Raving Conservative

Google

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

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.

37 Comments:

  • Daniel: Let us start with the basic definition of a species.

    What you should have said here is let us start with one definition of a species. I really don’t need to say any more than this because all your specious arguments from this point on depend on your implication that this is the only definition of a species.

    Daniel: Now let us look ever so briefly at Darwin’s Finches.

    You follow that with a weak summary of Chapter 8 of Icons of Evolution. Read this, Daniel, to see why you have been gulled by this creationist, Wells.

    Daniel: Let us look at humans.

    What a ridiculous, pointless argument. Do human races interbreed? Yes. Is Homo sapiens a single species. Yes, of course it is.

    Daniel: The definition of a species presents us with a very interesting case in the canine family.

    You mean your insistence on using only one definition for a species presents you with a false dilemma.

    Daniel: So, what was the point of all this?

    I’m wondering the same thing. What is the point of trotting out these ridiculous and thoroughly debunked arguments from creationist texts? What do you hope to prove with this series illustrating your ignorance of the theory of evolution? Who are you trying to fool?

    Do you think you are going to convince people who understand the scientific method and the need for evidence that creation is true? Not a chance. You haven’t presented and cannot present any evidence supporting creation.

    Are you trying to prop up your irrational beliefs by denying a theory that conflicts with your beliefs? If your beliefs were supported by evidence then you wouldn’t need to resort to these childish tactics—your beliefs would stand on their own. You’re just whistling in the dark to make yourself feel better.

    Are you trying to sway the ignorant and gullible to lure them into your irrational beliefs? That would be reprehensible. The last thing this world needs now is more blind ignorance and irrational behaviour.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 5:17 AM  

  • I'll post more later, but for the moment I suggest you read a bit about Ring Species and Haldane's Rule.

    By Anonymous Todd Sayre, at 7:26 AM  

  • Oh good grief! Some of your commentors need to find something better to do with their time than try to tear you up!

    I found it an interesting and thoughtful post, Daniel. I'm not educated in this subject enough to conclude anything based on your effort here, and I admit it. I do appreciate the effort however. And I apologize for not visiting more often. I have been extremely busy.

    This ongoing arguement of evolution versus creationism is just that: "ongoing." I think it always shall be. To me, evolution does not disprove creationism, it only strengthen it. And you have just as much right to your opinion and conclusions as anyone else does! Blessings. :)

    By Blogger Gayle, at 8:19 AM  

  • Gayle -

    I see you want to live in a world where no one disagrees with your opinion.

    From your profile:
    ... No matter what facts are presented, many people will ignore them. Therefor I no longer blog to debate. This blog is for conservative thought and opinion, and to talk to my friends. I run Halo Scan and will either ban anyone who uses foul language or is obnoxious, or edit their comments to be favorable praise. I'm telling you up front, because that's the way it is.

    You pathetic wretch. I have so little respect for you it makes my feelings for Daniel look positively lustful in comparison.

    Edit others comments so they become what you want them to be? Christ, go burn some frigg'n books while you're at it. However, never, EVER, complain about what Daniel's commentors post here. Daniel puts his ideas up for debate and some people choose to respond. He doesn't edit them to fit his world view, he would never do that. And even when we disagree 99.9% of the time, we can still trust him on that.
    You hate America, Gayle, and your treatment of the rights and voice of others proves it. It's people like you who would elevate someone to dictator, and I hate you for it.

    Daniel -
    You have got to try harder than this. These arguments will only work on the people who agree with you no matter what you spout. You aren't changing minds. Fire off with some of your better arguments soon, or risk losing our attention. And try reading the criticism of these books you are using. It might help.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:54 AM  

  • Todd Sayre,

    Your argument regarding ring species does not go contrary to anything I have stated here. In the wild Wolves and coyotes do not interbreed at all even though they are capable of doing so. In the wild there are 3 different populations of Killer Whales that do not interbreed at all even though their home ranges overlap. Each od thee kiler whale types acn be distinguished by their diet, social behavior, and the size and shape of thier doersal fins. These differences have arrived after thousands of years of years of genetic isolation from each other in spite of the fact that members of each of these 3 populations do encounter each other in the wild.

