Darwin: Headed for the Ash-Heap

Then I guess the question is what would you consider to be a demonstration of speciation? Because other posters have provided vast examples of it already. If you are simply dismissing all of that out of hand then there is nothing that I can do for you.

I am not the only one dissatisfied with the examples available. There are over 450 credentialed scientists (and many more who are now becoming aware of the movement) who side with skepticism on this very issue. It continues to look less and less foolish to question RMNS as a viable mechanism for speciation.

And compared to the 1000's of other sciencists (especially biologists) what do these guys actually bring to the table?

And compared to the 1000's of other sciencists (especially biologists) what do these guys actually bring to the table?

That is why we are having so many of these discussions. The scientists who are coming with alternative views are beginning to force their way into peer-review journals by embarrassing the entrenched Darwinists.

Expect to see a wave of rationally presented alternative views of the available data. Much of this is occurring as we speak, hence the multitude of articles for discussion on FReerepublic.

No. The IDers have not presented anything new for years. They use basically the same arguments that the creationists used 100 years ago. And the reality is that current science advancements are supporting evolution even more, not spelling its doom. To say otherwise is be either completely ignorant, or flat out dishonest.

And the reality is that current science advancements are supporting evolution even more, not spelling its doom. To say otherwise is be either completely ignorant, or flat out dishonest.

OK. I hope that makes you feel better.

Genetics: no friend of evolution
A highly qualified biologist tells it like it is.
by Lane Lester

Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.

To help us develop a new biology based on creation rather than evolution, let us sample some of the evidence from genetics, arranged under the four sources of variation: environment, recombination, mutation, and creation.

Environment
This refers to all of the external factors which influence a creature during its lifetime. For example, one person may have darker skin than another simply because she is exposed to more sunshine. Or another may have larger muscles because he exercises more. Such environmentally-caused variations generally have no importance to the history of life, because they cease to exist when their owners die; they are not passed on. In the middle 1800s, some scientists believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited. Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another. He thus explained the origin of the giraffe’s long neck in part through ‘the inherited effects of the increased use of parts’.1 In seasons of limited food supply, Darwin reasoned, giraffes would stretch their necks for the high leaves, supposedly resulting in longer necks being passed on to their offspring.

Recombination
This involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel’s great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

For example, from 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

Among the creatures Darwin observed on the Galápagos islands were a group of land birds, the finches. In this single group, we can see wide variation in appearance and in life-style. Darwin provided what I believe to be an essentially correct interpretation of how the finches came to be the way they are. A few individuals were probably blown to the islands from the South American mainland, and today’s finches are descendants of those pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today.2

Mutation
Now to consider the third source of variation, mutation. Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. Each living cell has intricate molecular machinery designed for accurately copying DNA, the genetic molecule. But as in other copying processes mistakes do occur, although not very often. Once in every 10,000–100,000 copies, a gene will contain a mistake. The cell has machinery for correcting these mistakes, but some mutations still slip through. What kinds of changes are produced by mutations? Some have no effect at all, or produce so small a change that they have no appreciable effect on the creature. But many mutations have a significant effect on their owners.

In a fallen world, predators like this tiger, by culling the more defective animals, may serve to slow genetic deterioration by screening out the effects of mutation. Right: The ‘naked rooster’ mutation—no feathers are produced. Such mutational defects may rarely be ‘beneficial’ (e.g. if a breeder were to select this type to prevent having to pluck pre-roasting?) but never add anything new. There is no mutation which shows how feathers or anything similar arose.

Based on the creation model, what kind of effect would we expect from random mutations, from genetic mistakes? We would expect virtually all of those which make a difference to be harmful, to make the creatures that possess them less successful than before. And this prediction is borne out most convincingly. Some examples help to illustrate this.

Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified.3 All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly—exactly as predicted by the creation model.

Is there, then, no such thing as a beneficial mutation? Yes, there is. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation.

Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.

Natural selection is the obvious fact that some varieties of creatures are going to be more successful than others, and so they will contribute more offspring to future generations. A favourite example of natural section is the peppered moth of England, Biston betularia. As far as anyone knows, this moth has always existed in two basic varieties, speckled and solid black. In pre-industrial England, many of the tree trunks were light in colour. This provided a camouflage for the speckled variety, and the birds tended to prey more heavily on the black variety. Moth collections showed many more speckled than black ones. When the Industrial Age came to England, pollution darkened the tree trunks, so the black variety was hidden, and the speckled variety was conspicuous. Soon there were many more black moths than speckled [Ed. note: see Goodbye, peppered moths for more information].

As populations encounter changing environments, such as that described above or as the result of migration into a new area, natural selection favours the combinations of traits which will make the creature more successful in its new environment. This might be considered as the positive role of natural selection. The negative role of natural selection is seen in eliminating or minimizing harmful mutations when they occur.

Creation
The first three sources of variation are woefully inadequate to account for the diversity of life we see on earth today. An essential feature of the creation model is the placement of considerable genetic variety in each created kind at the beginning. Only thus can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys, and zebras from the same kind; of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind; of some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves and coyotes from the same kind. As each kind obeyed the Creator’s command to be fruitful and multiply, the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see.

Sorry, forgot the Link.

What you just posted is so full of it, I don't even know where to begin. But again, it's all stuff we've heard before. Rebutals have already been posted, and we've moved on. IDer's got stuck in first gear, put on the brakes, and never got the car moving again. Are we to just sit here and chase our tails because IDer's don't want to put any real effort into it. Sorry, I'm not going to play that game anymore.

Sorry, I'm not going to play that game anymore.

It was good of you to wallow with us wannabe's for such a long time. I feel so privileged.

Thanks for explaining how everything is so obvious in terms that let me know you have a clear understanding of your beliefs. You are a tribute to rational logic, unimpeded by bias.

I can only have faith that God will some day cast His eye my way and bless me with the wisdom He has deemed you worthy of.