A little something regarding the decline of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinists
August 7, 2018 at 6:46 pm #10701
Then, let Earle be Earle.
@toms, I’m in favor of moving the off-topic comments to their own, separate topic. But only if you say ok.
—– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —–
–Edit 9 Aug 2018– New topic created [by PopeBeanie, Moderator, which you are reading now] “A little something regarding the decline of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinists”. I split off its first posts (up to #10723 on page 3) from Tom Sarbeck’s “When Life Became Sentient” for being off-topic in a voluminous way. With Tom Sarbeck’s permission.August 7, 2018 at 6:47 pm #10622
Not to intrude too much. A little something regarding the decline of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinists.
Most people of significant intelligence and interest know that Darwin had a primitive idea regarding the nature and structure of cells; as he and others along the way (intentionally or unintentionally) called natural variation among species (microevolution). As much study as there has been on this salient Darwinian point; there is no microevolution– it’s simply differentiation among the species just as humans have various skin color, eye color, height, weight, etc.– we are all humans. There has been never been a transition from one specie to any other. Bears have always been bears, goat are goats, etc. Science continues to reveal more and more than Darwinism isn’t even a good theory anymore; let alone a scientific fact: here’s some facts regarding variations for you review.
As we have seen, genetic science has discovered that variations, which Darwin thought could account for “the origin of species,” actually do no such thing. For this reason, evolutionary biologists were forced to distinguish between variation within species and the formation of new ones, and to propose two different concepts for these different phenomena. Diversity within a species-that is, variation-they called “microevolution,” and the hypothesis of the development of new species was termed “macroevolution.”
These two concepts have appeared in biology books for quite some time. But there is actually a deception going on here, because the examples of variation that evolutionary biologists have called “microevolution” actually have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution proposes that living things can develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. However, as we have just seen, variations can never create new genetic information, and are thus unable to bring about “evolution.” Giving variations the name of “microevolution” is actually an ideological preference on the part of evolutionary biologists.
The impression that evolutionary biologists have given by using the term “microevolution” is the false logic that over time variations can form brand new classes of living things. And many people who are not already well-informed on the subject come away with the superficial idea that “as it spreads, microevolution can turn into macroevolution.” One can often see examples of that kind of thinking. Some “amateur” evolutionists put forward such examples of logic as the following: since human beings’ average height has risen by two centimeters in just a century, this means that over millions of years any kind of evolution is possible. However, as has been shown above, all variations such as changes in average height happen within specific genetic bounds, and are trends that have nothing to do with evolution.
In fact, nowadays even evolutionist experts accept that the variations they call “microevolution” cannot lead to new classes of living things-in other words, to “macroevolution.” In a 1996 article in the leading journal Developmental Biology, the evolutionary biologists S.F. Gilbert, J.M. Opitz, and R.A. Raff explained the matter this way:
Finch beaks, which Darwin saw in the Galapagos Islands and thought were evidence for his theory, are actually an example of genetic variation, and not evidence for macroevolution.
The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, “the origin of species- Darwin’s problem-remains unsolved.34
The fact that “microevolution” cannot lead to “macroevolution,” in other words that variations offer no explanation of the origin of species, has been accepted by other evolutionary biologists, as well. The noted author and science expert Roger Lewin describes the result of a four-day symposium held in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History, in which 150 evolutionists participated:
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. …The answer can be given as a clear, No.35
We can sum up the situation like this: Variations, which Darwinism has seen as “evidence of evolution” for some hundred years, actually have nothing to do with “the origin of species.” Cows can be mated together for millions of years, and different breeds of cows may well emerge. But cows can never turn into a different species-giraffes or elephants for instance. In the same way, the different finches that Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands are another example of variation that is no evidence for “evolution.” Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not undergo an unlimited variation as Darwin’s theory presupposed. Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin thought represented 14 distinct species actually mated with one another, which means that they were variations that belonged to the same species. Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have been mythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of “variation”; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. For example, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent years observing the finch varieties in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidence for Darwinistic evolution, were forced to conclude that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth,” a fact which implied that no “evolution” that leads to the emergence of new traits ever takes place there.36
So for these reasons, evolutionists are still unable to resolve Darwin’s problem of the “origin of species.”
