At New Scientist: Questioning the idea of species

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 12, 2020

Darwinism, speciation}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

They appear to be continuing to take the idea that science questions things seriously:

Are you a human, or a human-Neanderthal hybrid? The concept of the species, one of the most basic in biology, may not be as well-defined as we think…
Traditional species concepts are further undermined by high levels of hybridisation in nature.
Kate Douglas, “We’re beginning to question the idea of species – including our own” at New Scientist

The free stuff ends there but in the paywalled part, one may read,

There probably isnʼt a clear answer to such questions. In the end, the whole idea of fixed species appeals to ideas of immutability in nature that now seem rather outdated. Biology is messy, and doesnʼt bend to our desire for clean classifications.
Kate Douglas, “We’re beginning to question the idea of species – including our own” at New Scientist

But, of course, when Darwinism turned science into some kind of religion, the title of his Great Testament was On the Origin of Species.

Hence the hunt for evidence of speciation as a sort of Holy Grail.

The thing is, nature is messy but not wholly so. If classifiers left the Search for Darwin’s Grail out of it, they might be able to come up with useful classifications – useful in the sense that they can be used for something practical.

It’s good news that they are thinking this way. If we’re going to vote money and legislation for environmental protection, we do need useful working classifications. Why waste time, money and energy “saving” a “species” that doesn’t really exist as a separate entity when some whole ecologies are critically endangered? And it doesn’t matter how we choose to classify the “species” within them.

At least these are more constructive discussions to be involved in than attacking or defending Darwinism.

Note: Recently, New Scientist published 13 rethinks of evolution, this being the 13th: (Reformed) New Scientist 13: We can stop evolution. New Scientist: “Today, evolution remains one of the most powerful ideas in science but, as with all good ideas, it is evolving ” Sure, but if evolution is evolving, Darwinism is dead. Which is fine with us. It’s a big world out there. Making everything sound like Darwin said it is not the way to explore that world. The others are also linked there.

Comments

Could this help to resolve this discussion? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/if-id-is-dead-why-are-some-obsessed-with-shutting-it-down/#comment-717133jawa_{November 15, 2020
November
11
Nov
15
15
2020
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

