Jan 092006
 

The variability within compatible organisms has been misused with the purpose to try to support the ideas of Darwin and of the current and flawed ideas of evolutionism.

Darwinism invented a term called “speciation” to pursue the “origin of species” envisioned by Darwin; however, every example of “speciation” to be published can be easily reduced to the simple variation within genetically compatible organisms, which reduces such concept to the category of “sub-speciation” or variation (new lines, races, breeds or lineage making).

Next, we provide the current definitions of “speciation” , and even if those definitions are rich in careless semantics and tricky terminologies, they clearly indicate that current biologists influenced by a Darwinian evolution, think that new biological species, completely independent and genetically incompatible with their ancestors can be originated.

However, that concept of “speciation” has been defeated time after time by the facts of fertile interbreeding, producing fertile offspring, of the supposedly independent species, and on some cases, even by the supposedly (and erroneously) ‘isolated’ Genus (see shorebirds, dolphins, elephants, etc.)

Speciation, according to the Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (2004) is:

The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones. [The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 2nd Edition Copyright © 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company.]

Mark Lefers and the Holmgren Lab (2004) define it as:

A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis).

Biology Online, as expected from the ‘experts’ of a fallacy, goes beyond any remain of reason left and includes the word “instantaneous“, while presenting the next:

Instantaneous Speciation: Individuals that are isolated from their parents and capable of producing members of a new species from its altered genome.

However, completely opposed to the imaginary definitions presented above (and the best wishes of evolutionist indexed publishers), the facts of biology speak a 180 degrees otherwise, when compared to the current rhetoric of evolutionism based and biased by Darwin, lets revisit just some clear examples shouting NO! to Evolution and to Darwin:

In Interbreeding in Shorebirds we can see that even what biologists consider as separate Genus of birds, are indeed able to produce a fertile offspring. Not to say the multiple instances of simple varieties being considered as different species (or even different Genus), and then, after that first classification mistake, are carelessly being used by evolutionists as “examples” of a non-occurring “speciation” . Notable examples of fertile offspring resulting from interbreeding of technically mislabeled organisms as if being members of different Genus are the next ones: Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) x American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) [this is just like the inter-racial marriage of a Brown Mexican with an all White American (smile)], White Rumped Sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis) x Buff-Breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis), Baird’s Sandpiper (Calidris bairdii) x Buff-Breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis)…

Even the different finches that supposedly inspired the careless theory of evolution inside the brain of Darwin, now it is well known that those very same finches are able to interbreed producing fertile offspring!

And the very same that has been said of shorebirds within themselves, and finches within themselves, can be said of other ‘icon’ of such evolutionist misrepresentation: “The Gull Variation

The extreme of inconsistency of evolutionists is reached in the Gasterosteus Variation in which both “experts” on “evolution” and on “speciation” Peter Grant and Dolph Schluter assume that

Hybridization is a valid manipulation because all previous crosses between closely related freshwater sticklebacks have not revealed any intrinsic reduction in offspring viability.”

Remember that Schluter and P. Grant are trying to convince the people that “speciation” is a “fact” happening in nature right now…

Well, if those finch birds within themselves (to “reproduce amongst themselves“) and those fishes within themselves are able to interbreed producing fertile offspring, the Grants and Schluter are cheating themselves, and lying to the rest of the world by using varieties of the same organisms as prime “examples” of a non-existent “speciation.”

See by yourself the complete inconsistency and the careless logic that is rampant in evolution, call by yourself into question the ‘field(s)’ of “speciation” by comparing the “fallacious” definitions presented above and the next statement (presumably supported by such publications like the works of the Grants and the Schluter, the foremost ‘stars’ among the rest of evolutionists, of “speciationists” ):

several studies have demonstrated that speciation can occur in the absence of genetic incompatibilities.” [McKinnon JS & Rundle HD. Speciation in nature: the threespine stickleback model systems. 2002. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17(10):480-488, pfd. [They quoted from Schluter, D. (2001) Ecology and the origin of species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 372–Å“380″ ]”

So, even if the “official” definition(s) of “speciation” (if its ‘unified’ definition(s) ever comes to ‘acceptedly’ exist &) aims to reach something that really doesn’t occurs in nature, the assertion that we just read completely contradicts the false speculations of Darwin as well as the fallacious current definitions of “speciation” .

Then, in the dog variation I present the facts that indicate that wolves, coyotes, jackals, dogs, dingoes, etc… are able to interbreed producing fertile offspring, being then all of them just varieties within the same group of Canis.

More recently, I have worked with The Elephant Variation in which it is demonstrated that, while the “speciational experts” are considering two varieties or subspecies of African elephants (the “dwarf” and the tall one) as if those were two separate and different species, the facts available in a multitude of websites indicate that those two varieties, as expected, are able to interbreed producing fertile offspring.

So, the biggest the animal, the biggest the human blunder to attempt to properly represent it and to properly classify it (as can be seen in my studies of the dolphin variation, and the whale variation), as well as the “speciation” blunders done in small critters, like insects (Laupala et al), etc…

Previously, I have explored The Crayfish Variation with similar results… how those things that evolutionists doesn’t expected to happen, are indeed happening, say, that different (and mislabeled) “species” are indeed interbreeding producing vigorous descendants!!!

That’s why we are In Search of an Intelligent Understanding of Variation, to develop a practical and useful “Mendelian Bioengineering” divorced and completely independent of the deliberate philosophical blunders and frauds of Evolution and rather, under the framework of Intelligent Design, as Jonathan Wells wisely declared:

“…ID could function as a “metatheory,” providing a conceptual framework for scientific research. By suggesting testable hypotheses about features of the world that have been systematically neglected by older metatheories (such as Darwin’s), and by leading to the discovery of new features…”

[See also: Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions, as well as Intelligent Design Makes Empirically Testable Predictions.]

Here we have observed that the current biology has been derailed by Darwinism and by Evolutionism, and for that reason, it does not properly represents the relationships of the different and related organisms. Rather, Darwinism and the current ‘studies on Evolution‘ like such non-real “speciation” debunked here, are an attempted agnostic and/or atheist philosophical gain-game.

Darwinism then, is a “mind-game” rather than the purposeful understanding of nature and the rational improvement of our biodiversity, for example, by the study and application of a cautious and fertile interbreeding of genetically compatible organisms able to produce fertile offspring (as revealed on Genesis chapter 1).

We can also conclude that every attempt to prove a fallacious “speciation” and thus, an “evolutionis based on biased and careless definitions, on misclassified organisms, and on erroneous representations of the real relationships between organisms.

In the same way, there is no way to justify any Darwinian evolution by using the studies of variation (microevolution) to deliberately trick the brains of intelligent people (in an attempt to deceive them). To do so, to attempt to convince all people that minor changes and variations within compatible organisms are the longed-for ‘holy molly‘ of Evolution, is a fraud (to be legally prosecuted, as our beloved Attorney Phillip E. Johnson taught).

No matter if the foremost journals are centrally involved in the deception, as Casey Luskin in the U.S.A. and earlier, Andrew Rowell, in the UK, have demonstrated by debunking the calculated deceptions published in Science: Microevolution In Action.

 Posted by at 10:23 am

  48 Responses to “The Fraud of Evolution: Variation sold as Speciation”

  1. If as you say, ID is empirically testable, then test it, prove evolution wrong, and be done with it. Stop wasting all your time and effort attempting to disprove evolution and prove your own theories.

  2. Mr. E.J. Petersen, are you so interested on this project to be willing to finance this research? And once the results are obtained, because results are going to be obtained, if you are a peer-reviewer, are you willing to publish the ID resulting article?

    IF your answer is NOT to both questions, then hold your peace!

  3. Excellent article fdocc. Darwinian Fizzbin at its best. Darwinists are masters at equivocation. Darwinists are upset at the distinction of macroevolution and microevolution because it exposes their lies. Darwinists say the theory of evolution is supported by empirical evidence. When you ask a Darwinists for evidence of macroevolution, what do you get? Evidence that supports “microevolution” .

    The theory of Darwinian evolution is ONE LONG BLUFF.

  4. Dear Teleologist,

    Bottom line is that if there is a Design in Animals, and we know there is, then there is also Order and Law in the way Animals change over time and in the way they reproduce, there is no anarchy, there is no chaos or disorder. For ‘evolution’ to deceive the public by labeling variation (the phenotipic differences among fertile offspring’s producers) as their prime example for the imaginary “speciation” is just the follow up of the fraudulent Darwin’s Bluff, which must be clearly understood by our students as a prime example of bad ‘science’ that one good and not so far day, must crumble into pieces to the floor of every reasonable researcher!

    Can EJP or any other ID-critic posting here ‘rationally‘ explain how it is possible for ‘evolution’ to consider thousands of organisms as examples of “speciation” when reality demonstrates that those are able to produce fertile offspring within their kinds (their genetic compatibility)?

  5. It should be noted again and again that ID/Evolution debate is less about biology but more about two opposing worldviews of which Evolution is a present, accepted dogma and should be exposed as such. Best way to do that, in my oppinion, is to present alternative views, like ID, in a more coherent manner. Science like biology should be about finding truth about life (including its origin) and truth like in any other human endeavor will progressively prevail.

  6. Dear in_unison,

    You are more than extremely welcome to present alternative views, like ID, in a more coherent manner!

    Thanks for your posting!

  7. Dear fdocc,

    I think you got me wrong. I believe that ID theorists are on the right track, but you surely agree that more work has to be done. I should have, probably, used word disciplined rather than coherent. By all means ID makes more sense scientificaly than General Theory of Evolution but that is obviously not enough to overturn prevailing evolutionary dogma. Even if fossil of precambrian rabbit is found, Darwinist will find a way to incorporate it into their theory. What are their options in that case? Admit design? Never, because their worldview will crumble, which is unthinkable for most evolutionists. You asked ID critics, in your previous post, to rationally explain one of many evolutionary paradoxes. In Darwinism like in any other faith system, rationality goes only so far.

  8. In_Unison, you wrote:

    you surely agree that more work has to be done

    Yes, I believe that the proper resources need to be invested in good ID research.

    So, it is time for the wealthy investors to start offering viable grants!

    Don’t you think?

    The ID-critics always bash while never offering any research doorway for us!

  9. inunison,

    What are their options in that case? Admit design? Never, because

    Steve Weinberg who’s a physicist and notably anti-religious have said “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible to not believe in God”

    but you surely agree that more work has to be done.

    I would agree with that. More research like the one that fdocc have done would be great. The only problem is that the Darwinian Priesthood has a strangle hold on government funding and scientific publications.

    Do you have any suggestions for this battle of worldviews?

  10. fdocc,

    So, it is time for the wealthy investors to start offering viable grants!

    The atheistic Darwinist like this?

    Josh Gilder wrote in his critique of the Evolution series:
    “PBS has undertaken a massive new “educational” project to promote the “understanding of evolution.”

    Apparently there’s a lot of misunderstanding out there, as tech billionaire Paul Allen has ponied up some $15 million for the project (PBS refuses to disclose exactly how much). … Much of Allen’s money is going into a national “outreach” program aimed at our public schools.

    Do you know what this means? Allen has spent more on Darwinian propaganda than CSC has for all its’ budget since it has been in existence.

  11. teleologist,

    Weinbergs quote says nothing about how evolutionists interpret scientific data. Just remember how they handled so called “junk” DNA. Constantly changing theory to fit data is not good science and proves that something more than science is invested in Darwinism. I believe that atheism and anti-theism have much to lose if “Divine foot is allowed in the door”. That explains Darwinian dogma and their vitriolic propaganda.

    How to fight this battle? I am not sure, but I know from history that commited individuals, who are prepared to sacrifice much are the ones that initiated every paradigm shift in science. And society at large has to be be ready for a change.

    Do you think we are ready to accept implications of design in biology right now?

  12. inunison,

    Do you think we are ready to accept implications of design in biology right now?

    This is a good question. It reminds me of the glass half empty or half filled question. In general, Americans are ready to accept the design implication, in a way we already do. The majority of Americans (if you believe the surveys) do not believe in evolution. The reason is that we see no evidence of the grand scheme of UCA. Darwinians talk as if their ancestors came from a rodent as casually as one mention that their great grandparents came over from Italy. Americans are smarter than that, we see no evidence that this is true and we let them create their fantasy because it has no relevance to our day-to-day lives. No doubt progress will be slow, but critical works like those by fdocc, Behe, Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Minnich, and Axe will provide sufficient groundwork to support design.

    The half empty side is like, to borrow from Dawkins, climbing mount improbable. We will not traverse the Darwinian mystic mountain in a single leap. The slow, cumulative, step-by-step unmasking of the Darwinian myth, is liken to the peeling of an onion, eventually will whittle it away. For over 150 years this myth has brainwashed and engrain in our culture. It has infiltrate into our vocabulary, speech, metaphors and psyche. Deprogramming will be a long and arduous process. The task of deprogramming is complicated by the fact that most cult members are removed from the cult environment during the deprogramming process. With Darwinism, these cult leaders in their lab coats are quick to squelch the unsuspecting critic with bogus claims of evolution and arguments from authority. The Darwinian Priesthood is quick to bring death and destruction (metaphorically speaking) to any and all those who would oppose their religion. It is difficult for those who have not studied and delved in depth into the factual details of this Darwinian conundrum. For the general Darwinian skeptics, they are intimidated by fear of appearing to be foolish or unscientific due to their skepticism of Darwinism. Taking a stand against Darwinism could put your career, public and social standing in jeopardy.

    This leads me back to your point about individual sacrifices is needed for a paradigm change. “In every revolution, there must be one man with a vision” — James T. Kirk

    The design fire has been lit, next is who will carry that torch. The leading ID theorists up to this point have been gentlemen. IMO, ID does not yet have the equivalent of Darwin’s bulldog.

  13. fdocc,

    I see you are understandably hungry and thirsty for more funds towards ID research. I know how important that is for any scientist.

    But lets assume that grant comes your way and that your work bears much fruit. Do you realy think things will change? I suspect that together with properly funded ID research, something else has to happen in the society, wich mainly would include religious and political aspects. I am not saying that ID is religion, but fact is that implications on our faith system are simply staggering. Opposition to ID today is in many ways similar to opposition to Darwin’s ideas in 19th century. His ideas became pillars of atheism and secularism as we know them at present. ID threatens that worldview. Most people (this is my very subjective judgement) today give lip service to their Christian faith while in practice they profess secularism, if not straight atheism. The ruling class more so (even in US democracy there is a ruling class) and they make all decissions that matter. I beleive that is the reason why such opposition to your scientific efforts to research ID in more depth. Every idea, including scientific theories, has broader implications on our society and beleive me, ID beats them all down in its potential to unsettle many aspects of our existence.

    Wish you good luck in your reseach and may those grants come your way soon.

  14. I come to this discussion late but I hope not too late. I am amazed that some would claim that ID and evolution are incompatible. It seems that if you are not a Darwinian you don’t believe in evolution. A past evolution is not to be denied and a present evolution cannot even be demonstrated byond the trivial production of varieties ar at best subspecies.

    An original intelligent design and accordingly a desgner or designers is a mandatory foundation on which to begin to understand both ontogeny and phylogeny. Chance has never played a role in either process which is why it cannot be demonstrated to have been involved.

    Darwinism is a giant illusion based on the assumption that evolution has had a tangible verifiable exogenous cause. Such a cause has never been disclosed because it never existed. Evolution, exactly like ontogeny, has proceeded driven entirely from within with no reference to the environment beyond that of providing a suitable milieu for its expression. Both have been, in a single word, –

    “prescribed.”

    “Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!”
    Gregor Mendel

    How do you like them marinated mushrooms?

  15. In_unison, you wrote:

    lets assume that grant comes your way and that your work bears much fruit. Do you realy think things will change?

    Well, I think that people looking for progress and freedom have now an open alternative that doesn’t existed before. Even if things do not change in a “big” scale, researchers that are not those mean-spirited darwinians are really going to appreciate the change.

    John, you wrote:

    I come to this discussion late but I hope not too late. I am amazed that some would claim that ID and evolution are incompatible.

    Yo are never late, John!

    Let me tell you something, I think that we all agree that microevolution is factual and evident. However, macroevolution is not. The fact is that current evolution-leaders willingly deny that there is a difference between the real microevolution and the surreal macroevolution, as well as between the factual variation and the subjective speciation. By doing so they are stuck, with no possibility for progress within their philosophical framework. In_unison elsewhere has implied that darwinists really don’t care about any sense or sort of “logic” or of “reason”. So, they will try to adapt themselves to any new and different paradigm by their own blend of atheism, of diluted atheism, i.e., agnosticism, or agnosticism lite. The agnolite philosophy i.e., is the one professed by most of the leaders in the Catholic priesthood and by “theistic evolutionists”), of materialism, of naturalism, etc.

    But well, at least for the sake of keeping some sort of dialog or of logical sense within ourselves I see that darwinism and the current ‘philosophy’ of evolution are lacking of any possibility for the logical development of new biodiversity, for example.

    John, here I am talking of that particular evolution as currently held by its dominant leaders. Here I am not talking of the unique studies that you have done or of the rest of papers that are genuine “microevolutionary” works in nature. Even if almost all of the times those same results have been over-inflated by their authors/interpreters as to make them to mean “the grandeur” of the imaginary views of Darwin (“macroevolution” (even if they deny that there is a difference, anybody else but them can see the difference. Problem: They are the ones currently holding the frying pan), “speciation” , etc.)

    How are the current evolutionists going to rationally explain within their darwinian background the fertile interbreeding of two organisms that have already been mis-classified by them for the sakes of their different phenotypes, but that are able to produce a fertile offspring?

    Let me explain: If current evolutionists have already acknowledged by themselves that those fertile breeders are already (‘though wrong, of course) ‘speciated‘, how are they going to explain their product, the fertile offspring?

    Teleologist,

    Thanks for the link related to NM, it is encouraging to see that not everybody in high places is a staunch Darwin’s Worshipper!

  16. Macroevolution is also factual and undeniable. It is simply not occurring any more and hasn’t been for a very long time. To deny a past evolution just because it cannot be demonstrated today is without foundation and unacceptable to me. The Biblical notion of “kinds” will never explain the organic diversity we see around us. There is now convincing evidence that all primates are intimately related and have shared a common chomosomal and genetic heritage. I am sure this will soon be extended even further, perhaps even to include all forms of life. That however has not yet been firmly established which is why I am still open to multiple origins of life. We don’t even know how many Creators there may have been or when and most certainly how they were doing the creating. Let’s keep an open mind and not let ideology interfere with the search for the truth.

    Indeed, that has what has led to this unnecessary conflict.

  17. To deny a past evolution just because it cannot be demonstrated today is without foundation and unacceptable to me. The Biblical notion of “kinds” will never explain the organic diversity we see around us.

    John, you know I have consistently put the Bible aside in my dispute against the Darwinian myth. I have never used the Bible against Darwinian evolution or to support ID, so let’s just put the Bible rhetoric aside.

    That being said, would you tell me if there is any room for disagreement among people who support the premise of design? Or to put it another way, is there a common ground for a saltationist like yourself and those of us who dispute macroevolution on scientific grounds? Remember, macroevolution is more than just primate evolution. We are disputing the evolution of an eyeless organism evolving into a organism with an eye through numerous unseen intermediates. We are talking about a prokaryotic organism evolving into a eukaryotic organism, fish into reptile, dinosaurs into birds, etc”.

  18. The only place I see a problem is the evolution of a prokaryote into a eukaryote. Do you actually believe that there were special creations associated with the origin of each vertebrate class and each plant divison? I see no evidence for that and no need to even consider such matters. If others do that is fine. I didn’t mean to imply that you support a Biblical interpretation but that is exactly what is implied if one assumes individual creation of “kinds” of organisms or if one questions reproductive continuity, something I am not prepared to do. There are ciliate protozoa with whole advanced “organ systems” elaborated within the confines of a single cell. I pictured one , Diplodinium ecaudatum in my Manifesto. All of this can be accommodated within the PEH. There is no need to postulate any sort of Divine intervention at any point except at the very outset. I see no way to avoid that and no reason to assume anything more than that. If one is going to question macroevolution one should be prepared to offer an alternative. I don’t see anyone doing that.

    I hope that helps.

  19. One cannot deny anything that is demonstrated by the fossil record and there is no question that both the vertebrate and arthropod classes advanced from primitive to advanced as a function of geological time. There is no reason to assume any interruption of reproductive continuity to explain those transformations. It is only the mechanism and not the fact of macroevolution that needs to be questioned. Facts can be very stubborn things and they are not to be challenged at least not by this investigator.

  20. There are ciliate protozoa with whole advanced “organ systems” elaborated within the confines of a single cell. I pictured one , Diplodinium ecaudatum in my Manifesto.

    I don’t understand John. How does this demonstrate macroevolution? It show unicellular complexity yes, but macroevolution? No. How such transformations were effected remains, of course, a complete mystery. Unfortunately, since macroevolution seems no longer to be in progress, we may never be able to resolve that issue.

    One cannot deny anything that is demonstrated by the fossil record and there is no question that both the vertebrate and arthropod classes advanced from primitive to advanced as a function of geological time.

    Funny you should mention that. It is precisely from the fossil record that yields that strongest evidence against macroevolution. There are no continuous gradual step-by-step changes found in the fossil record. It is precisely as Gould pointed out that the geological record shows long periods of stasis punctuated with the appearance of large morphological changes. How would it be scientifically reasonable to assume that one macro-morphological form was derived from a more primitive form?

    There is no reason to assume any interruption of reproductive continuity to explain those transformations.

    It is not an assumption. It is a fact that the fossil records shows that there are interruptions in the morphological forms.

    At this point I don’t have enough scientific evidence to support a divine Creation. The only supportable hypothesis is that intelligence is required for the macroevolutionary changes. Where and how is this intelligence introduced into the biological system is still a mystery.

  21. The interruption in form does not in any way imply a discontinuity in reproduction. I refuse to accept such a notion as it it suggests special or even de novo creation which is anathema to me as a bench scientist. I am amazed but I guess not really surprised that you would make such a statement as it is implicit in a Fundamentalist view of the evolutionary scenario. I admire your candor but do not accept your interpretation of the fossil record. To question reproductive continuity is to question evolution itself, something I refuse to even contemplate. I hope you can understand.

  22. Dr. Davison, thank you for your posts and your very informative work (Manifesto).
    You said: “Let’s keep an open mind and not let ideology interfere with the search for the truth”. But how do we search for truth without a starting point? We have to have some sort of the concept of truth before we start investigating it and that in itself constitutes an ideology. Hence we interpret scientific data in the framework of our ideology or worldview which is quite natural. The problem is when scientific data does not match our ideology (ideology defined as a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture eg. the integrated assertions). Typicaly we, humans, would always try to protect our worldview at all cost. You can be witness of that, the way you were and are treated by most Darwinists. You and I can also be guilty of this and our duty as scientists with integrity and honesty is to always check our “balances”. It is by all means possible that we are wrong, utterly wrong in our interpretations of scientific data. Therefore I am a little worried when scientist of your caliber uses phrases like “I refuse to accept such a notion” and “I refuse to even conteplate”.

    As a final note, I believe that difference in ideologies can help us understand each other better, learn from each other and not be cause for conflict.

  23. inunison

    I am sorry you don’t like my firm position on certain matters. It would be grossly unscientific for me to question reproductive continuity (evolution). The only qualification I am prepared to consider is the question of how many times life has originated. We just don’t know. I do not accept the notion that man or any other higher life form was produced de novo. I have published as much. The ONLY thing I am prepared to discuss is the hard-headed cytogenetic basis for a past undeniable and reproductively continuous evolution. I do not regard anything I have ever published as having an ideological basis. Anything outside reality is pure mysticism and I want no part of it. If you or anyone else regard that as a defect that is unfortunate. Chance never had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny. If not chance then what? I answer with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. There is no need for God except at the very beginning or of course beginnings.

    I hope this helps.

  24. Dr. Davison, thank you for your response. I never said I don’t like your position; on the contrary, I have much regard for it. Also I am in unison 🙂 with your statement that “anything outside reality is pure mysticism”. Saying that, I must add that our definition of reality might differ.

  25. To question reproductive continuity is to question evolution itself, something I refuse to even contemplate. I hope you can understand.

    I understand. I have not asked you to accept my point of view. I am just trying to compare notes with you. However, I would request that you stop referring to my view as a fundamentalist view, because I have not made any fundamentalist claim against macroevolution.

    As someone who is trained in the scientific method, I want to see detail evidence of fish to amphibian transition? You are a bench scientist demonstrate the macroevolutionary transitions with experiments and detail step-by-step transitional fossils. All we ever get from the Darwinists are a few disparate fossils and bold claims such as fish with legs. Only Darwinists would have the audacity pull off this one long bluff.

    Do you agree with this? How such transformations were effected remains, of course, a complete mystery. Unfortunately, since macroevolution seems no longer to be in progress, we may never be able to resolve that issue.

    I don’t have scientific proof for the emergence of major forms but I do know that there is no evidence to support a common descent.

  26. ALL evidence indicates a common descent. It is clear I cannot communicate here any longer and so I take my leave.

    Thank you for finally making your position indelibly clear. I hope I have done the same.

    “And then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it stems from the same source. They are creatures that can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
    Albert Einstein

  27. John,

    Calm down!

    The central argument in this particular theme is that evolutionists are selling variation as if that were speciation; in the same way, they make claims of grandeur (as Luskin declared) presenting as examples of the macroevolutionary ideas of the Darwinian or neo-Darwinian sort, evidences that are only examples of microevolution, always in the subspecies level.

  28. I have no intention of calming down. The PEH offers a perfectly rational explanation for why we don’t see intermediate forms in the fossil record. It is because the forms were all predetermined and emerged on schedule when or even before they were needed. There is also not a shred of evidence for gradualism and never was and there is not a shred of evidence against reproductive continuity and never will be. Just because ruling paradigms are a joke does not mean anything. I gave every person within cybershot an opportunity to present their understanding of the MECAHANISM for a past undeniable evolution and absolutely NO ONE was willing to respond to that modest request. Don’t talk to me about calming down. I intend to hold everyone’s feet to the fire if they can’t support their convictions. I haven’t had any problem presenting mine have I? Where are the rest of you?

    I repeat my paraphrase of the Bard:

    “Conscience doth make cowards of YOU ALL!

    Put up or shut up. I know you won’t because you can’t. You are hamstrung by your ideology. I’m through. At 78 I have better things to do with my remaining time than try to communicate with those who cannot hear Einstein’s “music of the spheres.”

    “Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”

    Of course it is Albert.

  29. CALM DOWN JOHN, THAT’S AN ORDER! 😀 OK, don’t calm down. We know where you are coming from. I’ve always said that I like the fact that you are a straight shooter. 🙂

  30. Well thank you for tolerating me, but where was your version of the great mystery of evolution when I requested it from everyone? I will answer that for you. It did not exist then and it does not exist now because you have no such scenario to present. All you can do is to question that which I will never question, namely an organic continuity for all of evolution including its ultimate product, Homo sapiens. The only thing we share is our mutual contempt for Godless evolution, hardly a basis for concensus. I have rejected both camps in this mindless debate and I see no reason to recant at this stage of what I regard as the only rational way to approach the mystery of evolution, the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I have published my convictions . Where can I find that of my adversaries? As nearly as I can ascertain, I no longer have any.

  31. Everyone is entitled to his or her say, even you John. 🙂 And please do not presume to answer anything for me. You’ve been wrong about almost everything that I’ve been saying. You asked for my version of the great mystery of evolution. Of course I have none, because there is no mystery of evolution.

    I’ve presented the working hypothesis for ID, you may not like it but it is the best explanation for all the empirical evidence we have to date. ID is strictly empirical and will not go beyond available data, which is the reason why it draws criticisms from Darwinian evolutionist, Davison and some Creationists. Besides I do not have to have tried Dom Perignon to know that sour milk is not champagne. I accept your PEH as a possible instance of macroevolution but you have no empirical evidence for common descent.

    You still have not answer my question, do you agree with this. How such transformations were effected remains, of course, a complete mystery. Unfortunately, since macroevolution seems no longer to be in progress, we may never be able to resolve that issue.

  32. Now here is a real thigh-slapper for sure.

    “There is no mystery of evolution.”

    Pinch me. I suppose there is no mystery of ontogeny either. We know all about both don’t we? Ye Gods.

    As for your question, I probably should never have suggested that we might not be able to resolve the mechanism for macroeviolution, especially since I have proposed exactly that potential solution with the PEH.

    I feel about the PEH exactly as Godfrey Hardy felt about mathematics. He was convinced that mathematics has always been there just waiting to be discovered. In other words the real world has nothing whatsoever to do with the mind of man. I remain confident that EVERYTHING in the universe will ultimately be disclosed. Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics have already largely reached that state. Ontogeny and phylogeny too will be revealed in all their details. It is all part of the Cosmic Plan, a plan that was executed for the specific purpose of being ultimately disclosed by Homo sapiens, the final product of that plan.

    There is nothing in any of this that involves a personal God of any description, as it was implemented billions of years before our appearance and certainly before the appearance of Jesus Christ.

    “The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.”
    Albert Einstein

  33. There is no “working hypothesis for ID.” Intelligent Design is self-evident in every aspect of the universe living or dead. Dembski for God’s sake is trying to prove mathematically that which requires no proof whatsoever. If you choose to join in that silly venture be my guest. I don’t feel it is necessary or even rational.

    The biggest mistake the IDists ever made was to introduce a sine qua non for discussion and debate. Just because a bunch of congenital atheists deny design is no reason to feel compelled to prove it.

    I recommend you do what I have done. Laugh at these genetic defectives, point out to the world that they are niothing but victims of their “prescribed” fate. Get off the defensive as I have done and get militant. Invite them all to present their mindless hypotheses and enjoy their failure to respond as I have done.

    As for the IDists with whom you clearly identify, they have no MECHANISM to present either or they would have done so when I offered them the opportunity. Personally, I detect a hidden Christian agenda in all of the ID crowd and I want nothing to do with any of it for reasons I have already made very apparent.

    “The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”
    Albert Einstein

  34. “There is no mystery of evolution.”

    What are we talking about John? Yes macroevolution, that’s right. There is no mystery of evolution because there is no evidence of macroevolution and evolution of de novo forms.

    As for your question, I probably should never have suggested that we might not be able to resolve the mechanism for macroeviolution, especially since I have proposed exactly that potential solution with the PEH.

    You were right the first time John. 🙂 In (Davison 2000) there was nothing in your paper that shows any evidence for macroevolution. You did a good job of describing the complexity but you gave no actual evidence of the macro-changes. So I agree with you on the observation of available data, that is there are differences in forms without intermediates.

    If you want to act like the Darwinians and deny the ID hypothesis that is your choice. The fact is that design and non-teleological artifacts are substantially different. The ID hypothesis is used to detect the difference between the two.

  35. ID is not an hypothesis and never was. It is the sine qua non of both ontogeny and phylogeny.

    If you or anyone else thinks there is no evidence for the PEH, I recommend you revisit my 2005 paper and the two sections, THE INDIRECT EVIDENCE and THE DIRECT EVIDENCE. I am assuming of course that you ever read it in the first place. It would seem you haven’t.

    Presenting ID as an hypothesis is nothing more than an excuse to endlessly pontificate, an enormous waste of time. In other words these polarized forums which spend 90% of the time exposing their adversaries as frauds are much ado about nothing. While all this nonsense is going on the truth is being disclosed in the experimental laboratories of the world and nowhere else. I mentioned just the tip of that enormous iceberg in the 2005 paper.

    A pox on both the houses.

    “If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
    Oscar Wilde

    “You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him comprehend it.”
    John A. Davison

  36. John, you are right I only skimmed through PEH, so I reread the sections that you’ve mentioned.

    The so-called phenomenon of convergent evolution may not be that at all, but simply the expression of the same preformed “blueprints” by unrelated organisms.

    Furthermore, since such transitional forms are also absent in the contemporary biota, there seems to be no compelling reason to postulate their existence during their evolutionary emergence. In short, evolution may have proceeded by a series of instantaneous transformation (saltations) as independently proposed by both Schindewolf [1993], Goldschmidt [1940] and more recently by the present author [2004].

    As I suspected they offer no evidence of actual macroevolution. All you’ve shown here are cases of common design and the abrupt appearance of macro-changes. It is not evidence for common ancestry.

    recent karyological studies fully support his perspective. The primary demonstrable differences that distinguish us from our closest primate relatives are revealed in the structure of our chromosomes. They consist of several reorganizations of homologous chromosome segments in the form of translocations, pericentric and paracentric inversions and a single fusion which result in the human complement of 46 chromosomes while the Chimpanzee,

    This is the same cold fusion fairy tale peddled by Ken Miller. I have also told you that it has been debunked by Casey Luskin’s essay, which I guess you have not read.

    All Miller has done is documented direct empirical evidence of a chromosomal fusion event in humans. But evidence for a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence for when that event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event.

    The fusion-evidence implies that some of our ancestors likely had 48 chromosomes. But Miller has not provided any evidence that the individual with 48 chromosomes was historically related to modern apes. (Casey Luskin)

    Miller’s account must overcome two potential obstacles:

    (1) In most of our experience, individuals with the randomly-fused chromosome can be normal, but it is very likely that their offspring will ultimately have a genetic disease. A classic example of such is a cause of Down syndrome.

    (2) One way around the problem in (1) is to find a mate that also had an identical chromosomal fusion event. But Valentine and Erwin imply that such events would be highly unlikely:
    “[T]he chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event.”

    (Erwin, D..H., and Valentine, J.W. “‘Hopeful monsters,’ transposons, and the Metazoan radiation”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA, 81:5482-5483, Sept 1984)

    Sorry John, what you’ve presented is not evidence for common ancestry but a contender for instantaneous appearance of common design.

  37. Adding to Teleologist observations, we can emphasize again the fact present here, that current evolutionism is misrepresenting the relationships between living organisms: Selling variation at the price of ‘speciation‘ and the microchanges within varieties at the price of ‘macroevolution‘.

    If the living organisms of today are totally misrepresented, what can we expect of the extinct ones?

    That’s not only to debunk a current fraud performed in the name of Darwin, but also a positive research program to produce new variation based on the more precise representation of genetic affinity between those real varieties within their compatible groups.

    Isn’t that a sound and practical research program?

  38. Teleologist and fdocc both:

    If you are willing to question in any way our evolution from animal ancestors and that is certainly what you are doing, then I will never post again on your blog because it will prove beyond any doubt that you are not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. The only alternative you offer will never be accepted by me or any other rational bench scientist any where in the world. Trust me or don’t. At this point I couldnt care less. Have a nice “groupthink.” Adios.

  39. That’s just fine with me John. I’ve given you every opportunity to layout the evidence for a ancestral relationship of species but all you have done is to present disparate forms through instantaneous transformation. I have no problem with the latter but I will not tolerate the former without evidence. If you are a serious scientist, you should realize that. You also should not expect your unjust criticism of ID would go unanswered, because this is the purpose of this blog, to promote the scientific argument for ID and expose the fraud of Darwinian evolution.

  40. Teleologist,

    Exactly, if anybody wants to ban our Teleological Blog from his world views, that’s fine with me.

    However, to attempt to superimpose personal speculations and vain imaginations under the ‘macroevolutionary mirage‘ is something never to be possibly and rationally proven.

    To pretend to have the final answer on the subject is at the least, frankly arrogant. Furthermore, to ignore the simple facts of variation that we have been discussing here (microevolution) and to try to hijack this topic on the attempt to impose some personal views on ‘macroevolution,’ that’s so, but so very sad… As well as it is so very sad to try to ‘push by force‘ everybody else on the pursuit of the speculation of an issue that is beyond the practical reality (‘macroevolution‘), instead of focusing on the experimental topic that we are pursuing here (variation and microevolution)! Then, to declare that the rest of humanity is shorter than ‘dumb‘ because there is no interest to engage in contentions derived from someone’s ‘macroevolutionary‘ imaginations… oh, “what a shame, what a shame” …

    However, my last study on variation, to go back to the original topic here pursued, is linked next (for those of you that still have meek eyes to see) for your learning enjoyment, oh, my beloved reader!

    Cricket Variation

  41. Cricket Variation

    Thank you fdocc, another excellent find and analysis.

  42. “War, God help me, I love it so”
    General George S. Patton

    I challenge you both to present your MECHANISM for evolution at ISCID’s forum where I have once again asked for it to be produced. While you both refused at my blog perhaps you will at “brainstorms” but I seriously doubt it.

  43. John,

    I think we have not offended you in any way, just the contrary, we are trying to provide you all the support for you to express your own ideas.

    You are the one that decides to ban us! Isn’t that something?

    I wrote before:

    it is so very sad to try to ‘push by force’ everybody else on the pursuit of the speculation of an issue that is beyond the practical reality (‘macroevolution’), instead of focusing on the experimental topic that we are pursuing here (variation and microevolution)! Then, to declare that the rest of humanity is shorter than ‘dumb’ because there is no interest to engage in contentions derived from someone’s ‘macroevolutionary’ imaginations”

    What is wrong with that, John?

  44. For the question of mechanism required so often from ID proponents, I found this article very helpful:

    http://www.idthink.net/back/mech/index.html

  45. In_Unison,

    I have read the interesting work of Mike. Next, some excerpts that I was able to detect, with my emphasis and my notes in brackets []:

    The dictionary defines “mechanism” as a “process or technique for achieving a result.” Seen in this light, ID is a mechanism[!]

    Through intelligent design, one can achieve a result whereby a free and rational mind directs and imposes boundary conditions on the natural world [Note: yahooo! Here is where my studies of variation within the boundary of true compatible groups fit!]

    This form of causation is known to exist for human artifacts, and with the development of biotechnology [my prime field], the biotic world too is being progressively shaped by rational minds [a smaller mind decoding the prime designs of the biggest mind!].

    ID simply extrapolates such causation given there is no reason to think only human beings possess and have ever possessed rational minds.

    If we ask how did a biological feature come into existence, ID is indeed a possible mechanism that answers this very question [even if deliberately ignored by the current evolutionist’s minds].

    But the ID critic appears to take the question further and now wants to know the specifics about how the biological feature was designed. That is, how was ID implemented? [The barren Judgment of Judge Jones III even wished to impose a research program for ID in which a mechanism completely independent of intelligence should be proposed by ID, and because that was/is/will be not the case, he fully rejected ID, was he a rational or logical mind? NO!]

    Do we have any good reason to think that if ID was implemented at the origin of life (for example), then we should be able to determine how ID was implemented? Of course not.

    The truth of ID does not entail the ability to describe the process of design.

    Thus, the inability to describe the actual process that was implemented is essentially meaningless apart from its rhetorical appeal… just as we can [rhetorically] speak of a hypothetical designer implementing a hypothetical plan in the ancient past [and then to waste our time in speculations and vain imaginations and then contending to defend our self generated ‘mirages’ (smile)].

    Attempts to answer mechanism questions like these, force the non-teleologist into telling a story that almost always comes off as a just-so story. But as even biologist and Behe-critic, Robert Dorit noted,

    “Any one of us can come up with multiple, plausible stories concerning the evolution of a given biological feature. But plausibility is about the weakest criterion one can apply to an evolutionary hypothesis.” [September-October 1997 issue of American Scientist]

    Not all scientists are convinced that all biological history = microevolution + deep time… [the] just-so stories which have yet to be told in glorious scientific detail.

    a teleological viewpoint introduces a discontinuity into this causal chain in the form of an expressed free and rational will… It is neither law, nor chance, nor a combination of the two, which completely accounts for the organization of letters that appear on your screen… You will find them as discontinuities (A good example of a non-teleological discontinuity is a machine. As Michael Polanyi once noted, without men, there would be no machines) interspersed among the regularities, and perhaps forming a coherent pattern.