    Haldanes Rule syas nothing whatever to go against what I have said the I saw in my review of the link you sent me. It only states that sometimes hybrids produce less fertile offspring despite their own fertility if the proper conditions are met. Not exactly a problem for anything I have posted here.

    CJB,

    By the definition of a species you are wanting to follow then every breed of dog, cat, horse, pig, and cow in the world is actually a different spedies rather than a breed within a species. No serious taxonomist or zoologist buys into this idea at all, and the definition you are suggesting I follow is simply sloppy science based on this. Perhaps this iwhy the definition that presented is he only definition of a species I was taught in school and college.

    "You follow that with a weak summary of Chapter 8 of Icons of Evolution. Read this, Daniel, to see why you have been gulled by this creationist, Wells."

    There is nothing in your link that goes against the facts that I have presented here. The fcacts are that the definition of a psecies, the one that is scientifically useful and is actually taught to people, shows us that there are only 6 ditict species of Darwin's Finches in the Galapagos Islands. Also, any critical look at Rosemary and Peter Grant's work exposes the fact their supposed "evolution in action" is simply the normal flux of gene dominance within a spcies as determined by environmental conditions. As conditions favor one peexistig trait the population swings toward that trait, when conditions again favor the previously dominant trait the secies swings back toward that one. The is no evolutionhere as there is no net change and no new secies. When an isolated population of an oranism becomes so incredibly different from the species it came from that it can no longer breed withthe old species and make fertile offspring we finally have a new secies. so far we have see no evidience of this happening in nature or the lab.

    "What a ridiculous, pointless argument. Do human races interbreed? Yes. Is Homo sapiens a single species. Yes, of course it is."

    But according to the deinition you are suggesting we follow in your firt link the varioius races of humanity are actually different species because we are so biologically diverse. Are you suggesting we only use your apparently preferred dfinition as it applies to non-human animals? Are you beginning to see the weakness in your own arguments? YOu start by presenting one argument that favors your own Darwinist vies, but then you turn around and contradict that same argument when you are forced to apply it to humanity. At least the definition I am using is universally applicile, hance, it is actually scientifically accurate.

    "You mean your insistence on using only one definition for a species presents you with a false dilemma."

    No, I mean interesting when we eliminate the unusable definitions like the one you put forth. It is also not a false dilemma to point out that dogs, woloves, and coyotes have successfully interbred. It is also not a false dilemma to present a hyopthesis for a viable experiment regarding the interbreeding of representatives of every dog breed in the world. Are you developing a problem with scientific experimentation if it might produce results that go against your own beliefs?

    "Do you think you are going to convince people who understand the scientific method and the need for evidence that creation is true?"

    I have said nothing refarding creation in this article, and creation has nothing to do withthis article. This article is simply pointing out that there are flawed practices being engaged in right now by scientists in the classification of species, and that these flaws weaken a great deal of the supposed evidence for evolution. AM I saying anything about creation in this post? only if you make thejump from evolution being wrong to Creation being all that is left . . .

    Anonomys,

    Before I ever began this series I laid out the rules for debate. One of those rules to not atack other commentors and to actually stay on subject.

    I have allowed the definition of subject to expand to the fringe topics barely applicable to the article of the week, but I will not allow personal attacks against other people who post here.

    I will leave your assault on Gayle up for one reason only: it demonstrates your own deep seated hatred of opposing views and lack of respect for how people choose to runthier own business. If she wants to delete and ban people for profanity she has a right to do that on her blog. Just like I have the right and ability to delete any comment I wish. I have done this in the past when people have thrown bizzarre, off topic attacks in the comments that I decided were irrelevant to the article, and were designed more as propaganda than anything constructive or intelligent. If someone to assault religion, for example, it is inappropriate to toss a 5,000 word article on religion in the comments of a post about farming.

    I do not ban people because I think that any argument produced by any side of a debate is useful for somehthing, and I respect other views even if I do not agree with them. Just as you could perhaps learn to respect that Gayle thinks that foul language and reckless assaults and character assassination does not belong on her blog and that she has decided to take measures to keep it off her blog.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:44 AM  

  • I think 'anonymous' was more upset that Gayle runs her blog like a dictator , by her own admission in that quote about editing posts she disagrees with...