As to,
We're beginning to question the idea of species – including our own Excerpt: Take the apparently simple organising principle of a species. You might have learned at school that a species is a group of individuals that can breed to produce fertile offspring. But this is just one of at least 34 competing definitions concocted over the past century by researchers working in different fields.,,,, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432601-100-were-beginning-to-question-the-idea-of-species-including-our-own/
Likewise, last year a Darwinist also honestly admitted that “The most important concept in all of biology, (i.e. species), is a complete mystery”
What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019 Excerpt: Enough of species? This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete. The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,, some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,, https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200
It is refreshing to see Darwinists finally honestly confess, apparently unbeknownst to themselves, (that when it comes to explaining the 'origin of species'), that they have no clue what they are actually talking about. (i.e. how can you possibly explain the origin of something that you cannot even define?) In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted that he did not have a rigid definition for what the term ‘species’ actually meant when he stated that, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience.,,,”
“I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” – Charles Darwin
As should be needless to say, the inability for a supposedly scientific theory, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place, to clearly define what a species actually is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species” in the first place! Whereas Darwinists cannot even provide a rigid ‘scientific’ definition of what a species actually is, on the other hand, normal people in general, and Christians in particular, have no problem whatsoever recognizing what a species actually is when they see it. i.e. People never confuse a dog, with a cat, with a rodent, with a squirrel, or with etc.. etc.. etc.. The reason that Darwinists can never give a proper 'scientific' definition for what a species actually is because the concept of species is an abstract, i.e. immaterial, conceptualization of the immaterial mind. As the following article states, " a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.",,, " this denial (of true species) is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge."
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
Within their reductive materialistic framework, Darwinists simply have no foundation for grounding the abstract, i.e. immaterial, concept of 'species'. There simply is no physical measurement that Darwinists can point to and say, 'and this is exactly what we mean when we say the term 'species''' In other words, how much does the concept of species weigh? Does the concept ‘species’ weigh more in English or in Chinese? How long in the concept of species in millimeters? How fast does the concept of species go? Is the concept of species faster or slower than the speed of light? Is the concept of species positively or negatively charged? Or etc.. etc.. ?.. In the Darwinists materialistic worldview, if something is not composed of particles it simply does not exist and is considered an illusion. Thus, since species is clearly a abstract conceptualization of the immaterial mind, a conceptualization that cannot possibly be reduced to any grouping of material particles on may wish to invoke, then it should not be surprising to find Darwinists denying the existence of species, i.e. denying the 'true object of our knowledge',,, Besides the term “species”, there are many other immaterial categorizations and/or definitions that arise from the immaterial mind. Many immaterial categorizations that are necessary for us to even practice science in the first place. Mathematics, logic, truth, distance, time, species, person, information, etc.. etc.. all fall into the category of being an immaterial categorization of the immaterial mind. It is amazing how many things fall into that immaterial’ category even though most everyone, including atheists, (“atheists” also happens to be an immaterial categorization of the immaterial mind), swear that they exist physically. The primary ‘immaterial’ thing that completely invalidates the claim that Darwinian evolution qualifies as a hard science, (a hard science that is supposedly as ‘well established as gravity’), is the fact that mathematics, and logic, themselves, (which are the very backbone of all science, technology and engineering), are immaterial in their foundational nature and therefore mathematics, and logic, themselves cannot possibly find grounding within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian materialists. And as M. Anthony Mills explains, “In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.”
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
Mathematics and logic themselves, (which are, again, the very backbone of all science, technology and engineering), simply cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations. As Dr. Egnor explains, “What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem?,,, What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions?,,, What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? ”
Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond material world exists, need this immaterial, i.e. beyond space and time, world of 'Platonic' mathematics in order for their theory to even be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the objective reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of 'Platonic' mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of 'Platonic' mathematics, in order for their theory to even qualify as a hard science in the first place, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting worldview. Furthermore, the theistic implications of all this are fairly obvious. As Berlinski noted, “There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….”
An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
Moreover, the fact humans can even think about this timeless and immaterial realm of 'Platonic' mathematical objects is proof in and of itself that humans cannot possibly be purely material beings, as is held within the framework of Darwinian materialism, but that humans themselves must necessarily possess a timeless and immaterial component to their being so as to be able to even contemplate mathematics in the first place,. Simply put, our ability to ‘do mathematics’, in of itself, is compelling proof Humans must possess a ‘soul’. As Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin’s contemporary and co-discoverer of natural selection, himself noted “Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
“Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russel Wallace – Co-Discoverer of Natural Selection
Of course, with advances in quantum biology, there are many other 'physical' evidences that have come along that validate the Christian's contention that man must possess a immaterial component to his being, i.e. a 'soul', but I still, very much, like the simple, and straightforward, way in which Alfred Russel Wallace deduced that "the soul was a separate creation”. Namely, it is impossible to even begin to contemplate immaterial concepts, (such as math, music, and art), in the first place if we are purely material beings as is held in Darwinism.. Verse
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
Supplemental note on Quantum Biology
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
bornagain77_{November 13, 2020
November
11
Nov
13
13
2020
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Genus makes sense as a clear boundary, but species never did.
Really? I did my PhD on Erysiphe graminis (cereal powdery mildew). Just after I finished, taxonomists decided to put it in its own genus, Blumeria. Why? Mainly because it didn't have a primary germ tube, which could just be an adaptation to monocots. And then people started looking at the molecular phylogeny, and basically it's a mess compared to the older taxonomy with the Erysiphe genus cropping up all over the order Erysiphales rather than being in one clade. About the only thing that was clear was that Blumeria graminis should be on its own.Bob O'H_{November 13, 2020
November
11
Nov
13
13
2020
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

:) This is a joke of course.Darwinists tried with bacteria(fruit fly,etc.) but those obnoxious bacteria didn't red Darwin's fairytale so they refuse(d) to step out the boundary of a bacteria and become something else. If a bacterium don't do that it's game over but darwinists just won't go home they stay on the barricades until their fairytale become real. :)Sandy_{November 13, 2020
November
11
Nov
13
13
2020
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

Looking back, it's really hard to see the need for a level called species. Genus makes sense as a clear boundary, but species never did. There have always been well-known exceptions to the species rules, such as hybrid and grafted plants or mules. If Nature can cross the boundary so easily, why was the boundary needed?polistra_{November 12, 2020
November
11
Nov
12
12
2020
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

Perhaps they will eventually conclude that many of the species that can make cross species and cross genera hybrids are all descended from a single kind.aarceng_{November 12, 2020
November
11
Nov
12
12
2020
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply