Just another Evolutionist PRATT, the usual paradigm-bound misconception of Speciation

Somebody just started a new thread at EvC titled An example of speciation in action? giving an example of reproductive isolation bringing about changes between two separate populations of a bird called a Blackcap. Differences in appearance between the two are minimal but differences in behavior are enough to keep them apart.

This is treated as some kind of wonderful event, at least a step on the way to macroevolution, which makes it just another evolutionist PRATT (Point Refuted a Thousand Times). I for one have answered it over and over both at EvC and on my blog, and I can't be the only one.

All this is merely one of the ways variation naturally occurs in species because of built-in genetic variability. It's nothing more than normal "microevolution," changes that are expected because of this built-in genetic variability, which can come about through anything that isolates a portion of a population from another so that they don't interbreed. Genetic drift within populations even does this but populations may also become physically separated from one another and go on to develop their own characteristics different from each other. This occurs because reproductive isolation brings about different gene frequencies in the new populations as compared to the original population. Really, it's to be expected that reproductive isolation would bring about changes between populations in this way. No mutations need be involved and there's no reason to suppose they are EVER involved.

It's simply a matter of different combinations or frequencies of alleles becoming characteristic in each of the separated populations. This is the natural result of the differences in gene frequencies working their way through each population over a few generations. Over time this brings about changes in the phenotypes characteristic of the new populations as a whole that differentiates them from each other more and more, sometimes to the point of approaching what the evolutionists would be inclined to call speciation. That depends on the degree of genetic variability that remains. The less genetic variability there is compared to the original population the more dramatic its changes will be, and the more likely it is that the populations will develop inability to interbreed with one another.

Is this speciation? This is an arbitrary definitional matter. It doesn't matter at what point population changes get called speciation, whether at this stage of practical differences bringing about lack of opportunity to interbreed, or behavioral disinclination to interbreed, or at the stage when isolation has brought about complete inability to interbreed because of genetic incompatibility, the effect is always that in isolation each population continues to elaborate its own separated gene pool and diverges further from the other.

Again, you don't need mutations to bring this about, merely different frequencies of alleles in each population.

And, as I've argued from the beginning of this blog, the result of these changes over time, especially with further splittings of the populations and further elaborations of the new gene frequencies brought about by the splitting, is reduced genetic variability that makes further evolution less possible, and ultimately impossible. The more evolution you have, the less evolution is possible. Evolution defeats evolution.

Oh well, they don't listen to such obvious simple contradictions of their beliefs. Maybe a creationist will come along and make the point eventually, and they'll ignore that too because they really don't care about science, only about justifying evolution.

But there's a brief statement of it just for the record.

========================
By the way, they often complain that creationists offer no evidence for many interpretations such as the above, without ever recognizing that they have no evidence for their opposing interpretations either, but have only the familiar just-so story line.

They interpret the changes brought about by reproductive isolation as steps in open-ended evolution, simply because that's what the theory requires, not because they have any evidence for it. To their mind the simple fact that such changes do occur IS the evidence -- evidence for the theory of evolution. But there is no evidence for the open-endedness of the change process itself, that's just assumed. Darwin assumed it and it continues to be assumed.

Likewise they assume mutations as the engine that keeps it all going because the theory requires such an engine. You can get different kinds of finches out of the built-in genetic complement that belongs to finches, but you can't get an iguana out of a finch without the input of new genetic material or "information."

So instead of even recognizing that there is such a thing as a built-in genetic complement that defines a species (which is really the definition OF a species or Kind at the genetic level, that elusive definition they keep haranguing us creationists to produce), they assume that ALL genetic material is constantly being created by the processes of mutation and natural selection. Again, there is no evidence for this, they have to assume it because the theory requires it.

As a creationist I interpret the changes brought about by reproductive isolation as the effect of shuffling the frequencies of alleles that belong to the built-in genetic complement for the species. There is a natural limit to the changes possible BECAUSE there is this original complement of genetic potentials that can only be shuffled and reshuffled. It CAN play out to less and less genetic variability down any particular line of variation brought about by reproductive isolation, especially a series of reproductive isolations such as in a ring species. What is called "speciation" is really the result of this reduced genetic variability. New phenotypes develop from new frequencies of genes, but reproductive isolation itself over time reduces the genetic variability. This can produce dramatic new phenotypes, but there is a point that is reached when further variation becomes impossible. You may have a striking new variation (they call it a new species) but it may have such reduced genetic variability it can't change any further at all. Yes, like the cheetah. Thus bringing the processes of evolution to an end for that line of variation.

Mutations are of absolutely no use in this scenario, they only interfere with it, and in reality that does appear to be what happens, which is evidence for the scenario right there -- thousands of genetic diseases, thousands of "neutral" mutations that have simply not produced anything identifiable (although they have to be deleterious because they change the genetic code, which was originally perfect), and a very few known "beneficial" mutations that are highly questionable. These are the facts, although the theory of evolution says the opposite and has to interpret them away, as by claiming the beneficial mutations made the entire genetic code so are therefore hard to detect. The known facts, however, are on the creationist's side.

I have also suggested a scientific test that could prove all this, which is more than the evolutionist side can offer. All they have is theory, elaborated by theory, multiplied by theory, developed by theory and validated by theory. Fantasy in other words. No evidence.

Ad Hoc = Fantasy explanations mistaken for science shown again on thread about lack of hominid transitionals

A new creationist at EvC called CrytoGod is now trying his hand at getting them to acknowledge that all they have is speculation /conjecture/ fantasy /imaginative constructs /ad hoc explanations / just-so stories, all stuff made up off the top of the head / off the cuff, whatever synonymous expression you prefer, to explain anything the theory of evolution requires. Are they going to acknowledge that? Of course not.

The subject is why there aren't any intermediate ape-human types wandering around.

Why should there be? was somebody's disingenuous answer. Well, because Darwin for one realized that there had to be for the theory to hold water. LOTS of transitionals with many small gradations as a matter of fact, not just the occasional specimen of a creature that has characteristics of a couple of other species. OK, he was talking about FOSSILS, but the same reasoning implies that there ought to be LOTS of living transitionals as well if the theory were correct. Darwin was clear: you gotta have LOTS of them and LOTS of gradations between them. He tried to get away with explaining their lack by the imperfection of the "fossil record" (one of HIS ad hoc explanations that can't be proved or disproved) but if that fossil record were really a record of evolution down the millions of years you'd nevertheless have to see some evidence of what he had in mind and you don't. ALL we see are complete forms, forms with variations such as occur all the time in living nature too, but not the transitionals the theory requires. And that's just the fossil record. LIVING transitionals are an even more reasonable expectation from the theory as you can't argue "imperfection" of the living record. As CtG says, it's just too too convenient that there aren't any.

What can they do but assert that there aren't any intermediate ape-human types wandering around just because there aren't, because they went extinct, and make up explanations why that might possibly be the case, although CrytoGod specifically asked them to avoid ad hoc explanations and give only scientific explanations. Well, CtG knows as well as I do that there AREN'T any scientific explanations, ONLY made-up stuff that they nevertheless call fact or science. ALL the evos can do is posture and expostulate, insinuate that the creationist's evidence is flawed somehow or other [it's "old"], and denounce him as stupid and ignorant, and aggressively declare whatever they can invent to support the theory as if it were fact, because that's all they ever do and all they CAN do because there IS no science that supports this stuff.

He who has eyes to see...

I cry to God also, that He would open the eyes of these blind.

===========

Much later. I keep wanting to get back to this post but never quite make it, too much else going on, but will at least say here, in case I can never get back to it, that the thread I'm talking about above goes on with plenty of examples of this kind of ad hoc / make-it-up-as-you-go thinking, which is really THE "methodology" of The Sciences of the Past, both evolutionism or biology of the past, and Old Earthism or geology of the past. Anybody's guess will do to explain whatever the theory tells them must be true. That's the Fantasy of Evolution for ya right there.

Just another anti-Flood posturing at EvC mistaking the usual fantasy for science

Just another typical comment on another Flood thread at EvC.

We can tell from your last post that you still believe the geologic record is consistent with a flood, but you ignored all the posts explaining why a flood doesn't deposit sediments in ways that resemble the layers of the geologic record.

Well, of course, and I generally ignore them too because it can only be the usual fantasizing in the service of their bias. They can never imagine the Flood properly and only impose their own speculations on it based on their own biases. Why is it so hard for them to honestly recognize that is what they are doing? There can't be the sort of evidence they so aggressively insist be acknowledged because there can't be the sort of similarity between an ordinary everyday flood and THE Flood. Of COURSE we ignore such supposed explanations. All daydreams from the Darwinian presupposition.

How much credit do you think you deserve for ignoring all this information? If what we post to you doesn't matter, why should we bother?

Why don't you require of yourselves that you recognize your own methods aren't really scientific but just as speculative as any Floodist's? And the Floodist has the advantage of an ancient revelation against your purely invented theory.

While there are some people who will always be snarky , even normally polite people will become snarky when ignored.

No doubt, even though all they've had to offer is just more variations on the usual fantasy.

Debate isn't you talk, I talk, you talk, I talk. Debate is you talk, I react to what you say, you react to what I say, etc. What you've got going here is you talk, we react to what you say, you talk, we react to what you say, you talk, etc. How about responding to the information you've been provided?

What, information about how a local flood proves THE Flood didn't happen? Yes, I suppose our creationist should take more care to address the opposition's posts but since all they could possibly be is imaginative efforts at shooting down his points rather than taking them seriously I can understand why he might not. Yes, I know, I could be wrong, this could be one of those threads where the creationist really is out of bounds, but the complaint from the other side just sounds awfully familiar.

They are awfully certain that the evidence does not support a worldwide Flood, and yet every explanation offered for how the strata could have formed piecemeal over millions/billions of years is far more irrational than what they think they are answering.

And an earlier post shows that as usual it's really all about authority anyway. All those geologists just can't be wrong.

In order for there to have been a recent world-wide flood, generations of geologists and their research going back to the late 1700's would have to be wildly wrong. For so many geologists over so long a period of time to be so wrong would require the source of the error to be incredibly well hidden

. Yes, it IS well hidden, it's in the basic assumptions of the whole invented fantasy edifice that they keep mistaking for science.

It is unlikely to be found in a blender of dirt and water or anything else so simplistic.

True, it won't be found in any one bit of data but even that bit of data might contain truth that simply can't be seen because of the prejudices that prevent it. But more to the point it won't be found in ANY bit of data put forward by a creationist there because of the strong bias against it and the ease with which contrary interpretations can be pulled out of a hat to serve as a rebuttal. [In this particular case the creationist was answering an assertion about how the flood would have left things jumbled and mixed. It's a perfectly decent answer. If you stir up sediments with water in a blender they sort out into layers. It's a good answer. A worldwide Flood would not have left things jumbled but in layers. Instead of accepting it as a good answer they object that such an example doesn't describe the layering actually seen. As if the blender example were meant to account for the whole geo column. No, it was meant merely to demonstrate that swirling water deposits sediments in layers, and it ought to be accepted as a reasonable answer.]

Creationists often don't argue these things very well and even the better ones shouldn't even be trying. But that doesn't change the fact that the evolutionists are deceived from the getgo and the whole debate itself is a big joke.

He goes on to object that the creationist simply doesn't know enough Geology and that his focus on God keeps him from desiring to study it. This may be true of this particular creationist, or it may not be. This is a standard position there but just reading up on basic Geology doesn't tell you much about the issues under debate. So far Dr. Adequate has put up a great deal of basic Geology and so far it doesn't even touch on anything that supports or denies the possibility of the Flood. The only thing that did relate was a post that was more of an aside than a lesson in Geology, in which he gave his own beliefs about buried "landscapes." So I'm still waiting. In other words, one could know a great deal of basic Geology without finding anything of much value in this debate.

===========================

Upthread from this conversation is a post by Coyote who always argues the same line, claiming to have given the evidence that completely does in the Flood claims:

Given the massive amount of contrary evidence in the archaeological and geological record, I can't believe anyone could support the notion of a global flood during relatively recent times, ca. 4,350 years ago. The early creation geologists gave up on that idea just about 200 years ago--and they set out to prove the flood! Evidence showing the global flood never happened during recent times has only accumulated since then, while no credible evidence has been found to support such a flood.

In my career as an archaeologist I have tested probably over 100 sites whose time spans included the date most often attributed to the global flood by biblical scholars, ca. 4,350 years ago. I have never found evidence of either massive erosion or sedimentary deposition at that time period.

What I have found instead is continuity of human cultures, mtDNA, fauna and flora, and sedimentation. The things that must have occurred if there was a global flood at that time--discontinuities in all of those areas--are not found.

The same results are reported by my colleagues elsewhere in the United States and around the world.

But lest you think that we are idiots and can't see evidence for floods, I would direct you to various websites on the Channeled Scablands in eastern Washington. Post-glacial floods repeatedly scoured that area as ice dams in western Montana periodically held back and released meltwaters. We can establish the dates of the floods and their extent. Here are a couple of good websites for your edification:

http://www.cr.nps.gov/...logy/publications/inf/72-2/sec5.htm

http://hugefloods.com/Scablands.html

Coyote accepts without question the dating methods of today's science. That's the beginning of the problem. They will not consider that methods that deal with the past can't be hard and fast as they claim they are. As usual they talk as if they were fact, as if they could prove their claim in the laboratory, which of course they cannot. Their tone of certainty is unscientific and perhaps would never have been adopted if they didn't feel the need to quell the creationist claims. A creationist cannot and will not accept their dates. What's the point of continuing to debate such things since there will always be this impasse?

Coyote's argument in fact should be regarded as a PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) on the evolutionist side because it's certainly been answered over and over.

I can't believe anyone could support the notion of a global flood during relatively recent times, ca. 4,350 years ago. The early creation geologists gave up on that idea just about 200 years ago--and they set out to prove the flood! Evidence showing the global flood never happened during recent times has only accumulated since then, while no credible evidence has been found to support such a flood.

Unfortunately the early creationist geologists were looking for the wrong kind of evidence for the Flood, as are the archaeologists Coyote is talking about.

In my career as an archaeologist I have tested probably over 100 sites whose time spans included the date most often attributed to the global flood by biblical scholars, ca. 4,350 years ago. I have never found evidence of either massive erosion or sedimentary deposition at that time period.

Of course he can't find evidence of the Flood. He's looking for specifics he's dreamed up that are way too small for such a Flood. Just like those early creationist geologists.

Of course their timing is wrong to begin with. All settlements that would be studied by archaeology, same as all the great empires including the Egyptian, that science places back before the Biblical time of the Flood, do not go that far back, were all built since the Flood.

"Massive erosion?" -- Try erosion on the scale of entire continents being denuded of their sediments, which were then redeposited in layers all over the earth. You won't find this at a particular depth in an archaeological dig. You're going to have to stand up and survey the entire landscape. You can't dig down to find the evidence, because in reality it's everywhere. ALL the strata are evidence of the Flood, all those layers of sediments that have been given names and time estimates in the millions by modern Geology. That's the evidence for the Flood.

What I have found instead is continuity of human cultures, mtDNA, fauna and flora, and sedimentation. The things that must have occurred if there was a global flood at that time--discontinuities in all of those areas--are not found.

Not if what you're digging around in all occurred since the Flood. You're looking for paltry "discontinuities" among post-Flood phenomena.

And then the usual argument about the ancient limited floods:

But lest you think that we are idiots and can't see evidence for floods, I would direct you to various websites on the Channeled Scablands in eastern Washington. Post-glacial floods repeatedly scoured that area as ice dams in western Montana periodically held back and released meltwaters. We can establish the dates of the floods and their extent. Here are a couple of good websites for your edification:

http://www.cr.nps.gov/...logy/publications/inf/72-2/sec5.htm

http://hugefloods.com/Scablands.html

Yes, they can see THAT evidence, though they misread the timing as usual since they have to conform it all to the Geo Time Table. It's interesting to read about those floods, the draining of massive lakes, and there is no reason to doubt that they are interpreting the data correctly as far as the physical events go. Lake Missoula was rapidly and catastrophically drained, possibly in two days, according to the article, but since that seems a little too fast for them they suggest perhaps it took a month.

These facts are consistent with the usual Floodist interpretation. After the Flood it should be expected that there would have been standing bodies of water, including those HUGE standing bodies of water, Lakes Missoula, Lahontan and Bonneville in the western USA. Since Floodists also believe that tectonic and volcanic forces were released during and after the Flood, it would make sense that the dams that held back these lakes could have been suddenly broken as the land to the east rose and the Rockies were formed in that area by tectonic movement.

But the scientists insist on their own methods and conclusions, especially their ridiculous timing, instead so what's the point of arguing any of this?