    I just wish that 'anonymous' wouldn't be such a coward about complaining about freedom of speech.

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 1:53 PM  

  • DP76 -

    I'm not just anonymous, I am Anonymous. Always have been, always will be. Probably just too lazy to register with blogger.

    What's the difference between calling myself Anonymous or TheKumquatofFreedom? You'll know me by my voice, just as Daniel does. Who couldn't distinguish between me and the other anonymous spouting conspiracy theories and lunacy? Yeah, I'm the other one.

    Cheers!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:46 PM  

  • Daniel: By the definition of a species you are wanting to follow then every breed of dog, cat, horse, pig, and cow in the world is actually a different spedies rather than a breed within a species.

    What? Where on Earth did you get that idea from? The article I referred to indicates that there are multiple definitions for the term ‘species’ and, in fact, it is rather ill defined. You seem to want to say that there is only one definition so that any examples you can find that conflict with that definition just show how stupid those scientists are. It’s nothing but a pathetic straw man argument. The rest of your response to my comment simply perpetuates this straw man.

    Daniel: I have said nothing refarding creation in this article, and creation has nothing to do withthis article.

    Again, if you had any comprehension skills worth speaking of, you would have noticed that I wasn’t referring to this one article. I was referring to your series on evolution of which this article is a part. And you have certainly spoken about creation within this series though you have studiously avoided providing any evidence to support it.

    Daniel: This article is simply pointing out that there are flawed practices being engaged in right now by scientists in the classification of species, these flaws weaken a great deal of the supposed evidence for evolution.

    Total hogwash, Daniel. The flaws aren’t in the classification of species; they are in your thinking and your straw man arguments. Cladistics and molecular systematics describe the relationship between organisms. All you are doing is arguing about the semantics of an early scientific term.

    The further we get into this series, Daniel, the more foolish you appear. You aren’t doing creationists any good at all by reiterating these thoroughly debunked canards. You just look like another fool protecting his irrational beliefs by attacking anything that threatens them. If you want respect for your beliefs then provide some evidence to support them. If they are worth believing then they should be strong enough to stand on their own. Even if the theory of evolution had never existed, there would still be no reason at all to believe the silly notions that you do.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 5:01 PM  

  • Good job, Daniel - I find it interesting that those opposing you have to resort to name calling. Why can't everyone keep their opinions to the facts without making fun of those who think differently, like you do? Anyone who thinks they are 100% right and the other is 100% wrong is gravely mistaken and is missing out on a lot in life.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:33 PM  

  • CJB,

    I get it from the idea that any amount of biodiversirty must be a new species. Further in the site it actually gives a definition that supports what I have stated in this very article when it states "A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed in nature to produce a fertile offspring. Stated in another way, species are reproductively isolated groups of populations. Organisms classified in the same species have very similar gene pools." However, for some reason you interperet this to mean thatthe six species of Darwin's Finches are actualy 14, hence, my assertion that by your logic every breed of dog, cat, horse, pig, and cow in the world is actually a different spedies rather than a breed within a species. Once again, you are presenting evidence that favors what I am saying as if it were evidence to the contrary. Do think your evidence through better if you want to actually contradict my assertions.

    "I was referring to your series on evolution of which this article is a part"

    I knew that, however, I do believe the rules of debate require some semblance of staying on topic for each weeks article. I have brought religion into previous articles, and that made it fair game. However, this article is all about science. Religion is not the tool against evolution in science, the science itself is quite sufficient to wreck evolution.

    "The flaws aren’t in the classification of species"

    I do believe I have just pointed flaws in species classification. Yet you are saying that these flaws are not truly flaws with absolutely no supporting evidence. You accuse me of sounding foolish, but I think it you who are souding foolish the more you try to contradict my assertions with evidence that supports my asertions and try to claim that demonstrable flaws are not really flaws at all. Are you just a sloppy thinker, or are you intellectually dishonest?

