Recently Dr. William Dembski wrote “Calling Dennett’s Bluff”
Jonathan Witt wrote “Daniel Dennett’s Sham Science“, August 29, 2005
Others as well wrote related things, like:
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:
The response of Miller’s publishers (in pdf) to that comment can be seen next:
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!
“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)”
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:
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:
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.
McKinnon JS & Rundle HD. Speciation in nature: the threespine stickleback model systems. 2002. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17(10):480-488.
“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.
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 al… et al… are 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
August 26, 2005
Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
By: Philip S. Skell
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