Darwinism and the problem of Allopatric Speciation
I’ve been rolling this problem around in my head for a number of years. It’s a significant problem I think with the current Allopatric Speciation hypothesis of speciation. That is, how does a species change to another species. Darwin stated this was a major problem with his theory and was honest enough to admit it. The most widely accepted hypothesis is that species become segmented by physical barriers, such as islands, and over time the two separate bodies of the species change independent of one another until they can no longer breed with the other. I offer some problems that I see with this hypothesis in this slide show I created. You can click on the slides to enlarge them. This thought needs to be refined, but this is where it’s at right now.
Some Darwinists argue that a segment of a species’ population can become separated from another segment, and that over time, the two segments develop characteristics which correspond with their current environments. This is called Allopatric Speciation.
A problem with this hypothesis is that it assumes the passing on of mutations that prevent breeding with the former species occur en masse. Even Darwinists admit that such mutations are extremely rare. So, are we to think that the mutation, which condemns the newly formed species to only breeding with species of the same type, occurred in more than one species representative (creature) at roughly the same time, so as to enable mating? And even if the mutation did occur in a handful of creatures, what is the chance of them actually finding one of the other extremely rare mates on say, an island? But Darwinists, again, say these mutations are exceedingly rare.
Suppose a new species spontaneously generates within a proverbial warm pool of water. Of course, the idea of spontaneously generated life is a massive assumption we must make to even begin to argue in favor of the Darwinist view. Life has never been observed to simply “occur” and if we consider that scientists have been able to manipulate chemicals in a laboratory in a way that makes them take on some attributes of life presents an argument for intelligent design not random biogenesis. How am I defining a species? Well, Darwin himself was not quite sure how to define species. Darwin stated: “I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties.” [1] What is the difference between species of lizards and horses? I’m quite simply defining a species as a set of creatures that are able to successfully mate with one another and produce offspring. If some want to quibble about this, we’ll have to do it in another venue, but in order to demonstrate the problem of a newly generated creature finding a mate under the Darwinian model, I’m going to define species as thus.
Suppose that, in the earliest times of primitive life, a specific habitat—the pool of water—is inhabited by a certain species, Species A. There are several examples of this Species A in the pool, and after a number of mating sequences, another species is produced through mutation. But wait, the Darwinist will say, it doesn’t work that way. The new “species” will merely have changed by something we call mutation. Well, at some point, original life had to make a jump from one species to another. There had to be a point where one species produced another species, and if we adhere to the above definition of a species, that new species (B) will not be able to produce offspring if it mates with the old species (A). We know this had to happen at some point, because there are many, many species that are unable to mate with any other species. Beneficial mutations may occur (hypothetically) within a species, but those mutations do not constitute a change of species, because the creation of offspring is still possible through mating with the old species.
[1] Charles Darwin, On the Origins of Species, pg 48
Again, we’ll make another huge leap in our assumption that a beneficial mutation can occur, and that a mutation of such a scale as to produce another species can occur at all. Scientist David Berlinski states that no computer model has thus been created that shows evolution occurs as Darwinists say it does. Only with severe intelligent tinkering does something even close happen. And when we consider Borel’s Law—that any event with a probability of occurring of less than 1 to〖 10〗^50 (1 to 10 to the 50th power) will never occur. That number looks like this: 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 . The probability, according to Carl Sagan, that a single protein found in the human body could spontaneously generate from the 20 amino acids found in the human body (and over 2 million different protein, comprised of those amino acids), is approximately 1 to 〖10〗^130. (1 to 10 to the 130th power) [2] But Darwinists want us to believe that this occurs over and over for millions of years—yet we never observe it.
This is important because when a new species is generated, the chances of it finding a mate that has also crossed the reproductive barrier at the exact same genetic “gate” would seem to be even smaller than the mutation occurring in the first place.
[2] Carl Sagan, Encyclopedia Britannica
Some Darwinists argue that a segment of a species’ population can become separated from another segment, and that over time, the two segments develop characteristics which correspond with their current environments. This is called Allopatric Speciation.
A problem with this hypothesis is that it assumes the passing on of mutations that prevent breeding with the former species occur en masse. Even Darwinists admit that such mutations are extremely rare. So, are we to think that the mutation, which condemns the newly formed species to only breeding with species of the same type, occurred in more than one species representative (creature) at roughly the same time, so as to enable mating? And even if the mutation did occur in a handful of creatures, what is the chance of them actually finding one of the other extremely rare mates on say, an island? But Darwinists, again, say these mutations are exceedingly rare.
The Hypothesis of Allopatric Speciation is not sufficient to explain speciation. Even when physical barriers are introduced, the separated portion of the species must still, at some point, fall over the cliff which prevents it from breeding with its old species. It must occur, mathematically speaking, on an individual level, and cannot occur spontaneously among several creatures.Darwinists want to explain this through Genetic Drift. They say that a species genetic makeup changes over time. And this may be true, however, at some point it is no longer capable of mating with the old breed. At least according to Darwinism. Remember–and this is a very important point–mutations happen to individual plants or animals, not large portions of a population.
Summary: Darwinists need to show the mechanism by which a newly generated species which has taken on new traits and crossed over the reproductive barrier find a mate that has crossed over the barrier at the exact same “genetic gate.” The infinitesimally small chances of positive mutations occurring are miniscule compared to probability of a mutation, speciation, and the finding of a mate of the exact same (and new) genetic makeup.
Evolving out of adaptive mutation
Thinking again…
Since 99.9% of mutations are harmful to organisms, it would seem that if Darwinism is true, evolution would point species away from the adaptive mutation process, the very mechanism that Darwin claimed made evolution possible.
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would not be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement~B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988
Or perhaps if Darwinism is true, than evolution should decrease the possibility that a mutation is crippling or fatal. Perhaps organisms should constantly be mutating for the better, so fast that we can see it happening. Since Darwinism’s supposedly had millions of years to adapt itself, why not?
Maybe it’s just not true.
What? No warming for the last 15 years?
He also stated that during the medieval warming period, temperatures were higher than they are now.
The fantasy’s over.
Don’t rely on science when it comes to global warming–rely on common sense.
What kind of food makes you healthy?
Depends what decade you’re in. Back when my grandmother was growing up, she knew that starches made you fat. In the 70′s, it was fat that made you fat. Now there’s a big argument, and many have given into the “I have fat genes”, bull. Science still can’t say for sure what makes people healthy, other than in a few areas, such as smoking: It’s very bad and the numbers are so obvious that no one argues. 2000% increase in lung cancer anyone?
Fact is, there are too many variables when it comes to diet. People who eat “healthy” whatever that means for a given time period, also tend to do a lot of other things considered good for well being. They exercise, don’t smoke, are married, tend to be more educated etc.
Since science cannot easily pinpoint causation in health and diet, how much more difficult must it be to find causation when it comes to global temperature changes.
In all the research I’ve done, I’m finding it difficult to determine if the temps in the last decade have gone up or down. This whole thing is a mess, and not worthy of massive changes that will end up reducing productivity and starving third world nations.
Has science really done better than religion?
The modern age can be properly summed in this way: Man has moved away from relying on the unseen and has now placed his faith in the seen. That is: Empiricism. There can be little argument that this change in thinking has resulted in tremendous advances in medicine, engineering, and the overall comfort level of the Western citizen.
But this is all quite new. Aristotle’s theory of the Tabula Rasa barely impacted the ancients. Not until Aquinas and Locke melded empiricism with Christian doctrine did a real scientific method begin to form and even then, it was not until the advent of the Steam Age, that it can truly said that science had a major impact on the life of the everyday man.
But the true schism of thought occurred when Galileo published his book: Dialogue. Man began a slow movement away from his belief in an invisible God, even though Galileo himself argued that his findings were not contrary to scripture. To this day, the following passages are used as “proof” that the scriptures are not scientific, therefore cannot be divinely inspired:
“the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.”~Psalm 96:10
“And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place” ~Ecclesiastes 1:5
Galileo argues, like Augustine, that the above statements were obviously metaphorical. The fissure between science and God was set, and those who did not believe set about to insert a chisel to widen the gap. Darwin all but completed the split of religion and science as monolith.
The gap between science and religion has had several unintended and negative consequences for science itself. For one, it set those who are vehemently anti-religion on a path that seeks to use science as a weapon of religious deconstruction. This is no better–indeed probably worse–than the Church of Galileo’s day which sought to mold nature into an ideological model of a perfect Christian Universe. The problem was, they had no real arguments as to why that universe was perfect or Christian.
We see now, that the atheists try to prove the evil of religion, by labeling evil men of the past as religious, and assigning religion as these men’s motivation. In reality, any motivation of adequate power can be used to commit atrocity. Repeatedly we are reminded of Hitler’s mystical and religious overtones. I remain extremely sceptical of Hitler’s religious motivations and I urge those who want to dwell on his mysticism as his primary reason for slaughtering millions, to consider this: What would his efforts have come to without science? A zealot without a weapon is only a hateful monk.
Though Hitler may have searched for religious texts to justify himself, it seems his beliefs would have been the same regardless. Afterall, he was a staunch believer in the authenticity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion–a proven fraudulent document written by the Russian, Czarist secret police.
The science used by the Nazi’s is well documented.
Nazis measure the skull to prove racial purity
Jew submitted to cold water experiment
And of course, the strides made by the Nazis in military tactics and weaponry have strongly affected all modern military thought.
Is this blog entry an anti-science, anti-intellectualism diatribe on my part? No–on the contrary. It is a call for truth. The schism between science and religion has in many cases boiled to scientists being afraid of what they may find, because it contradicts their ethos. Because of this, because of that split that ocured long ago, the intellectual Left, to this day, holds a heavy sway over science. And so, they are short-changing science by starting with an ideological premise. We’ve seen the terrible results of this type of thinking: The man-made global warming issues we have today are a symptom of a greater evil: Science as a weapon.
There are many other examples that I see, of science being twisted and truth suffering. Though some may not see the problem as a large one, let’s look at the effects of ideology on our diets. Heart disease is the number one killer of Americans. Shouldn’t we take back the science of good diet from those that have reasons other than our best health in mind? What am I speaking of? Again, go back to the split of religion and science. While the original premise that fat is responsible for heart disease was originally born of over-simplified, linear thought, it has been allowed to remain and prosper because of the Left. It is the Left, with its adoration of vegetarianism–and therefore the over-consumption of grains and processed carbohydrate–that preach the evils of eating meat. The science simply doesn’t back it–but a modern liberal’s ethos does. Dr. Atkins, though his theories were not perfect, was willing to step outside his preconceptions–and more and more he is being shown as correct.
And to think that Christianity and science cannot coexist is simply wrong. I’m not pressing for the abolition of science, but for the abolition of fear.
My novel’s title: For Want of Knowledge, is taken from the Bible verse:
For Want of Knowledge, my people perish, Hosea 4:6
It’s about a man, Craig Looms, who finds himself without friends, skills or direction, and so falls under the sway of an assassin vampire, resurrected. I understand man needs science, lest we perish.
I challenge scientists to cast aside their own bias. To face truth, however horrible it may be, however it may discredit their comrades. I see science drifting away and becoming the holy relic of an anti-mystical religion. The unipolar control that leftist intellectuals have exuded on science has damaged science and its reputation. Bring it back from the cliffs of idealism to the pastures of truth.
Recent Comments