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 HeritageÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 2nd Edition Copyright Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â© 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…”
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 “evolution” is 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.