The Evolution Myth

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Sunwaiter,

I have just visited this ( you have posted the link )

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread367757/pg1

Well, as you see there are actually pretty the same arguments from both sides as those already discussed here, with some slight variations maybe. Have you found anything new?

For myself, I could very unlikely take part in such forum. I hate it when people behave themselves as if they were on a fish market and use the appropriate lexicon. It always works provocative on me, and all I have to say here - hat's off to Ben Scholz ( or how was the name of that poster there ) for his patience.

MIMF seems to be a really blessed place in this regard...

[sunwaiter]

yeah, patience's the key word!

it's true, MIMF is one of the not so many internet places where people are generally respectful towards a simple convention that consists in not calling each other names!

[Robert Newman]

Sunwaiter,

If

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Sunwaiter,

If we set to one side our assumption, our academic education, that the organic evolution of species MUST have happened we approach such issues fairly and honestly. Let's also set to one side any assumption that creation can be proved. It's obvious that dogmas of any kind are useless. But it we approach this subject honestly, with a desire to see what nature is really telling us we arrive, inevitably, at the realisation that the creation of species really has happened. For we discover only order and more order. We discover that species are not some vague abstraction but are really living entities which are fixed in a fundamental way. Interacting with other species in a system of nature. But we only learn this if we are honest, with ourselves and with the facts under examination.

We cannot claim, as 'evolutionists' we are being honest if evolutionary dogmas are the only source of our knowledge. Honesty.

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Sunwaiter,

Intellectual If we set to one side our assumption, our academic education, that the organic evolution of species MUST have happened we approach such issues fairly and honestly. Let's also set to one side any assumption that creation can be proved. It's obvious that dogmas of any kind are useless. But it we approach this subject honestly, with a desire to see what nature is really telling us we arrive, inevitably, at the realisation that the creation of species really has happened. For we discover only order and more order. We discover that species are not some vague abstraction but are really living entities which are fixed in a fundamental way. Interacting with other species in a system of nature. But we only learn this if we are honest, with ourselves and with the facts under examination.

We cannot claim, as 'evolutionists' we are being honest if evolutionary dogmas are the only source of our knowledge. Honesty. That is quite enough to reject the theory of evolution.

[sunwaiter]

"But it we approach this subject honestly, with a desire to see what nature is really telling us we arrive, inevitably, at the realisation that the creation of species really has happened. For we discover only order and more order. We discover that species are not some vague abstraction but are really living entities which are fixed in a fundamental way."

i understand that one can see our world this way, since it is, indeed such a sophisticated world, but to see it as a staight order-obeying one that was designed by a creator is, in my true subjective opinion, of course, only an interpretation, free of all absolute proof, though you have recalled me some of the elements that can be interpreted as such (like the laws of heredity). as i could see in the previous link i have quite randomly chosen and posted, lots of valid, non valid, peer-reviewed, not peer-reviewed, all kind of documents called facts, other called fakes fanciful or scientifically inaccurate, all sorts of different and often confusing things are said and displayed, from both sides, since, unfortunately, we're forced to distinguish these two sides. i know it's just an example, but i guess it means something.

as for myself, i still can't come to the conclusion, after my still young internet and library amateurish research, that for instance ken miller and his colleagues have built a lie around the famous ape/man genome issue. i know, i had promised not to mention this man too often...

another topic that can be connected to the ID/ET discussion is the animal species that have more or less recently disappeared, often because of man, which in your view was intelligently designed. it may sound like as an average forum poster thing but i often wonder why a intelligent designer would let some species disappear. because if all creatures have been designed and thus never been evolving, it seems it means that no other would ever appear, so this world will wind up empty of all animal form, after a certain time? i may be a little simplistic in the formulation, but i find this is a good question.