    As far as attak\cking evolution to try to prove my religion rioght goes . . it's an uttterly unneccessary excersize. It is just a happy coincidence that I can insert my religin here and ther to offer alternative explanations where science has failed so far. Evolution is so scientifically flawed that science wrecks it. I offer God as the remaining alternative, but you are welcome to offer a third alternative if you have the ability to formulate one.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:14 PM  

  • I think I got Anonymous and anonymous mixed up...

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 12:37 AM  

  • Daniel: Further in the site it actually gives a definition that supports what I have stated in this very article when it states "A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed in nature to produce a fertile offspring. Stated in another way, species are reproductively isolated groups of populations. Organisms classified in the same species have very similar gene pools."

    Yes, it does, and in the very next paragraph goes on to say that this definition is idealistic, does not take into consideration species that reproduce asexually and gives several other reasons why it can’t be used as the only definition of a species. The article then goes on to give six definitions of the term ‘species’ and concludes with this.

    Nevertheless, no species concept yet proposed is entirely objective, or can be applied in all cases without resorting to judgement. Given the complexity of life, some have argued that such an objective definition is in all likelihood impossible, and biologists should settle for the most practical definition.

    Daniel: However, for some reason you interperet this to mean thatthe six species of Darwin's Finches are actualy 14, hence, my assertion that by your logic every breed of dog, cat, horse, pig, and cow in the world is actually a different spedies rather than a breed within a species.

    What are you talking about? Where did I say anything about any of this? What I said was that you cannot use a single definition of the term ‘species’ to cover all your scenarios. You are using the one definition in places where it shouldn’t be used and then criticising it for not fitting. You’re engaging in straw man arguments.

    Daniel: Once again, you are presenting evidence that favors what I am saying as if it were evidence to the contrary.

    The evidence I presented shows that there are multiple definitions for the term ‘species’, not one as you imply. It also shows that Wells is misleading his readers, but most of them will be too ignorant to see it.

    Daniel: I do believe I have just pointed flaws in species classification.

    What you demonstrated is the flaw in using only one definition for a species and applying it inappropriately.

    Daniel: It is just a happy coincidence that I can insert my religin here and ther to offer alternative explanations where science has failed so far.

    Oh please. Religion doesn’t offer any valid explanations for the workings of the natural world. All it offers is ‘God did it’, which is the same as saying that you don’t have any idea how it happened.

    Daniel: I offer God as the remaining alternative, but you are welcome to offer a third alternative if you have the ability to formulate one.

    An alternative to what, evolution, creation? Okay, how about Lamarckism as an alternative to evolution and panspermia or exogenesis as alternatives to creation. However, Lamarckism has been discredited and only the theory of evolution survives as the theory supported by the evidence. Panspermia and exogenesis have no direct evidence supporting them, much like creation, so I imagine you could say they are viable alternatives to creation. But panspermia and exogenesis are explanations for abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution still occurs after the planet is seeded. Creation maintains that every species on the Earth today was placed here fully formed and that evolution doesn’t occur. This position is clearly refuted by the evidence because there is an enormous amount of evidence to show that evolution does occur.

    Gayle: Some of your commentors need to find something better to do with their time than try to tear you up!

    Well Gayle, whenever people make false claims, I will refute them.

    Gayle: To me, evolution does not disprove creationism, it only strengthen it.

    This is an interesting statement. Could you expand on this, please? How does the theory of evolution strengthen creationism?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 3:21 AM  

  • CJB,

    "The article then goes on to give six definitions of the term ‘species’ . . ."

    What you are failing to grasp here is that these extra definitions are all new when compared to tehe one I have given, unproven as the article itself states the mere fact that they are presented only as possibilities, and serve only to muddy the waters for people who cannot grasp the most basic concepts of life. You want to kow about species that reproduce asexually? How do they fit into the definition I give? They produce offspring, those offspring are fertile, they are the same species as the parent. It's as simple as that. By trying make very simple concepts overly complex all that is served is to create confusion, as you are apparently confused by your own stated inability to fit asexually reproducing species into the definition I gave. What's more, the definition I gave can actually be supported by genetics, which is a far more powerful tool than taxonomy for determining similarities, and has actually beeen forcing some reclassification of species due to the powerful evidence it provides.

    "What I said was that you cannot use a single definition of the term ‘species’ to cover all your scenarios."

