Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Influence of Biogeography on Evolutionary Thought

arroba Email

It is not that evolution is not true. Of course evolution is true—I evolved when I had breakfast this morning. As evolutionists like to say, evolution is mere change over time. Thus the changing of gene frequencies is a favorite proof text for evolution. But by broadening the definition of evolution to include anything and everything aside from absolute stasis, the term becomes essentially meaningless and ripe for equivocation.  Read more

Like Cornelius said...Darwinists barter with silly foils, false dichotomies and equivocation. Organisms vary, or "evolve", within genus, family or what the Bible calls "kind". Empirical evidence shows obvious constraints. By analogy, you can use a ladder to climb onto your roof but that doesn't mean you can use a ladder to climb to the moon. bb
as to:
from evolutionist and science historian Frank Sulloway: "Darwin’s revolutionary theory was that new species arise naturally, by a process of evolution, rather than having been created—forever immutable—by God.",,,
How one gets 'forever immutable' from the 'after their kind' verse in the Bible I do not know, especially from a agrarian culture that was well aquanted with artificial selection of farm animals,,
Genesis 1:25 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.
A few notes:
THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRAINTS ON VARIATION, FROM DARWIN TO THE PRESENT - IGOR POPOV - 2009 Excerpt: There are limitations to variability. "The real number of variations is lesser than expected one. There are no blue-eyed Drosophila, no viviparous birds or turtles, no hexapod mammals, etc. Such observations provoke non-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. Darwin tried rather unsuccessfully to solve the problem of the contradictions between his model of random variability and the existence of constraints. He tried to hide this complication citing abundant facts on other phenomena. The authors of the modern versions of Darwinism followed this strategy, allowing the question to persist. ...However, he was forced to admit some cases where creating anything humans may wish for was impossible. For example, when the English farmers decided to get cows with thick hams, they soon abandoned this attempt since they perished too frequently during delivery. Evidently such cases provoked an idea on the limitations to variability... The problem of the constraints on variation was not solved neither within the framework of the proper Darwin’s theory, nor within the framework of modern Darwinism." http://www.ludusvitalis.org/textos/32/32-11_popov.pdf GMO Bulls Now A Reality - January 11, 2014 Excerpt: "Due to genetic selection and experiments, the Belgian Blue is a humongous species of Bull, packed with muscles and meat. ...There is a gene that regulates the growth of muscles in cattle, These cows have been selectively bred from animals that contain a copy of this gene that doesn't work, as a result their muscles grow far larger than normal [They have a deletion mutation that prevents control of muscular growth = loss of genetic material]. ..Their uninhibited muscle growth presents a lot of health hazards, calves can develop enlarged tongues and stiff legs which make it difficult for them to eat and move, leading to an early and painful death." http://naturalhealthwarriors.com/gmo-bulls-now-a-reality/ Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - Mar 22, 2014 Excerpt: Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists (claim) that dog breeds prove macroevolution. However, virtually all the dog breeds are generated by losses or disturbances of gene functions and/or developmental processes. Moreover, all the three subfamilies of the family of wild dogs (Canidae) appear abruptly in the fossil record. http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/interview-with-wolf-ekkehard-lonnig/ podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00 "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." Kevin Kelly from his book, "Out of Control" "The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis. Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False - Jonathan Wells: Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d.html “Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless." R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990) It’s official: there are no ring species - July 2014 Excerpt: A while back, when I said in the comments of an evolution post that there were no good “ring species,” a few readers asked me what I meant by that. “What about the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii? Or seagulls in the genus Larus? Aren’t those good ring species?” My answer was that those had been shown not to be ring species in the classic sense, but there was still one species that might be a candidate: the greenish warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides around the Tibetan Plateau. But now that one, too, has been struck off the list of ring species, leaving no good cases. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/its-official-there-are-no-ring-species/ At one of her many public talks, she [Lynn Margulis] asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box - Page 26 Natural Selection and Evolution's Smoking Gun, - American Scientist - 1997 “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,”... “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Keith Stewart Thomson - evolutionary biologist “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the position of some people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” Roger Lewin - Historic Chicago 'Macroevolution' conference of 1980 "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire" Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883 etc.. etc..
From the linked story:
One of the scandals of evolutionary thought is that it actively trades on this equivocation. The result is a false dichotomy where the falsification of a silly foil—absolute stasis—is equated with the truth of evolution in the Darwinian sense. That is, that the biological world arose spontaneously.
If the idea of fixity of species originated with creationists, it shows how Christians shoot themselves in the foot by imposing their own ideas on scripture. If not, then it was simply a straw man because the Bible isn't the source of that idea and it was, as Cornelius said, a "silly foil". The term "kind", as translated into English and in "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind", clearly has much broader meaning than the idea of species which came thousands of years later. How many species of cattle make up the cattle kind? I think all cattle species, from yak to buffalo to dairy cow, can interbreed with fertile offspring and there is no evidence for them being anything but cattle with no potential of ever becoming something else. Genesis 30 tells of how Jacob tried to induce the birth of streaked and speckled livestock, Darwinian-peppered-moth-style changes, by setting rods of poplar and other wood branches in front of the females as they drank while mating. Not even Jacob believed in fixity of species. As crazy as that story sounds, late 19th and early 20th century scientists have done much worse. See phrenology and eugenics. Margaret Sanger, drawing on information from scientists of her day, believed there were glands that enhanced intelligence whenever one had sex. bb

Leave a Reply