, to borrow a legal term. Ring species demonstrate the fuzziness of those lines, and also the viability of Darwin’s theory.

    Stick to the facts. You could look it up. Take evidence from qualified sources, you’ll be better off in the end.

  11. I know there is no difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution, and of course, so do you.

    Don’t presume to speak for me. There is a huge difference between micro and macroevolution. Have a little, just a little bit of, intellectual integrity will you. Even Gould and talkorigins (probably your favorite propaganda machine) acknowledge that there is a difference.

    If the two gulls– two? are you certain that’s all there are?

    You are confused again ed. 🙂 Remember we were talking about the 2 varieties of gulls, black-backed gull and the herring gull? You are the one that said “two separate species” . Two?

    the only question is, can the offspring mate successfully?

    That depends on what you offspring being able to mate. For example can a Chihuahua dog and Saint-Bernard Dog mate. No, but are they both dogs? Yes. There are no speciation here just varieties of the same species.

    Yes, there are genetic examples of the ring species.

    You are either confused or dishonest. I asked for a detail morphological example of an ancestral species to an extant species. You know, like give a detail historical record of the individual species from the trilobite to the wolf? 😀 I’ll understand if you can’t because Darwinists like you don’t care about empirical evidence. You are only interested in making up your own facts and call variation of the same species of gulls like dogs “ring species” , so you can then call that speciation.

    My mind is open

    Really? It doesn’t show from these comments.

    Instead of offering serious discussion, creationist diatribes from 40 years ago have been trotted out, apparently without thought that the mere trotting out disproves the claim that ID is science and not religious dogma

    What have we discussed that is not serious science? Can you give reference to what was trotted out 40 years ago and what is trotted out now? Explain how they are the same.

    Remember, Paley’s position was that all species are distinct, and cannot interbreed. Darwin observed that nature does not draw such a bright line, to borrow a legal term. Ring species demonstrate the fuzziness of those lines, and also the viability of Darwin’s theory.

    Paley was correct about that. All Darwin did was observe microevolution or variation of the same species. I have a better term ring species demonstrate the fuzziness of Darwinian deception. This is a standard technique charlatan
    uses to confuse people. Although most people will recognize the varieties of gulls as the same species, the charlatan will come along and call it a ring species, making a distinction without a difference.

    Stick to the facts. You could look it up. Take evidence from qualified sources, you’ll be better off in the end.

    Good advice. You are obviously practicing what you preach by your visits here.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.