Dismembering Evolution 5: Let’s Talk Species

At first, I was inclined to write this article much in the same vein as the chapter on Darwin’s Finches in Icons of Evolution. Then I realized that I could have so much more fun if I broadened the spectrum.

Let us start with the basic definition of a species. A species is comprised of any population of organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Okay. Good to know.

Now let us look ever so briefly at Darwin’s Finches. There are 14 different species of Darwin’s Finches listed in taxonomy, however, due the interbreedability of many of these species, if we were to apply the definition of a species we are actually left with only 6 species of finches. At best, 8 of them are merely subspecies with a particular genetic trait within the species more dominant in the local population. Interbreeding produces finches that primarily demonstrate whatever the genetically dominant trait within the species is. With the usual variation between extremes according to predictable percentages over generation. If this well mixed population were transplanted to a new area with unique condition, whatever traits that are already found within the species are best suited to the local environment will become dominant in the local population, however, it is not a genetic change that results in a new species, or could realistically be expected to produce a new species, and since the genetic material was already there it is not even a mutation, only a shift of dominance of a preexisting trait.

So, is this evolution in action? Does this qualify this population of birds as a new species?

Let us examine the second question first. I say no. Not only do I say no, I say it is sloppy science by bad scientists who are overeager to have their names attached to the discovery of a new species.

Why do I say this?

Let us look at humans. There are several races of humans all determined by dominant traits in localized populations that were largely cut off from each other for at least a few thousand years. We have Caucasians, Asians, Blacks, Latinos, and Arabs to name a majority. Since beak structure is used to determine different species among Darwin’s Finches I think it is important to examine the beak structure of humans and see if we can a\call all of these different races different species. The Caucasian nose is generally narrow and of moderate length. The Black nose is generally wide and short. The Arab nose is generally wide and long. The Asian nose is generally short and of moderate width. The Latino nose is generally in the middle of the road in all aspects, but bears a strong resemblance to the Caucasian nose. The nasal structure was selected by the heat and moisture conditions of a particular geographic location over thousands of years. So if we apply the same logic to humanity as we have to Darwin’s Finches we are forced to conclude that every one of these ethnic groups of Homo Sapiens is actually a separate species and should have separate species names. At this point we just have to decide which species are the true humans so that species can feel free to subjugate the other hominid species as les than human. I’m sure the racists will love this.

We can justify the argument that every race of human is actually a different species by noting variations in color, skin thickness, eye shape, brow shape, mouth shape, and other less obvious traits that are more dominant in one race over another. If it works for finches it works for humans, right?

No serious scientist is going to suggest that every race of humanity is actually a separate species. He would get laughed right out of his field. Given this, why is the same discipline not applied when classifying other animals?

The definition of a species presents us with a very interesting case in the canine family. Wolves, Canis Lupus, dogs, Canis Domesticus, and coyotes, Canus Latrans are accepted as different species. However, it has been shown that each of the different species is capable of breeding and producing a fertile hybrid. That means that by a strict application f the rule of species, the rule that says any population of organisms that can breed and produce fertile offspring is the species, wolves, dogs, and coyotes are actually the same species, only with certain traits more exaggerated than others in each population.

How can this be? Just look at all the variation in dogs. Through selective breeding, mankind has been able to produce a wide variety of breeds in a very short time. Had these different breeds been selected for by nature rather than man, and then been isolated long enough to create enough social distance between the breeds to cause them to be disinclined to interbreed, they would be instantly declared to be entirely different species. Even if they were not disinclined to interbreed, and they hybridized readily, the behavior of scientists in regards to Darwin’s Finches would likely have these same scientists declaring every bred of dog to be a distinct species.

So, what happens if you simply take some of every breed of dog in the world and let them interbreed for a few generations? Given enough generations of total interbreeding I would hazard to say we would get a dog that is extremely similar to a wolf, not exact mind you as some wolf traits have almost certainly been bred out of dogs in their entirety, but VERY similar.

So, what was the point of all this? The point is simply to demonstrate that scientists, in their over eagerness to try to show evolution in action are jumping ahead of the actual evidence. We have yet to see any of what could be far more appropriately be called sub-speciation result in anything that is truly a new species according to the definition of a species. We do see a great deal of change followed by a complete reversal back to the way things were in natural populations on a regular basis tough. Going back to Darwin’s finches we have studies that showed that changes in food availability result in rapid changes in the dominant beak structure in a local population, and that it reverts to the old dominant beak structure just as fast when the food availability returns to what it once was. This is not evolution despite the fact that Darwinists are saying that evolution goes both ways nowadays. When the net change over time equals zero that means there is no evolution. Going one step further, if the number of actual new species created by this cycle is zero then there is no evolution.

The quickest way to try to show speciation in by forcing “natural” selection on bacterial cultures under controlled conditions. So far all that has been shown is that some minor alteration is gene dominance are created, only to have everything revert to normal almost as soon as the original conditions are restored. This is not the creation of a new species through natural selection, nor is it the creation through altering the dominance of alleles in a population. It is not evolution in any way because it fails to produce a new species. It can be theorized that given enough time it might possibly produce a new species, but this flies in the face of current explanations regarding the Cambrian Explosion and what has been called “Instant Evolution” in some circles, or more commonly, the theory that states that evolution need not be gradual, but can make sudden massive leaps without transition. This unfounded theory is nothing more than an attempt to cover the lack of transitional species in the fossil record, and it is readily accepted by many Darwinists. More on this to come in a future article.

The point of this article is simply to point out some of the scientifically bad decisions that have been made regarding the search for evidence in favor of evolution, and some of the simple contradictions science has caused for itself by this correctable mistake that is being left uncorrected. It is ridiculous just as ridiculous to say that there are 14 different species of Darwin’s Finches as it is to say that every race of human is actually a different species. Dogs, wolves, and coyotes might be more appropriately called the same species but different subspecies (this bit of taxonomy predates evolution and has nothing to do with the Darwinists). In truth, either the definition of a species must be drastically changed, or our entire taxonomic classification system needs to be reworked. No matter which it is that finally occurs, it will not change the fact that we have yet to see any net change in existing species under any natural circumstances, and we have not been able to produce any net change in the lab that survives a return to natural condition or has resulted in any new species. Darwinists point to this evidence and see evolution. I look at it and see no net change, and therefore, no evidence for evolution.