INTELLIGENT DESIGN EVIDENCE
General Evidence: Speciation
General Evidence: Speciation
|
Darwin attempted to explain how unguided, purposeless processes could create new
species. Darwin analogized to intelligent breeding, which involves intelligent selection
among variant offspring to produce differences in future generations of a given animal
or plant line. Darwin theorized that if intelligent agents could produce variations in
physical characteristics in pigeons, for example, perhaps nature, via natural selection,
over time could produce all the variety of species we observe.
Modern evidence calls Darwin's theory into question for at least two reasons. First,
regardless of whether "selection" is unintelligent (by nature alone) or intelligent (by
breeding), the selection process can only be effective once there is a favorable variation
in the base species from which to "select". What this means is that regardless the
efficacy of "natural selection", there is nothing to select until some beneficial feature or
characteristic is created in the first place. Current scientific data shows that variations in
the genome, i.e., random mutations, are rarely, if ever, beneficial in an organism. Most
mutations are either neutral in effect, or harmful. Therefore, the idea that "selection" can
be made in an unguided, unintelligent manner among largely harmful mutations to
result in long term beneficial speciation is not supported by the evidence. Second, even
when intelligent selection is utilized, such as in the breeding of dogs, cows, or fruitflies,
the evidence shows that regardless the extent of selection, the respective species
remain intact.[1] No amount of intelligent selection, as in breeding, has ever produced
any new, beneficial features, like new organs, new eyes, new wings, etc.[2]
Therefore, the scientific question with respect to speciation is this: What evidence is
there that unintelligent processes can create new, beneficial variations, such as genetic
mutations, that can then be selected to propogate to future generations?
Darwin's 19th century theory was bolstered with the advent of modern genetics,
microbiology, and other science disciplines, from which neo-Darwinism was born.
Neo-Darwinism holds that the variation necessary for creating new features and
benefits arises due primarily to the random mutations that occur in the genome of a
living organism.
But can the random variation produced by chance mutations in the genome produce any
beneficial change, and especially enough long-term, directional change in major
features and body plans to create a new species? To date there is no evidence to
suggest that such unintelligent variation can cause speciation. Just as intelligent
selection can produce only different versions of an existing species, it appears from the
evidence that unintelligent variation (i.e., random mutations) is likewise limited to
change only within the bounds of a species. Even the intelligent manipulation of existing
species such as the fruit fly has produced only more and different fruit flies.
There is simply no evidence to suggest that the random action of chance mutations can
create beneficial changes from which natural selection can "select" sufficient to produce
new body plans evident in even closely related species. In fact, random mutations are
almost universally neutral in effect, but when of a magnitude to affect the organism are
likewise almost universally detrimental to the health of the organism. In most cases
such mutations result in what are called birth defects.
For this reason, the fact of different species, each being bounded by a genomic limit
with respect to change, is evidence for intelligent design. An intelligent cause can create
with a purpose. An intelligent cause can be forward looking to produce changes that are
beneficial. An intelligent cause can create information-bearing genetic instructions,
where unintelligent causes can simply shuffle genetic information in random ways,
usually harming the organism.
Footnotes:
1. The term "species" is itself malleable, and is often stretched to a meaningless status by those who
wish to show that "natural selection" has produced a "new" species. In any event, the selection
usually referred to is not "natural", but is performed by intelligent beings in a lab, and the "species"
exhibits no new, beneficial features that might yield a reproductive advantage. Usually, like in the
intelligently designed "four-winged fruit fly" the new features are not beneficial, but detrimental to
survival.
2. When any new features do appear, such as on the intelligently designed "four winged fruit fly", the
features are actually harmful to the organism's survival. Such organisms are referred to as "freaks". (For
more information on the four-winged fruit fly, see HERE.
species. Darwin analogized to intelligent breeding, which involves intelligent selection
among variant offspring to produce differences in future generations of a given animal
or plant line. Darwin theorized that if intelligent agents could produce variations in
physical characteristics in pigeons, for example, perhaps nature, via natural selection,
over time could produce all the variety of species we observe.
Modern evidence calls Darwin's theory into question for at least two reasons. First,
regardless of whether "selection" is unintelligent (by nature alone) or intelligent (by
breeding), the selection process can only be effective once there is a favorable variation
in the base species from which to "select". What this means is that regardless the
efficacy of "natural selection", there is nothing to select until some beneficial feature or
characteristic is created in the first place. Current scientific data shows that variations in
the genome, i.e., random mutations, are rarely, if ever, beneficial in an organism. Most
mutations are either neutral in effect, or harmful. Therefore, the idea that "selection" can
be made in an unguided, unintelligent manner among largely harmful mutations to
result in long term beneficial speciation is not supported by the evidence. Second, even
when intelligent selection is utilized, such as in the breeding of dogs, cows, or fruitflies,
the evidence shows that regardless the extent of selection, the respective species
remain intact.[1] No amount of intelligent selection, as in breeding, has ever produced
any new, beneficial features, like new organs, new eyes, new wings, etc.[2]
Therefore, the scientific question with respect to speciation is this: What evidence is
there that unintelligent processes can create new, beneficial variations, such as genetic
mutations, that can then be selected to propogate to future generations?
Darwin's 19th century theory was bolstered with the advent of modern genetics,
microbiology, and other science disciplines, from which neo-Darwinism was born.
Neo-Darwinism holds that the variation necessary for creating new features and
benefits arises due primarily to the random mutations that occur in the genome of a
living organism.
But can the random variation produced by chance mutations in the genome produce any
beneficial change, and especially enough long-term, directional change in major
features and body plans to create a new species? To date there is no evidence to
suggest that such unintelligent variation can cause speciation. Just as intelligent
selection can produce only different versions of an existing species, it appears from the
evidence that unintelligent variation (i.e., random mutations) is likewise limited to
change only within the bounds of a species. Even the intelligent manipulation of existing
species such as the fruit fly has produced only more and different fruit flies.
There is simply no evidence to suggest that the random action of chance mutations can
create beneficial changes from which natural selection can "select" sufficient to produce
new body plans evident in even closely related species. In fact, random mutations are
almost universally neutral in effect, but when of a magnitude to affect the organism are
likewise almost universally detrimental to the health of the organism. In most cases
such mutations result in what are called birth defects.
For this reason, the fact of different species, each being bounded by a genomic limit
with respect to change, is evidence for intelligent design. An intelligent cause can create
with a purpose. An intelligent cause can be forward looking to produce changes that are
beneficial. An intelligent cause can create information-bearing genetic instructions,
where unintelligent causes can simply shuffle genetic information in random ways,
usually harming the organism.
Footnotes:
1. The term "species" is itself malleable, and is often stretched to a meaningless status by those who
wish to show that "natural selection" has produced a "new" species. In any event, the selection
usually referred to is not "natural", but is performed by intelligent beings in a lab, and the "species"
exhibits no new, beneficial features that might yield a reproductive advantage. Usually, like in the
intelligently designed "four-winged fruit fly" the new features are not beneficial, but detrimental to
survival.
2. When any new features do appear, such as on the intelligently designed "four winged fruit fly", the
features are actually harmful to the organism's survival. Such organisms are referred to as "freaks". (For
more information on the four-winged fruit fly, see HERE.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |