Observable Speciation... – Ray Comfort <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"BobGreen said...I accept the fact of evolution because it has been observed. 'Dear Bob,Observed? Where?' [Bob replies]: If you would care to Google on 'Observed instances of speciation' you will find plenty of examples, for example from the talkorigins site. However, beware, you will also find plenty of religious sites anxious to push their religious agenda. Religion is irrelevant with respect to science.""Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. If it has been observed, then evolution is true and the Bible is false. Speciation is the crossing of one species into another species. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)." The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." The author of Talkorigins attempts to characterize "species" with:"One aspect is the idea of reproductive compatibility and continuity within a species. Dogs beget dogs, they never beget cats! This has a firm grounding in folk knowledge. The second notion is that there is a discontinuity of variation between species. In other words, you can tell species apart by looking at them (Cronquist 1988)."It's not just dogs that reproduce dogs and cats reproduce cats. Throughout all of nature, we see elephants bringing forth elephants, horses produce horses, fish produce fish, insects produce insects and birds bring forth birds. The second point was that we can tell each species simply by observing them. Even with the hundreds of varieties within the species of dogs, if you hold up a picture of one to a toddler, whether it is a Great Dane or a tiny <?xml:namespace prefix = u1 />Chihuahua, the child will say "Dog!" It's the same with horses, even though there are different shapes and sizes within the species. All the Animals have a certain look and they reproduce within their own "species" or as the Bible puts it "kinds." Let's now look at the talkorigins site and study the article titled "Observed Instances of Speciation" of one species evolving into a "new" and "distinct" species.The article is broken into five parts: 1. Acknowledgments, 2. Definitions, 3. Context, 4. How to tell if speciation has occurred, and finally, 5. "Observed instances of speciation." The writer begins Part 5 with, "Observed Instances of Speciation. The following are several examples of observations of speciation." However, at the beginning of the article he gives an important qualification. He says, "Part 5 describes a number of observed speciation events and several experiments which (in my opinion) failed to produce speciation." Huh? His evidence for observed speciation doesn't exist? So if they aren't examples of "observed speciation," why are they listed as "Observed Instances of Speciation"? It's because there aren't any. He even pleads for evidence: "If you know of observations that I should include, let me know and I will chase down the reference, read it and modify the file." Here is one example he gives of speciation that he says isn't an example of speciation:"The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea."The scientist crossed a radish with a cabbage. He crossed two vegetables. This is given as an example of observed speciation of one species evolving into another species. No wonder the author disassociates himself with this "evidence." This has nothing to do with evolution. Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. Remember the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of "speciation" is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." There is no new species when a vegetable produces a vegetable. There is no speciation. This is just another example of evolutionary smoke and mirrors to deceive the simple.But Talkorigins has more evidence, in another article titled: "Some More Observed Speciation Events." This is written by James Meritt. He says, "Someone writes: I have a friend who says since we have never seen a species actually split into two different species during recorded history that he has trouble believing in the theory of evolution. Is this bogus and have humans seen animals bred into different species? (The various highly bred English dogs come to mind but I suppose this would be easier to find in vegetation. Corn, wheat strains? Donkeys and mules?) This is bogus. We've seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process."Then he gives examples of this observable evidence of speciation:"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved." He points to an experiment from the 1940's in which a windflowers produced wildflowers that "were similar in appearance to the hybrids." They were still wildflowers. Once again no evolution has taken place. There is no new species. Remember that speciation is "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." Speciation has never been observed, because it has never taken place. All of nature--animals, fish, birds and insects bring forth after their own kind, just as the Bible says. Is it true that "Religion is irrelevant with respect to science"? At least one person would disagree: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"--Albert Einstein. Rather, evolution has nothing to do with science. It is an unscientific, unobservable, and unsubstantiated theory.NOTES:http://groups.molbiosci.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-S/speciation.htmlhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/558635/speciationhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html