34 Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff, “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology”, Developmental Biology, 173, Article no. 0032, 1996, p. 361. (emphasis added)
35 R. Lewin, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire”, Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980, p. 883.
36 H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant, “Oscillating selection on Darwin’s finches,” Nature, 327, 1987, pp. 513; For more detailed information, please see Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, 2000, pp. 159-175.August 7, 2018 at 7:25 pm #10624
There has been never been a transition from one specie to any other.
“Not to intrude”? There is so much presented here to argue with, my experience has shown that the large number of statements made in one post can elicite dozens of responses. Perhaps an explosion of responses and counter-responses and counter-counter responses, ultimately leading innocent readers to conclude that nothing can be concluded at all except for (probably) predictable emotional displays.
I’ll keep this short, to one point, and I’ll bet you won’t have a good counter-argument. If you can read a good summary about ring species, it’s easy to understand how cases of micro-evolution and speciation just happen naturally.August 7, 2018 at 8:28 pm #10626
@earlesanborn – how do you explain hospital “superbugs” which become immune to antibiotics?August 7, 2018 at 8:37 pm #10627
We’d having better luck discussing things with a bowling ball than with a creationist. They are on par with flat-earthers and the anti-vaccination set.August 7, 2018 at 9:12 pm #10628
Very quick answer – it’s not a medical, science word/definition–it’s a media term. And it’s bacteria which remains bacteria. Regards
It’s a term coined by the media to describe bacteria that cannot be killed using multiple antibiotics. “It resonates because it’s scary,” says Stephen Calderwood, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “But in fairness, there is no real definition.”
Instead, doctors often use phrases like “multidrug-resistant bacteria.” That’s because a superbug isn’t necessarily resistant to all antibiotics. It refers to bacteria that can’t be treated using two or more, says Brian K. Coombes, PhD, of McMaster University in Ontario.August 7, 2018 at 9:53 pm #10629
Very quick answer
Well, my answer was quicker and the question I posed more immediately ignored.
I would like very much to stay focused on the original topic, unless original poster @toms likes these loooong tangents.
In any case, please feel free to start your own topic, and try to allow for a two-way discussion by focusing on only a few ideas at a time. If it’s your topic, you can let it go off the rails as much as you like. Or, points in this thread you’ve made can be easily linked to an even more comprehensive topic at the Discovery Institute.
[–Edit– I’d declare this topic as “Earle’s”, but I don’t think it’s possible in this software. Sorry!]August 8, 2018 at 12:02 am #10632
In fact, nowadays even evolutionist experts accept that the variations they call “microevolution” cannot lead to new classes of living things-in other words, to “macroevolution.”
This is the worst of the endless highly flawed statements you’ve made. This argument doesn’t make any sense, you’ve misused the terms microevolution and macroevolution and you’ve also used a term that biologists don’t even use “lead to new classes of living things”. That’s used by evolution deniers, as a means to confuse the arguments. 99% of biologists and those who study evolution show absolutely no doubt in the theory of evolution.
What is worst about this post of yours is that you left three sources for your long list of claims. I read the abstracts of “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology” and “Oscillating selection on Darwin’s finches” none of which remotely agree with your claims. They both fall well within the sphere of the theory of evolution. Why would you quote two sources that disagree with your arguments? Your third source “Evolutionary theory under fire” is an article that is 38 years old. Why would you quote an article that old when evolutionary theory and the fossil record has beome so much more sophisticated since then. Must WORSE is that this source also does not remotely back up your claim. The disagreement is not about the theory of evolution but about time scales and if there are bursts of rapid change, with the voices of a few dissenters (hardly the majority) who were paleontologists and a single biologist who questioned the use of fossil record as evidence. However that isn’t the main topic of the article but a side argument which is quickly dismissed by other biologists as a problem not of interpretation but the relevant questions that should be asked.
Quoting sources that demonstrate the opposite of your argument is a sure fire way to loose all of your credibility. How can we take your claims seriously if you do that?August 8, 2018 at 5:08 am #10674
My sincere appreciation to Davis, Beanie and Robert for disposing of Earle “bowling ball” Sanborn’s issues, and to Simon for trying.
