Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thinkquote of the day: How do animals and plants become species, as in Darwin’s “Origin of Species”?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

University of Bristol (England) bacteriologist Alan H. Linton went looking for direct evidence of speciation and concluded in 2001:

“None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another … Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e. plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.” (Alan Linton, “Scant Search for the Maker,” Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001, Book section, 29.)

– from Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution, who has just published The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism (p. 59), updating the intelligent design controversy.
Remember that when a supercilious person informs you that there is overwhelming evidence for Darwin’s theory about how life originates*, grows, and changes and why people are what they are.

(*Yes, yes, I know Darwin didn’t try to explain the origin of life, only the origin of species, but most of his materialist followers are more sure of their dogmas than was the Master.)

The question is not whether species originate (they surely do) or whether Darwin’s favorite process of natural selection ever influences the course of events (surely it often does), but whether it is really the engine of the vast complexity of life that we see around us.

That last proposition is believed – and ordered to be taught in tax-funded schools – not because it is plausible but because it upholds materialism.

When asked about these matters, I usually say at this point, “Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the intelligent design controversy. Now you know why there is a controversy and why it cannot go away.” 

Comments
You may want to check what ad hominem means, Scott. I just noted that Linton's position, as quoted by Wells, is not even shared anymore by one of the main young-earth creationist organizations. That's a fact. If you have a problem with that, AiG's contact page is here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedback/ .Andrea
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Andrea, the full context was this... "This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind,” and involves no new genetic information. See Q&A: Speciation."SatyaMevaJayate
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
this canard of speciation has been observed has spread among NDEist's primarily due to the bogus talk origins faq.. See it here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html The detailed debunking of this mythical "proof" is here http://www.alternativescience.com/talk.origins-speciations.htm The NDE's have been postulating that the numerous varieties in a single species are different species due to their "reproductive isolation"( observed not via fertilization in lab but in nature) the debunking of supposed evolution of bacteria ( purportedly due to their resistance to anti-biotics) has also been done by the same science author Richard Milton.. http://www.alternativescience.com/talk.origins-antibiotic.htmSatyaMevaJayate
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
Andrea: Ad hominem... -1. Now, provide published evidence which demonstrates that Darwiniam mechanisms were responsible for speciation. Direct me to confirmed examples with detailed accounts of how NS + RM acheived biological novelty (i.e. bacteria-to-baboons). Just-So stories will not be permitted. Neither will \"any port in a storm\" tactics like in your previous post.Scott
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
University of Bristol (England) bacteriologist Alan H. Linton went looking for direct evidence of speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another." Just for the record, in this rather uninformed opinion, Dr. Linton finds himself somewhere to the more extreme Creationist side of the YEC outfit Answers in Genesis, which in its list of "Arguments we think Creationsists should not use", states: “No new species have been produced.” This is not true — new species have been observed to form. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.aspAndrea
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
OK, I volunteer to translate "Johnspeak." That means "my time will yet come."BarryA
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!" Gregor MendelJohn A. Davison
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." George Bernard Shaw ergo "Prescribed Evolution." A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
"Just wondering-was the nylonase bacteria classified as a seperate species?" Not even remotely. What's even more interesting, is that an E. Coli strain was detected which had, I believe, 46% NEW GENES. This isn't 46% changes, but 46% NEW GENES. And it _still_ wasn't a new species. We actually _do_ know what is most often responsible for new species currently, but biologists hate to admit it, because it has NOTHING to do with random mutation and natural selection. Anybody got a guess? SYMBIOSES My guess is that also community-induced traits plus genetic assimilation will also be found to be a significant creator of new species. Of course, what's really interesting is the number of "species" that are readily hybridable between each other. For a searchable database of some hybrids (work is ongoing to make this more complete), see HybriDatabase.johnnyb
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
After all Someone said some time ago: "... the truth shall make you free" ! K.kairos
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Here is a list of factors that now, as in the past, have nothing to do with either true speciation or the formation of any of the higher taxonomic categories. 1. Bisexual reproduction. 2. Allelic mutation. 3. Mendelian inheritance. 4. Selection either natural or artificial. 5. Populations including population genetics. 6. Chance The first four were essential in preventing change thus promoting extinction without which progressive evolution would have been impossible. In short there is absolutely nothing in the Darwinian fairy tale that ever had anything to do with creative progressive evolution. All that has ever been demonstrated is the production of intraspecific varieties in some but certainly not all organisms. Darwinian evolution is a delusion based on the assumption that evolution had an exogenous, testable, identifiable cause. Such a cause has not been found because it never existed. Phylogeny, exactly like ontogeny, was driven entirely from within the relatively few organisms that were competent to produce offspring radically and progressively different from themselves. Their numbers have steadily decreased over geological time until today they are no longer present. In my opinion they will never reappear. The entire scenario was preprogrammed exactly as is the development of the unique individual from a single cell, the egg. Ontogeny remains the perfect model for phylogeny. Ontogeny and phylogeny are expressions of the same original reproductive continuum of which there may have been more than one. Only ontogeny remains. The extinction of the species is the counterpart to the death of the individual. In 1984 I presented the Semi-meiotic hypothesis (SMH)as an alternatve to the Darwinian fable. Like all hypotheses, it remains viable until proven to be erroneous, a fate the Darwinian hypothesis met long ago. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
In deed, Kairos. Information is the nightmare of falsehood, and the unwillingness of Darwinists to allow people to see the other side is revealing.Mats
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Grasse made this same point back in the 70’s: “In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect . . . It is important to note that relict species mutate as much as others do, but do not evolve, not even when they live in conditions favorable to change (diversity of environments, cosmopolitianism, large populations) . . . Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. Like Erophila verna, bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago!" Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation (New York: Academic Press, 1977) 87.BarryA
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
"To me this is the easiest way to demonstrate the core of Intelligent Design to those outside of the debate." Agree, and I think that the worst nightmare for hard NDEers would be dreming those two videos are actually accessible through the major broadcast TVs. With 3-hours vision vs years of ND education the percentage of ID supporters would rise dramatically Kairoskairos
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
This is why the "3-Hour ID Challenge" is key. In "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" it is made clear that although variation culled by natural selection can explain the finch beak, it does not explain birds. And the truth of the matter is we don't even know how the varying beak sizes arose- Just that beak sizes do vary and we believe we understand the "reason" why certain beak sizes proliferate during certain environmental pressures. For anyone unfamiliar with the 3-Hour ID Challenge: Watch two videos- "The Privileged Planet" and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", and then, if you can without lying, tell us why ID is not based on observation and scientific research, but is based on religious doctrines and faith. To me this is the easiest way to demonstrate the core of Intelligent Design to those outside of the debate.Joseph
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
If you accept that species arise and that natural selection operates in nature and that genomes do get mutated, are we to take it that Intelligent Design posits a series of creation events whereby the created organisms can then change to some extent due to evolutionary processes?bebbo
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Just wondering-was the nylonase bacteria classified as a seperate species?devilsadvocate
August 13, 2006
August
08
Aug
13
13
2006
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply