It is very important to examine in detail another carefully ignored fact. This species delusion goes all the way back to Saint Charlie’s plagiary.
Darwin called his plagiary ‘On the Origin of Species …’, but that last word is in itself impossible to define! Darwin knew this and all scientists know this. Those who gaze in admiration at all scientists and believe in scientism do not know this. And the faithful do not want to know this.
The Species Delusion: The Problem with Defining Species
If two critters, superficially different but from one species, can be called two ‘species’ – then we can have mutational madness. This is because after generations of natural, non-Darwinian, reversible adaptation they can said to have mutated into a ‘new’ ‘species’.
Just watch my lips.
The bespectacled spectre ‘species’ is specious in speculatively specifying specimens. After all ‘specere’, the root of all these words, simply means to look. The identification of species very often starts from mere appearance. This can be a convenience which blurs a true description.
Just in case you think that I am splitting hairs or trying to shove the odd camel through the eye of a needle, may I refer you to a little volume written in 1859 – by a discredited theorist called Charles Darwin. It was entitled ‘On the origin of species by means of natural selection’.
Darwin’s Own Admission on Species
One cannot ignore the vast body of disputation surrounding speciation, when he himself talks of ‘species’.
Charlie wrote ‘… I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties’ – in that very book – Darwin 1859 (p. 48) London: Murray.
The Species Delusion: Expert Consensus on the Species Problem
All authorities agree that there is a problem:
‘No term is more difficult to define than ‘species’, and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word’. Nicholson (1872) p. 20 A manual of zoology. New York: Appleton and Company.
‘Of late, the futility of attempts to find a universally valid criterion for distinguishing species has come to be fairly generally, if reluctantly, recognized’ Dobzhansky (1937) p. 310 Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.
‘The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms’ Haldane (1956) Can a species concept be justified? In Sylvester-Bradley, PC. The species concept in palaeontology. London: Systematics Association. pp. 95–96.
‘The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word ‘species’.’ Hey (2001) The mind of the species problem. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16 (7): 326–329.
‘First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require – but cannot be settled by – empirical evidence.’ Pigliucci (2003) Species as family resemblance concepts: The (dis-)solution of the species problem? BioEssays 25 (6): 596–602.
‘An important aspect of any species definition whether in neonatology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is a hypothesis (not a fact)’ Bonde, N. (1977). Cladistic classification as applied to vertebrates. In Hecht, M.K.; Goody, P.C.; Hecht, B.M. Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 741–804.
The Species Delusion: Evolutionists Ignore the Species Debate
How on earth can the mutationists – self-professed experts in all branches of natural sciences – fail to mention this? It is like an experienced navigator forgetting that North America is blocking his route from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Yet every evolutionist, for example, heavily emphasises and reiterates the ‘mutation’ of a new diatom ‘species’. He will use the word ‘species’ innumerable times. But such world-renowned biologists, zoologists, botanists – indeed our chosen leaders in discovering the secret of Life itself – must be aware how misleading this is.
They must know of the constant and ongoing debate concerning whether the term ‘species’ is valid across the board and especially for single celled algae. I found out. Could they not have done? Of course they know, but it ruins their fairy tale, so they ignore it.
The Species Delusion: Diatoms and the Species Concept
You have learnt of the life cycle of diatoms elsewhere on tis site. Is the slightly-changed generation following an auxospore,(the new generation first individual) a new ‘species’? Surely not. Here it is simply somewhat different because that how diatoms replicate.
Indeed, it is not at all clear that one can use the term ‘species’ for diatoms, except in the most colloquial of ways. As we know, they vary and transform themselves unprovoked, each line descending from one progenitor transforming throughout the life cycle. All diatomists (I just had to use that word at least once) openly discuss this problem.
Read the words of honest diatomic experts, Round, Crawford and Mann – ‘Such differences have yet to be explained in genetic terms but it does emphasise that species cannot be fully described or defined morphologically and even less so by use of type material in which a single valve is designated as the type (though we agree that this must done to conform with the International Code and also because chaos would result if it were not done). An element of discretion must therefore enter into the concept of a species.’
The Practical Use of ‘Species’ for Diatoms
In other words, we have perforce to use ‘species’ to describe different diatoms – but this is crude and inaccurate. It is imposed by the need to have some albeit inadequate level of clarity. This was re-expressed by the International Code of Nomenclature of algae, fungi and plants under the Melbourne Code of 2011. Species was a useful but inaccurate term.
So we see that the position has not changed. The word ‘species’ is used as a convention.
Further, the very definitions of all taxonomical groupings – kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species – have been changed to prop up Darwin. The impossibility of verifying his ideas, except to an uninformed public and congregation of the faithful, has forced the invention of ‘clades’. These are a system of groupings in which heredity is traced indirectly through clusters of side-shoots – klados – or cousin-hoods.
No one can now point the finger and say ‘Where is the missing link?’ We need no line of ancestors because there now can always be a ‘lost common ancestor’ of the whole disparate clade. The presumed shared ancestry now is to be traced through indirect and general steps. This is precisely what the Bible Cretins did to hide their ignorance.
So ‘species’ has become a doubly misleading term.
Diatom Diversity and Classification Challenges
Obviously, there are indeed ‘species’ of diatoms. There are websites devoted to finding ‘new’ ones and naming them. Moreover, there are believed to be probably 200,000 different types of diatoms just floating around with no names, poor things.
Yet the only certain differentiation is between two groups (phyla) – the first ‘long and squiggly’ and the second ‘round and fat’ – to use scientific terms.
They certainly all exhibit general traits – such as their reproductive cycle, single cell nature and basic inner structure (give or take the odd valve). They certainly show clear if minute distinctions shared by discrete groups. But which of these forms constitute true ‘species’ is still not clear and in fact irrelevant to the diatomists.
This has been known since 1989. It is supported by many articles on diatoms including a fascinating and jolly little discussion succinctly called – ‘Morphological variation of Stephanodiscus niagarae Ehrenb. (Bacillariophyta) in a Lake Ontario sediment core’ This carefully tracks the variations of one population of S. niagarae as it goes through its cycle of replication.
A fundamental element of the research is the care shown to illustrate the different effects of ‘vegetative’ replication which reduces cell size when compared to the creation, as above, of auxospores.
But – putting all this necessary detail to one side – just remember that diatoms naturally change unprompted and unnecessarily merely as a function of their life cycle with no evolutional imperative.
The Species Delusion: Ill-Bred Mutation
Selective breeding emphatically disproves mutation. Books on evolution proudly show pictures of Great Danes and tiny lapdogs or Pershore Shire horses with minute Shetland pony foals trotting beneath them. These show the range of adaption man can engineer artificially.
A child of three know that they all both doggies or gee-gees. Yet, selective breeding is used repeatedly to ‘prove’ evolution or at least smudge the edges. We are deliberately led to equate and confuse claimed mutation with man’s manipulation of a template by breeding within a species. This conflation is an old and dishonest trick. Animal breeders are not producing mutations at all.
Why Selective Breeding Does Not Prove Mutation
Ask one question and the whole charade is exposed. ‘Why has man with every feasible effort of selective or cross- breeding never produced even a single new species which is fertile?’ Yes, there are very rare ‘man-made’ ligers and tigons and the ubiquitous mule – but these would never re-occur for even one generation in the wild because they are barren.
So, mutation, mutation wherefore art thou? … … Nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face nor any other part has mutated.
Millions of animal breeders prove mutation does not happen millions of times a year. Even the change from a very, very big hairy dog to a very, very small hairless dog, however cosmetically apparent, is light years away from ‘mutation’.
Any intelligent and objective mind can see the difference. It may also see that selective breeding disproves mutation. They have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Those who try to suggest they do are barking up the wrong fossilised tree.
Yes, different characteristics can be exaggerated or practically eliminated. But no novel feature has ever, ever been produced. Dogs remain dogs; cats – cats; speculation – speculation; humbug – humbug.
Remember, man’s interference is never ever permanent and never ever has produced a new species nor ever happens across species – and do not think they have not tried every which way. Every humanly-induced change has been only within that species’ template – dogs stay dogs: guppies – guppies; fruit flies – fruit flies; academics – academics; and those changes regress quickly: no features foreign to that template ever, ever appear.
The Deception of Modern Genetics
Modern genetics has moved us on. But our requiring such advanced and unnatural methods of persistent and artificial selection merely to produce differences within a species, proves that natural mutation is a non-starter.
Yes, we today do see the spectre of chimeras being create in the laboratory and two or more completely different species being melded together. This is in pursuit of the creation of stem cell and organ donors. There have been some successes – a sheep and a goat (a geep); a corporate boss with a heart; a politician with a conscience. The last two died immediately of shock.
The Species Delusion: The Belyaev Fox Experiment
Take the Russian Belyaev foxes experiment. Here thousands of unfortunate foxes were inter-bred endlessly with Stalinesque humanity for over 50 years. It gave them a short respite before becoming fur coats, hats and trimmings.
The system was constantly to choose only the most docile strain and breed from them. Remarkable differences soon were indeed apparent in cuddliness. There is now a strain of these silver foxes which is almost as docile as dogs. Further, a number of physical traits and changes have become static within this group. More individuals have mottled coats, curly tails, floppy ears, and juvenile ‘endearing’ features and many other common features rare in the origin wild strain.
But they still look like ordinary foxes – however incredibly docile. The reason is extremely difficult for some to understand. It is complex and needs a brilliant mind.
The reason that they look exactly like foxes is because they still are foxes.
This experiment has sharply disproved mutation. And, boy, did they try to mutate those poor foxes. The Kremlin men were there every day – ‘Mutate or die, comrade.’ All changes obviously occurred only through deliberate and very careful in-breeding.
Changes were substantive within a mere three to five generations, but after that, the move to greater ‘tame-ability’ was gradual. Even after thirty generations of ‘humanisation’, the moment a fox was taken out of the programme and allowed to breed with wild foxes its offspring reverted to vicious ‘untame-ability’ within one to three generations.
In other words, as we all know, there is no permanent mutation and even in such a minor matter as temperament, the template remained untouched.
The Species Delusion: Wolves, Dogs, and Reversible Adaptation
Deliberate inter-breeding of wolves and dogs produces the same conclusions. Dogs were almost certainly selectively bred from wolves through our keeping only the least vicious adopted wolf cubs to maturity. So the Russian foxes are simply confirming that such inbreeding does work.
However, only our firm isolation of dogs from their progenitors – in the sense of having banned wolves from our habitat – has preserved their domesticity. The secondary specialisations of breeding Dachshunds to hunt Dachsen, Wolfhounds to hunt wolfen and Great Danes to hunt Scandinavians were built on the tame-ability strain we had isolated.
Yet if dogs and wolves interbreed the first litter of pups/cubs are almost never as docile as dogs. After three back-breedings, the domesticity has gone completely. This is after 10,000 to 50,000 claimed years of dogs living with humans – depending on whom you believe.
No mutation, merely reversible adaptation. This should fox no-one.
Natural Flexibility Within Species
It is certain that species have within their template a wide degree of flexibility. They can be induced to emphasise different features and traits as the environment dictates. This is the tacitly agreed conclusions from Galapagos finches, fruit flies and all the rest.
Salmon were found recently to change their breeding patterns markedly when kept in captivity. They soon changed back when put back into the wild. Even the guppies proved that they did not mutate in any way but merely adapted one way and then adapted back.
Leave a Reply