    Howard Van Till is another critic of the ID movement who thinks mechanism complaint is significant

    … [Van Till deliberately forgot that…] A designer’s “hands” are guided by his/her thoughts (Van Till apparently denies such form-imposing interventions for theological reasons, including his belief in a “fully-gifted universe.” Yet how did the universe get those gifts? How did it come to be fully gifted? Van Till merely reserves the form-imposing interventions to the creation of the universe itself.)

    Currently, the design inference ultimately is an extrapolation of what we know about human designers and human design.

    For if life was designed and deposited on a sterile earth such that it has spawned what we see today, then it is safe to say that the designer possessed a knowledge base that is far superior to ours

    … might this explanation sound silly simply because we are trying to describe a highly advanced technology with our relatively primitive understanding and technology? (For example, if you could go back 500 years and talk to professors in the University, and you told them that in 2001, men will live in the heavens (the space station), people on opposite sides of the planet will talk to each other (satellite technology), and babies will be conceived in glass plates (in vitro fertilization), a skeptic might go back to tell his friends about this using his understanding of things in his time. He’d scoff and say “Can you picture men flying into the stars on the back of eagles? Can you picture a horn so big that when blown, it is heard on the other side of the planet? Can you picture a bowl full of water growing a man?“)

    …[So, concluding] the inability to do so [to describe the detailed MECHANISM for the original design] is simply not important and has nothing to do with the truth of any given design inference.

    What to do? Don’t try to think about detecting teleological mechanisms in non-teleological terms.

    To detect teleological mechanisms requires a new way of thinking…

  46. To detect teleological mechanisms requires a new way of thinking”

    Er. Sure it does…

    An explanation is a rule of implication. Cause A leads to effect B. If you see A, then B must happen.

    Not “B can happen.” “B must happen.”

    A scientific inference would be to observe A preceding B and theorize that A causes B.

    A blind guess would be to observe only B, and claim A implies B.

    Still, every explanation, even if guessed blindly, makes a prediction that cause A always implies B.

    Having a lack of an explanation means that either 1) you cannot identify any such a rule, or 2) you postulate a rule such that every event has its own private, hidden cause (cause A is undetectable).

    Hence, generic ID is NOT an explanation! It’s not even a blind guess at an explanation. It proposes no testable rule of implication. Of course an intelligent alien could have designed life on Earth! That’s utterly trivial. The problem is that generic ID doesn’t predict what we see. Generic ID doesn’t imply the world must be as we see it. Generic ID is just compatible with what we see. As are lots of things.

    A specific theory of ID has to predict the world we see, rather than some world we don’t. A scientific theory of ID has to be experimentally testable, at least in principle. For example, say the aliens designed life for purpose X, using tools Y, at time T, leaving corresponding evidence E. You can have gaps in your ID theory, but it must make a prediction to be science. John is right about this much: no mechanism, no explanation.

    ID always fails to do this because, as fdocc illustrates with his “biggest mind” comment, the designer is always God. God theories have an infinite number of free parameters, so fitting your God theory to an arbitrarily large number of observations still fails to make a prediction. It’s like fitting a curve to points on a graph and somehow failing to predict any interpolated or extrapolated point. This is done by making your “curve” tautologically equal to the points to which you are fitting. It’s not a theory or an explanation if it’s just a restatement of your data.

    ID tries to pull the wool over the eyes of the public by cooking up formulas that “detect design”. How do they do this? They try to construct a function that returns true only on human artifacts and on biological mechanisms.

    But this isn’t science, my friends. If I cook up a function that returns true on typewriters and supernova remnants, have I proved that typewriters are capable of star formation? (Hint: No.) My function is just a paraphrasing of my prior observations of supernovas and typewriters.

    Writing down a formula for kinetic energy (one half mass times velocity squared)doesn’t make a theory. If I define Floopdedoo as mass-cubed times velocity squared, I haven’t defined the law of Floopdedoo. It is no more than a mathematical transformation on my raw observations.

    The theory is that the transformation can express a law of nature and make a prediction. Conservation of energy is a law. It is the statement that energy out must be equal to energy in. Must!

    Similarly, a law of Floopdedoo, if there was one, would have to say that given Floopdedoo in, Floopdedoo out must be constrained (predicted).

    So far ID has one or more formulas for “CSI”. CSI is just a formula that returns true on things that look designed to humans. Well, that’s just a formula, just a paraphrased observation. If you want a theory, the theory is that CSI is correlated with design in non-human artifacts (e.g., biological structures). So that’s what ID has to substantiate. Of course, the only designed artifacts are human, so there’s no way to test the formula except by seeing actual evidence that life was designed and built by aliens! CSI is a formula, it is not evidence in and of itself, no matter how well it correlates with human artifacts and biological structures. No matter how many times or how precisely you say life “looks designed”, you still have no evidence.

    In lieu of a scientific theory, ID is forced to make the claim that NDE is somehow broken. As if that lent any weight to ID’s claims. NDE may be incomplete, but at least it’s successfully predictive and explanatory. ID is neither.

    You don’t need “a new way of thinking.” This isn’t 1984, where a lack of explanations adds up to an explanation.

  47. […] So, once more, the fraud of evolution is overselling variation within compatible organisms at the price of a mythical ‘speciation‘… Yesterday, Myrmecos, an Insect Systematist respond […]

  48. Well wells, let’s test your doctor logic:
    If it has been demonstrated that A happens, Then B must also occur. (Please, READ the link.)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.