    And you are wrong.

    "What you demonstrated is the flaw in using only one definition for a species and applying it inappropriately."

    What I have shown is the flaw in imagining up new ways to classify species so you canmake them fit into a predetermined view you wish to promote. What I have shown is the flaw in Darwinist thinking that says if the current facts don't support the theory make up new ways to interperet the facts regardless of the actual validity or usefulness of those interperetations.

    "Evolution still occurs after the planet is seeded."

    This is completely unproven, and every year more evidence comes out that is damaging to the theory. It is failing miserably. I give evolution no more than 50 years before those who believe in it are relegated to the staus of flat Earthers or cultists. I suggest you start looking for a new explanation.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:37 AM  

  • Daniel: 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.

    You are trying to say that the way species are defined somehow refutes the fact that evolution occurs. How we define species is a purely arbitrary method of dividing organisms into classifications for our own cataloguing. It has no bearing on the natural processes of evolution or the fact that we can see that evolution occurs. You are just using it as a red herring.

    Daniel: …the definition I gave can actually be supported by genetics, which is a far more powerful tool than taxonomy for determining similarities, and has actually beeen forcing some reclassification of species due to the powerful evidence it provides.

    Exactly. Cladistics and molecular systematics are forcing the reclassification of some species because they do provide powerful evidence of the relatedness of organisms, which is more evidence for common descent. It also shows that our previous method of classification for those species was arbitrary.

    Daniel: This is completely unproven, and every year more evidence comes out that is damaging to the theory.

    If you believe this, Daniel, you are living in a fantasy world. Yes, the theory of evolution is “unproven”, as are all scientific theories, but it is supported by so much evidence that it is widely considered to be a fact.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 5:16 PM  

  • CJB,

    "It has no bearing on the natural processes of evolution or the fact that we can see that evolution occurs."

    Your links only show that either we simply observed this species of mosquito before, or that what we thought were 2 different species are simply the same one with regionalized morphological differences, like the kind Europeans and Africans display. There is no conclusive evidence that any evolution has occured, and any position that states it has is pure speculation.

    "Cladistics and molecular systematics are forcing the reclassification of some species because they do provide powerful evidence of the relatedness of organisms, which is more evidence for common descent."

    Stay tuned for an entire post on this coming up. Given this, I will not be delving into the topic here. You'll just have to wait.

    "If you believe this, Daniel, you are living in a fantasy world. Yes, the theory of evolution is “unproven”, as are all scientific theories, but it is supported by so much evidence that it is widely considered to be a fact."

    FIrst you say that stating that evolution is unproven is fantasy, then you say that it is unproven in the very same paragraph. Quit contradicting yourself. As for your assertion that it is supported by overwhelming evidence, that is is simply untrue. Much of the supposed evidence if false, whether by mistake or fraud. Furthermore, evidence continues to mount that puts evolution further in doubt. To retain your adamant faith in the theory of evolution requires you to ignore the evidence to the contrary.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 12:21 PM  

  • Daniel: Your links only show that either we simply observed this species of mosquito before, or that what we thought were 2 different species are simply the same one with regionalized morphological differences, like the kind Europeans and Africans display.

    No, the link doesn’t show this. That is your misinterpretation of just the first example. There were many more examples in the link. For instance, how will you try to explain away ring species?

    Daniel: FIrst you say that stating that evolution is unproven is fantasy

    No, I meant that your statements that “every year more evidence comes out that is damaging to the theory” and “It is failing miserably” are fantasies. As I mentioned before, there is far, far more evidence supporting the theory of evolution than you will ever mention in this series. Look at all the references at the bottom of the pages I linked to. If you go to NCBI and search for the term ‘speciation’ you will find many articles in the various databases. Look through some of the 2,588 free articles on just this one aspect of evolution to obtain an appreciation of the sheer amount of evidence there is for the theory of evolution and the work that has been done to discover it. Your debunked creationist claims pale into insignificance in comparison to the real evidence.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 3:36 PM  

  • Daniel, I appreciate your defending me. Why should I have to tolerate profanity when I find it extremely offensive? Unlike the person who attacked me, I will not attack him/her. No point in such foolishness. Just wanted to thank you.