[Robert Newman]

"But it we approach this subject honestly, with a desire to see what nature is really telling us we arrive, inevitably, at the realisation that the creation of species really has happened. For we discover only order and more order. We discover that species are not some vague abstraction but are really living entities which are fixed in a fundamental way."

i understand that one can see our world this way, since it is, indeed such a sophisticated world, but to see it as a staight order-obeying one that was designed by a creator is, in my true subjective opinion, of course, only an interpretation, free of all absolute proof, though you have recalled me some of the elements that can be interpreted as such (like the laws of heredity). as i could see in the previous link i have quite randomly chosen and posted, lots of valid, non valid, peer-reviewed, not peer-reviewed, all kind of documents called facts, other called fakes fanciful or scientifically inaccurate, all sorts of different and often confusing things are said and displayed, from both sides, since, unfortunately, we're forced to distinguish these two sides. i know it's just an example, but i guess it means something.

as for myself, i still can't come to the conclusion, after my still young internet and library amateurish research, that for instance ken miller and his colleagues have built a lie around the famous ape/man genome issue. i know, i had promised not to mention this man too often...

another topic that can be connected to the ID/ET discussion is the animal species that have more or less recently disappeared, often because of man, which in your view was intelligently designed. it may sound like as an average forum poster thing but i often wonder why a intelligent designer would let some species disappear. because if all creatures have been designed and thus never been evolving, it seems it means that no other would ever appear, so this world will wind up empty of all animal form, after a certain time? i may be a little simplistic in the formulation, but i find this is a good question.

Hi there Sunwaiter,

Can you name a species of, say, animal, fish or bird, which has become extinct ?

I know this question may sound naiive but I'd certainly appreciate an answer, since you clearly believe many species are today extinct. But I believe otherwise. The same species we see today in nature have existed since the time when the very first fossils were formed. Or, at least, I believe the evidence strongly indicates so.

Regards

Robert

[sunwaiter]

hi again! back in the shack.

of course your question doesn't sound naive, moreover coming from you, because i have wrote all this on purpose. i don't mean it was some sort of trap uh? i knew that , according to what you have already said, a long succession of microevolutions wouldn't give new species. now, through my netsurfing i found some documentation that you may not consider as reliable, but that gained my attention.

i won't bother you with long useless pages, i'll just quote excerpts:

"The synthetic theory of evolution as described by Sewell Wright attempts to explain evolution in terms of changes in gene frequencies. This theory states that a species evolves when gene frequencies changes and the species moves it to a higher level of adaptation for a specific ecological niche. Several factors such as mutation of alleles and migration of individuals with those new alleles will create variation in the population. Selection will then chose the better adapted individuals, and the population will have evolved."

"Because population changes require changes in gene frequencies, it is important to understand how these frequencies can change. The three primary methods of change are mutation, migration and selection. Each will be considered individually.

Mutation

Mutations are classified as beneficial, harmful or neutral. Harmful mutations will be lost if they reduce the fitness of the individual. If fitness is improved by a mutation, then frequencies of that allele will increase from generation to generation. The mutation could be a change in one allele to resemble one currently in the population, for example from a dominant to a recessive allele. Alternatively, the mutation could generate an entirely new allele. Most of these mutations though will be detrimental and lost. But if the environment changes, then the new mutant allele may be favored and eventually become the dominant alelle in that population. If the mutation is beneficial to the species as a whole, migration from the population in which it initially arose must occur for it to spread to other populations of the species."

1997. Phillip McClean

i want to add that the author also mentions the peppered moth story... well again it's a question of how you name things.

here, you will say, was a way of describing evolution. at this stage many people would start a "dictionnary fight". and again, one of the words used was theory. i still take seriously the fact that Mendel started working theorically, and scientifics always complete theories with observable facts, and vice versa. i'm interested in these conceptions because they don't sound fanciful to me, like the ape/man genome issue.

another example of beneficial mutation:

"Another clear example of a beneficial mutation is the bacteria that have evolved to eat nylon-6.
Evidently this is a beneficial variation, since it allows the colonization of a new niche; and obviously the mutation can't have existed since some imaginary act of fiat creation 6000 years ago, since bacteria with this variation can only feed on nylon-6, and nylon was only invented in 1935.
One interesting aspect of this mutation is that it consists of the insertion of a single nucleotide, causing a frame-shift, so that the protein being coded for, after the frame-shift, is nothing like the protein coded for in the wild type: the mutation is small in terms of nucleotides, but makes a radical change to the protein."

here i guess i'll have to check the reliability, since it is a wiki page. but i found it interesting though.

here are words from Ken (another one!) Ham in a 1999 text found on the site answersingenesis:

"Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about. "

i've been told here that it was a matter of faith, but i think it's more a matter of curiosity and trust in research.

here is a bird that has disappeared. it is said so, caution! many things are questionable, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upland_Moa



i've had a tough saturday, and sunday's gonna be even worse, and i'm glad i can focus on such a riveting topic from time to time. thank you for your attention, as usual.

i'll read your answers next monday, i guess

until then, take care.

[jhnbrbr]

Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius)

[Corno Dolce]

I shall jump into the breach for just a moment: A beneficial mutation is an oxymoron. A mutation is something that will soon be removed from the gene pool because it is an anomaly. It will be rejected for the procreation of a species since no existing species will want to naturally mate with it.

[Robert Newman]

Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius)

Thanks Jhnbrbr,

The so-called 'Passenger Pigeon' ? OK, give me a few days and I will try to show why the 'Passenger Pigeon' was not a distinct species of pigeon. And certainly not a species now extinct.

Regards

[Robert Newman]

I'll answer on the Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) in a 4 part article.

Here's part 1 -

1/4

PRELIMINARY

Nobody doubts the form of pigeon known as the 'Passenger Pigeon' is today extinct. That is, it's found nowhere, today, in nature. Nor are any 'Passenger Pigeons' today alive in captivity. But, as we will see, the fact this form of pigeon no longer exists does not necessarily mean that a species has been made extinct. One obvious explanation can be that the 'Passenger Pigeon' was never a distinct species in its own right but only a form, or a variety, of a species that still lives today in nature.

But let's begin with some basic information on this bird -

In the 18th century the great Swedish botanist, physician and zoologist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) worked many years on a scheme to classify all living things in to a system which allowed each to be named according to an orderly scheme. (Linnaeus is today known worldwide as the 'father of modern taxonomy' and is also considered to be one of the fathers of modern ecological study).

Amongst the tens of thousands of plants, animals, birds and fish which Linnaeus was aware of was a well-known bird at the time which he classified as follows -

Taxonomic Serial No.: 177132
Order - Columbiformes (Doves, Pigeons)
Family - Columbidae
Sub-family - Columbinae
Genus - Ectopistes
Species - Ectopistes migratorius

This classification of the Passenger Pigeon as a species in its own right happened in the year of 1776. Thus, Linnaeus, in Sweden, believed the 'Passenger Pigeon' was a distinct species in its own right and named it as such. It was (correctly) described as a member of the still existing Genus, 'Ectopistes'. (The same genus, in fact, to which all doves and pigeons belong).

And how did this Swedish researcher of the 18th century know about 'Passenger Pigeons' ? Was he first to hear of them ?

No. Not at all. According to the Smithsonian Library in Washington D.C. many people knew of them - most being in the USA -

It is estimated that there were 3 billion to 5 billion passenger pigeons at the time Europeans discovered America. Early explorers and settlers frequently mentioned passenger pigeons in their writings. In fact, as early as 1605 one Samuel de Champlain reported 'countless numbers'. And one Gabriel Sagard-Theodat wrote of 'infinite multitudes' while Cotton Mather even described a flight of these birds being about a mile wide which took several hours to pass overhead.

And yet, by the early 1900's no wild 'passenger pigeons' could be found. One of the last authenticated records of the capture of a wild bird was at Sargents, Pike County. Ohio, on 24 March 1900. (Only a few birds still survived in captivity at this time). Concerted searches were made and rewards offered for capture of wild passenger pigeons. From 1909 to 1912 the American Ornithologists' Union offered $1,500 to anyone finding a nest or nesting colony of these Passenger Pigeons, but all efforts were futile.

Attempts to save it by breeding a few surviving captive birds were not successful. The Passenger Pigeon was a colonial and gregarious bird and needed large numbers for optimum breeding conditions. It was not possible to reestablish them with only a few captive birds. And soon the small captive flocks weakened and died.