Earle, if you have yet to reproduce, be kinder to your head.August 8, 2018 at 7:29 am #10675
@earlesanborn – you’re right, the bug doesn’t become a new species. But it evolves resistance to certain antibiotics.August 8, 2018 at 9:59 am #10678
@earlesanborn – as I understand it, new species are formed when a geographically distinct part of a parent population undergoes environmental changes, forcing that part of the population to adapt evolutionarily or else die out.* This evolutionary adaptation is what can give rise to a new population that is genetically distinct enough to be called a new species. It is all so simple and logical.
* forcing that part of the population to adapt evolutionarily or else die out
– this assumes that there is a pressure to survive, and to reproduce genes – which can also be accounted for by the fact that natural selection of the individual is relative to others. Also, simple and logical, like nature.August 8, 2018 at 1:09 pm #10681
here’s more on the waning, twilight theory of natural selection.
When evolutionist sources are examined, one inevitably sees that the example of moths in England during the Industrial Revolution is cited as an example of evolution by natural selection. This is put forward as the most concrete example of evolution observed, in textbooks, magazines, and even academic sources. In actuality, though, that example has nothing to do with evolution at all.
Let us first recall what is actually said: According to this account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the color of tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-colored moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them, and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollution has killed the lichens, the bark of the trees had darkened, and now the light-colored moths became the most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed. As a result, the proportion of light-colored to dark-colored moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-colored moths “evolved” into dark-colored ones.
The top picture shows trees with moths on them before the Industrial Revolution, and the bottom picture shows them at a later date. Because the trees had grown darker, birds were able catch light-colored moths more easily and their numbers decreased. However, this is not an example of “evolution,” because no new species emerged; all that happened was that the ratio of the two already existing types in an already existing species changed.
However, although we believe these facts to be correct, it should be quite clear that they can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, since no new form arose that had not existed before. Dark colored moths had existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or organ, which would cause “speciation.”13 In order for one moth species to turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to its genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.
This is the answer to be given to the evolutionist story of Industrial Melanism. However, there is a more interesting side to the story: Not just its interpretation, but the story itself is flawed. As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution, the story of the peppered moths, which is included in every evolutionary biology book and has therefore, become an “icon” in this sense, does not reflect the truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell’s experiment, which is known as the “experimental proof” of the story, is actually a scientific scandal. Some basic elements of this scandal are:
– Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell’s revealed that only one type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferred to rest beneath small, horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that in Kettlewell’s experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific.14
– Scientists who tested Kettlewell’s conclusions came up with an even more interesting result: Although the number of light moths would be expected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the dark moths there numbered four times as many as the light ones. This meant that there was no correlation between the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionist sources.
– As the research deepened, the scandal changed dimension: “The moths on tree trunks” photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead moths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the leaves.15
These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the late 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in “Introduction to Evolution” courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:
My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.16
Thus, “the most famous example of natural selection” was relegated to the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal-which was inevitable, because natural selection is not an “evolutionary mechanism,” contrary to what evolutionists claim.
In short, natural selection is capable neither of adding a new organ to a living organism, nor of removing one, nor of changing an organism of one species into that of another. The “greatest” evidence put forward since Darwin has been able to go no further than the “industrial melanism” of moths in England.
13 For more detailed information about Industrial Melanism, please see Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, InterVarsity Press, 2nd. Ed., Washington D.C., p. 26.
14 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2000, pp. 149-150.
15 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2000, pp. 141-151.
16 Jerry Coyne, “Not Black and White”, a review of Michael Majerus’s Melanism: Evolution in Action, Nature, 396, 1988, pp. 35-36.August 8, 2018 at 2:09 pm #10682
Simon, do a search on “what defines speciation” and you will see how species differ.
Then, let Earle be Earle.August 8, 2018 at 2:28 pm #10683
The Peppered Moth example is very old and it’s not surprising if it may or may not stand up very well these days.
A clear example we have these days of evolution in action is bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics.August 8, 2018 at 2:55 pm #10684
Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.