    And now, an off topic comment (sorry): I'm extremely happy to find out from your last post that you are expecting a child. Good luck with that, and many blessings. :)

    By Blogger Gayle, at 7:35 AM  

  • I find it interesting that you allow cjb to continue posting here as he cannot seem to follow the basic rule of debate.....



    Debate the arguments and the facts, not the person.


    It really is sad.

    By Blogger Haximus, at 9:23 AM  

  • Gayle,

    Perhaps you missed my question regarding your previous comment.

    Gayle: To me, evolution does not disprove creationism, it only strengthen it.

    Could you expand on this, please? How does the theory of evolution strengthen creationism?

    Haximus,

    By all means, please join the debate on the arguments and the facts. Perhaps you can offer us some credible evidence in support of the creation myth?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 6:29 PM  

  • cjb, I have no intention of starting a war of words with you because all you can do is offer personal attacks. If you see it as a good way to debate, maybe you would be better off somewhere else.

    By Blogger Haximus, at 5:26 AM  

  • Haximus: all you can do is offer personal attacks.

    All I can do, all I can do… There you go again, Haximus, using absolutes unwisely. Look at my posts above. Do you honestly see nothing but personal attacks? No links or references catch your eye, no attempts to address Daniel’s arguments?

    If you feel you have something to add to the conversation, please say it. Offer some arguments to support Daniel’s position that evolution is false and creation is true; or vice versa.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 6:22 AM  

  • I gotta have more cowbell!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:54 AM  

  • cjb, if you have any arguements worth reading they are overshadowed by personal attacks and straw man arguements.

    If I had indistinguishable proof that God existed and created man from his finger but I did it by calling all your arguements weak, pointless, ridiculous, small minded, foolish,irrational, childish, ignorant, gullible, stupid, silly, lacking comprehension, ignorant, and on and on and on.....Would you listen to what I had to say?

    These are all examples I have taken just from this particular posts comments. Every time you post it is not simply enough to state your point but to insult someone else. I frankly don't care what you have to say if you cannot participate in a civil discourse.

    By Blogger Haximus, at 8:35 PM  

  • Haximus: If I had indistinguishable proof that God existed and created man from his finger but I did it by calling all your arguements weak, pointless, ridiculous, small minded, foolish, irrational, childish, ignorant, gullible, stupid, silly, lacking comprehension, ignorant, and on and on and on.....Would you listen to what I had to say? These are all examples I have taken just from this particular posts comments.

    I think you need to re-read my comments. Some of these I will admit to, but others are, I think, misreadings on your part. And ‘small minded’ appears in no comment to this post except yours.

    In answer to your question, yes, I would listen to what you had to say if you offered credible evidence to support your arguments. If you offered credible evidence then I would have to examine it and explore your arguments further. To do otherwise would mean that I was ignorant and foolish. If my arguments were indeed all the things you describe then it would serve me well to listen to your alternatives. Again, I would be a fool not to. However, I would probably stop listening to what you had to say if all you ever did was call me names and you never refuted my arguments and never provided any evidence in support of your own.

    So, do you have any credible evidence that God exists or that creation is true? Of course, you need to prove the first before attempting the second.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 2:35 AM  

  • Small Minded wasn't expressed verbatim but was expressed in your replies. But you have an absolute refusal to listen to anything said by me in the past and somehow I think it would continue. However you have a need for absolutes for my arguements but not for your own. Please prove in hard facts with athe needed progressions from one species to another that evolution does indeed exist. Because if all I have is a sparse amounts of evidence like you have provided with all the gaps in it, I see no reason to place any more faith in evolution than in God.

    By Blogger Haximus, at 5:49 AM  

  • Haximus,

    I wasn’t meaning specifically you in my previous post; I was using ‘you’ generically. I just used ‘you’ because I was replying to your question where you used yourself as an example. I will listen to anyone’s arguments if they are supported by credible evidence.

    I’m not requiring that your arguments offer absolute proof, either. When I said ‘absolute’, I meant that it is unwise to use words like ‘all’, ‘always’, ‘none’ and ‘never’, as you’ve done in the past. You said that all I can do is offer personal attacks when I don’t think that is true. I think that I do refute arguments and provide evidence to support my arguments as well.

    If you look at the links I provided to TalkOrigins and the NCBI, you will see that the evidence is far from sparse. The TalkOrigins articles on species have references at the bottom of the page. You could check those to see that there is a substantial amount of evidence showing that speciation has been observed. You could also read through some of the free articles in the NCBI database for more evidence or even buy or borrow some textbooks on various aspects of evolution to satisfy your requirement for evidence. The evidence in these references is in the form of hard facts gathered through observation, experimentation and testing; in short, by using the scientific method.

    Haximus: I see no reason to place any more faith in evolution than in God.

    I agree with you that you should not have ‘faith’ in the theory of evolution; you should, however, accept the evidence and trust that scientists are telling the truth. If you don’t accept the evidence that has been gathered by the scientists in the various fields supporting the theory of evolution then I guess you don’t trust anything scientists tell us because all reputable scientists use the same scientific method. For instance, do you trust scientists when they say that molecules exist or the planet Pluto exists? After all, it’s not as if you can see these things for yourself so you have to trust the scientists at some point. Why will you not accept the real and tested evidence that supports the theory of evolution, but instead be willing to accept that God exists without any credible evidence at all? This is what I find so strange about religious believers. They won’t believe something that has plenty of evidence supporting it, but they will believe something that has no evidence at all supporting it. It just doesn’t make sense.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 7:20 PM  

  • I agree with you that you should not have ‘faith’ in the religion; you should, however, accept the evidence and trust that theologians are telling the truth. If you don’t accept the evidence that has been gathered by the theologians in the various fields supporting God then I guess you don’t trust anything theologians tell us because all reputable theologians use the same method. For instance, do you trust theologians when they say that Jesus existed or the apostles exist? After all, it’s not as if you can see these things for yourself so you have to trust the theologians at some point. Why will you not accept the real and tested evidence that supports God, but instead be willing to accept that evolution exists without any credible evidence at all? This is what I find so strange about evolution believers. They won’t believe something that has plenty of evidence supporting it, but they will believe something that has no evidence at all supporting it. It just doesn’t make sense.

    By Blogger Haximus, at 7:36 PM  

  • How witty and clever of you to take my argument and turn it around to your point of view. Sadly, it doesn’t work because the situation is not symmetrical. I’ve given you reasonable and credible evidence supporting the theory of evolution, but you’ve given us none supporting your beliefs.

    Haximus: Why will you not accept the real and tested evidence that supports God

    Such as?

    Show me real and tested evidence that supports God or creation. I’ve done this for evolution. Can you do the same for your religious beliefs? The evidence for evolution comes from many scientific fields and has been tested and confirmed many times and in many ways. I’ve given you links to some of the evidence and told you how you can obtain more. Please show us some similarly solid evidence for the existence of God. So far, you’ve given us none at all.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 1:28 AM  

  • cjb asked: "How does the theory of evolution strengthen creationism?" Only those who have an absolute faith in God will understand my answer: "If evolution should ever be proven to be a fact, it does not discredit God. It only strengthens Him, because He was the one who designed everything to work the way it does." See what I mean? You must have faith in God to understand where I'm coming from. Without it, you will simply relegate me to the category of a religious fanatic, which I expect you to do, but it's perfectly all right. :)

    By Blogger Gayle, at 6:33 AM  

  • Gayle: Only those who have an absolute faith in God will understand my answer: “If evolution should ever be proven to be a fact, it does not discredit God. It only strengthens Him, because He was the one who designed everything to work the way it does.”

    That’s an admirable point of view, Gayle, but you seem to be out of step with the majority of the faithful. If your answer is true then one has to wonder why Daniel and others who have an absolute faith in God are so anti-evolution. Perhaps it’s because they feel that if evolution is true then it contradicts the creation myth, which means that God is unnecessary as an explanation for the variety of life we see on Earth and humans are nothing special, just another animal evolved from a lower form. If evolution is true then it could all have happened without God.