The last known individual was "Martha" (named after Martha Washington). She died at the Cincinnati Zoological Garden, and was donated to the Smithsonian Institution, where her body was once mounted in a display case with this notation:

'MARTHA'
Last of her species
Died at 1 pm
1st September 1914
in the Cincinatti Zoological Garden
EXTINCT

And so, it seemed, an entire species had been made extinct. Within a century or so. By man. And this view of things is widely believed and taught today so that the 'Passenger Pigeon' is said (along with various other species) to be extinct. 'Hunted to extinction by man'.

In Part 2 we examine this case a little more closely.

//

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Sunwaiter,

I have decided to hold off from the discussion, as we are beginning to run in circle. You see, with this quotation -

"The synthetic theory of evolution as described by Sewell Wright attempts to explain evolution in terms of changes in gene frequencies. This theory states that a species evolves when gene frequencies changes and the species moves it to a higher level of adaptation for a specific ecological niche. Several factors such as mutation of alleles and migration of individuals with those new alleles will create variation in the population. Selection will then chose the better adapted individuals, and the population will have evolved."

- you do not bring up anything new here, as he talks once again about the microevolution. The peppered moth is just a classical example, there are thousands of others - you may want to regard the morphological differences between the German birch and a polar ( like Syberian ) birch etc. The mechanism of the microevolution clearly doesn't work against the laws of heredity and the mechanism of general evolution clearly does, so one obviously can't just use a simple extrapolation. If one wants to prove that general evolution is a reality, then one has to use the appropriate examples ( specie A --- transformation --- specie B ) and one has to show how such mechanism can work in nature, and why this mechanism is in the given case stronger as the laws of heredity. Until it is done, I don't think any mention of microevolution could be regarded as relevant to the topic.

i understand that one can see our world this way, since it is, indeed such a sophisticated world, but to see it as a staight order-obeying one that was designed by a creator is, in my true subjective opinion, of course, only an interpretation, free of all absolute proof, though you have recalled me some of the elements that can be interpreted as such (like the laws of heredity).

Just for the sake of clarity - the order of the Universe is a given thing. The science itself were impossible without the all-common laws. We weren't able to study anything or make any conclusion if we weren't sure that the common fundamental laws will work tomorrow the same as they always did.
This order ( which is very often called the harmony of the Universe, or world ) has fascinated the scientists for many centuries. The so called "physical and theological proof of God's existence" is based ONLY on the fact of the obviousness of the order in the Universe, which has to be the evidence of the origin of this order from the order on a higher level. This conception was worked out by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, among others.

I know this topic is of course wider as the Evolution Theory, to point out one spectacular example of such order in the living organisms - look here, it is a famous Fibonacci sequence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_sequence

Simply click on and scroll down, until you see a pic of a sunflower. Whatever it may mean - it is , in the first line, fascinating, right?

Regards,
Andrew

[Robert Newman]

Part 2

2/4A

How many debates can be avoided simply by first agreeing to a definition of the subject under discussion ?

Take the vital word ‘species’. What do evolutionists tell us about species ?
Well, here are 3 references to this crucial question from Charles Darwin’s book of 1859, popularly known as the ‘Origin of Species’ -

''From these remarks it will be seen that I look at the term
species, as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience
to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and
that it does not essentially differ from the term variety,
which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms.
The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual
differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere
convenience sake.
Charles Darwin - (1859)
p. 52

Again he writes -

2. Hence, in determining whether a form should be ranked as
a species or a variety, the opinion of naturalists having
sound judgement and wide experience seems the only guide to
follow.
Charles Darwin (1859)
p.47

And -

3. "No one definition (of species) has as yet satisfied all
naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means
when he speaks of a species.,,,,,,, The term
"variety" is almost equally difficult to define
Charles Darwin (1859)
p.44

It’s almost laughable that Darwin, whose famous book assures us of the ‘evolution of new species’ finds himself unable to define with accuracy what species actually are, or to tell us the difference between species and various varieties of the same species.
But, like a stage magician, he still convinced most people the ‘evolution of new species’ is a fact. And schools and colleges continued teaching ‘evolution’ as a ‘scientific fact’.
Such was Darwin’s confusion on his own subject he ends his work by saying -

''It is quite possible that forms now generally acknowledged to be
merely varieties may hereafter be thought worthy of species
names, as with the primrose and the cowslip; and in this case
scientific and common language will come into accordance. In
short, we shall have to treat species in the same manner as
those naturalists treat genera, who admit that genera are
merely artificial combinations made for convenience. This may
not be a cheering prospect; but we shall at least be freed
from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable
essence of the term species.
Charles Darwin (1859)

p. 484-5.

So let’s leave this confusion and come up to modern times. By the 20th century Mendel’s great discovery of laws governing species were finally accepted. Darwin’s highly subjective and arbitrary ‘definition’ of species was fatally flawed. The search for an accurate species definition was not 'vain'. No longer could different forms be labelled ‘new species’ or ‘extinct species’ on subjective arguments. This is reflected in many modern studies. Take for example this statement -

1.‘Darwin succeeded in convincing
the world of the occurrence of evolution and ... he
found (in natural selection) the mechanism that is
responsible for evolutionary change and adaptation.
It is not nearly so widely recognized that Darwin failed
to solve the problem indicated by the title of his own work."
(Ernst Mayr, ‘1982, The Growth of Biological Thought’)

2/4B

Thanks to modern discoveries we know today the definition of species is not a matter of Darwinian or evolutionary opinion. Nor are particular species (living or fossil) defined by subjective arguments. We can say with accuracy a species is a specific organism defined by it occupying its own unique and fixed position within the genus to which it belongs. A single species can exist in various forms. Yet it remains always the same species. It can also be shown to occupy a fixed position within the genus to which it uniquely belongs. And the number of species within its genus has not varied. The position a particular species occupies within its own genus helps to explain with accuracy its breeding relationships (and their potential outcomes) with other members of the same genus. For a species is not restricted to breeding only with others of its own species. It can breed only, however, with particular other members of its genus. The success or failure of these inter-genus relationships between different species of the same genus are predetermined by the fixed position of each species within the genus. Thus, some crosses between different species of a genus are possible while others are not. This too is predetermined by the relative and unique positions of all species within their genus.

2/4C

From the above it can be seen that species are highly specific organisms of nature whether the form of a population varies from population to population. They, like chemical elements, can be shown to occupy what we can call a set of other species (a genus), from which their characteristics can be examined and appreciated in great detail.
/

2/4D

BACK TO THE ‘PASSENGER PIGEON’

How is it possible a bird such as the one under examination, the ‘Passenger Pigeon‘ (known to number many billions in North America alone during the 18th and 19th centuries) was apparently made extinct, by man, by the early 20th century ?
Well, the idea that hunters in North America over little more than a century and at a time when the population of the USA was far, far smaller than today, shot and captured literally billions of these Passenger Pigeons and drove them to extinction by the early 20th century is highly improbable. To have done so would surely have required full time hunters by the thousands killing thousands of these creatures daily across vast areas of the USA in vast shooting sprees. Something for which there is simply no evidence. And, as we’ve already seen, Passenger Pigeons are small, fast flying, migratory animals. They are birds. As such, they flew long distances in vast numbers, regularly. (Twice a year, in fact).

But we can examine this even more closely in Part 3. I'll post on it in a few days.

/

[Robert Newman]

3/4

You will remember various writers of the 17th and 18th centuries wrote of vast numbers of these pigeons, these now ’extinct’ birds, flying in formations. Sometimes millions of them. They were migrating. To where ? From where ?

Well, look at the distribution of pigeons and doves worldwide. We see, remarkably, they are found almost worldwide. In fact pigeons and doves are found in almost every country where man lives. This in itself is unusual. And it may be very relevant. We don’t find polar bears, elephants, or many species living in virtually every country of the world. But Pigeons (and Doves) are an exception. (In fact, most species in nature are not found worldwide). The online article on Pigeons says -

‘Pigeons and doves constitute the Family Columbidae, within the Order Columbiformes, which include some 300 species…..’

And also -

Pigeons and doves are distributed everywhere on Earth, except for the driest areas of the Sahara Desert, Antarctica and its surrounding islands, and the high Arctic. They have colonised most of the world’s oceanic islands (with the notable exception of Hawaii)…….The family has adapted to most of the habitats available on the planet.
Well, you might say, ‘But this doesn’t explain the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon’.

True. It doesn’t. But if we begin with the assumption that a species of bird which once had populations of billions spending months in North America somehow became extinct within a century we need to suggest how such an extinction could possibly have happened. And we need to ask if our basic assumption of their ’extinction’ may even be wrong. Why ? Well, we’ve already seen various attempts to accurately classify species have been plain wrong over the centuries or were so vague as to be almost useless.

Which brings us to the specific type of birds known as ‘Passenger Pigeons’. How many species and/or varieties of Passenger Pigeon’ were there ? Only one ? Or many ? In which other countries were they known ? Well, we have one surviving specimen (only one) - a stuffed example of an American ‘Passenger Pigeon’ today held at the Smithsonian Library in Washington D.C. Was it typical ? No sources offer an answer. So let’s leave such questions to one side for a minute and go to something that might help us. To facts recognised by zoologists and biologists only after the ‘Passenger Pigeon’ was no more seen. Around the 1940’s. To a subject known today as ‘Clines’.

‘CLINES’

What is a ‘Cline’ ?

Frank Livingstone, a specialist in genetic anthropology, has written that “there are no races, only clines” (Livingstone 1962, p. 279).

Livingstone is one of many researchers who pointed out there are not dozens of different sorts of humans. There is one (and only one) humanity. Separated from one another in terms of their appearance, their physical appearance, their culture etc. for sure, and yet only one mankind. Such an idea contradicts the old biased idea of ‘different races’ of mankind.

A ‘cline’ has also been defined as a “gradation in measurable characters amongst different populations of living creatures’.

So a species can exist in many different populations, some of them different in appearance, and yet all be the very same species. There may even be populations which appear similar in a graduated form, from population to population. And, in the case of birds, vast flocks of birds who are members of the same genus yet who are different species may interact with each other whose offspring show remarkable similarities of appearance, despite that flock consisting of quite different species and varieties.

The best studied examples of ‘clines’ are of certain birds, these distributed very widely in the world. Take Seagulls, for example. Researchers in the 20th century have reported there are various species of Seagulls which can interact (and even interbreed) with other species of Seagull. They all live in a great circle that surrounds the Arctic Circle. These different species of Seagulls are definitely all members of the same Seagull genus. Yet they are also separate and quite distinct species from one another. They have in common the fact they share the same genus. In cases where seagulls of different species are able to breed the physical appearance of their offspring is often graduated, physically, so that they may closely resemble both parents to a greater or lesser degree. Yet the specific species also remain. Such interactions are possible within the genus. Not outside of it. As already said.

Therefore, we may have great flocks of migrating birds which we might think are of the same species but which actually consist of more than one species, some of which, though are similar to some degree in form to both parents. As we find in the graduated ‘cline’ studies made on Seagulls. And as we almost certainly had with ‘Passenger Pigeons’.

Those who witnessed these great bird migrations in the 17th and 18th centuries believed they were watching the flight of what are now called a single now extinct species called the ’Passenger Pigeon’ when, in fact, they may actually have been witnessing the migration of not one but many species of the same genus, with various offspring in the flock which were often remarkably similar in appearance. Giving the impression that the flock was one and only one species.

Modern global distribution of doves and pigeons indicates that in previous centuries many pigeon populations (and those of other birds) regularly migrated from and to North America from many parts of the world and interacted with each other before they arrived and even when they met. So that their alleged ‘extinction’ by the early 20th century is really illusory, the same species still living, today, globally, in many different and now highly localised forms though these interactions are today less common.

We wrongly classified the ‘Passenger Pigeon’ as one specific species when, in fact, it may always have consisted of several species of the same genus and their offspring. These migrating together to and from North America in great numbers in the 17th and 18th centuries until some natural cause made them visit less and less frequently up until the early 20th century. And yet the same species exist till now, though distributed globally and no longer visiting North America or anywhere else in such vast numbers.

The fact that birds may alter their migration habits is well known and may explain what seems to be their 'extinction'.


/