    I already accept that evolution is true based on the evidence for it; your answer won’t change that. So you don’t really need to convince me that your answer is true, Gayle, you need to convince your fellow faithful. Perhaps you should explain to them what part God played in evolution. Then we can all accept that evolution is true without any argument and Daniel won’t need to continue this series. He can be content in the knowledge that creation is false, but that’s okay because evolution is all God’s work.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 2:50 PM  

  • You are right CJB. My answer does not disprove, or prove, evolution. To me, evolution is only a theory of how things evolve. And if they do evolve, God's hand is in that too. And thank you for not calling me a religious fanatic. I appreciate that! :)

    By Blogger Gayle, at 3:28 PM  

  • By the way, CJB, I'm not out of step with most of the people I church with... some of them are more fundamentalist than I, but not most of them. But you are right, I am out of step with the majority of Christians; a fact which does not bother me in the least. ;)

    By Blogger Gayle, at 3:34 PM  

  • Gayle: And if they do evolve, God's hand is in that too.

    Well, organisms did evolve and the process is continuing today. There’s plenty of evidence to show that. So how is it that when we examine the mechanisms of evolution they appear to be entirely the result of natural processes with no divine intervention apparent or required? What was the evidence that led you to your conclusion that God had or has a hand in it? I’m presuming you based your conclusion on some evidence. You wouldn’t have just assumed an answer.

    By Anonymous cjb, at 4:59 PM  

  • I base my conclusion on Faith, cjb. "Faith" is not something I can prove to anyone. "Faith" in God needs no proof. Either one has it or one has not.

    The entire universe and beyond works like a machine. Everything, outer space, inner space, and in-between runs like clockwork. The only thing that sometimes screws up the clock is mankind. How it works and why it works is beyond all of our comprehension. You cannot do away with a "creator" simply because you wish to do so. As I said before, I cannot prove to you there is a God. You would have to experience Him yourself. I have witnessed too many unexplainable events in my lifetime to not believe in God. I hope one day you will understand what I mean.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 6:32 AM  

  • This will b short since I have been absent for os of this debate and the newest post goes up very soon.

    CJB,

    "Show me real and tested evidence that supports God or creation. I’ve done this for evolution."

    No, you haven't. Everything you have presented has had demonstable flaws. Until you can provide something more solid, and devoid of irrationality, flawed reasoning, flawed logic, and invalid speculation you have offered no evidence, no proof, nothing.

    "If your answer is true then one has to wonder why Daniel and others who have an absolute faith in God are so anti-evolution."

    AGain, you kep asuming that it is my faith that causes my problems with evolution. it is the science, not the faith that causes me to have prolems with evolution. There is so much bad and fallacy wraped up in evolution that I find it to be fraudulent. That is why I am writing this series, to give some exposure to the science, and show how science dies not support evolution. For many years I was of Gayle's point of view. I marveled at how something as impossible as evolution, as abiogenisis, and the creation of the universe itself was worked out by God through these natural mechanisms wih onnl the occasional neccessary push, only an occasion bit of divine intervention to make things work out the way they have. It was science that turned me.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:23 PM  

  • Daniel: Until you can provide something more solid, and devoid of irrationality, flawed reasoning, flawed logic, and invalid speculation you have offered no evidence, no proof, nothing.

    Oh come on, Daniel. Are you trying to tell me that all the papers at the NCBI, all textbooks on the theory of evolution and all university biology courses are worthless? Do you honestly expect us to believe that all scientists working in the fields supporting the theory of evolution are wrong and have always been wrong? Please tell me what evidence would convince you that the theory of evolution is true. Is there any evidence that would convince you that evolution is true and creation is false?

    By Anonymous cjb, at 12:25 AM  

  • CJB,

    "Are you trying to tell me that all the papers at the NCBI, all textbooks on the theory of evolution and all university biology courses are worthless?"

    I am saying that any erronious scientific theory is worthless.

    "Do you honestly expect us to believe that all scientists working in the fields supporting the theory of evolution are wrong and have always been wrong?"

    Of course not. Some of them think that evolution is impossible, and it is their reseacrh that got me started on this series in the first place.

    "Is there any evidence that would convince you that evolution is true and creation is false?"

    If it out there, I have not seen it. When I looked for it what I found was a bunch of information casting greater and greater doubt on evolution instead.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares