Polyploidy fish generated in one generation

Polyploidy fish generated in one generation

Darwin failed to provide the case for disapproval

Darwin cited several sorts of observations (Patterson, C. 1999a), which would, in his view, disprove his theory.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

This is a logical error. Mechanisms of how any complex organ formed was and is still debatable and whether numerous successive steps are required for formation of any organ is still a question. Speciation by RMNS is not a given. The person who postulates the theory must provide evidence of its validity. In this case, Neo-Darwinians should show how numerous successive steps, in what animals, and by which genetic mechanism, form complex organs. An idea cannot be proved wrong if it never existed. If the logic stands, anyone can claim all kinds of absurd “theories” correct. If it could be demonstrated that I am not going to Heaven after death, my theory that I will go Heaven is correct,  Since no one can demonstrate that, my theory is true, and I will go the Heaven after death. If nobody could demonstrate that core of the Sun is not made of diamonds, my theory that core of Sun is made of diamond is correct. Since no one can do that, my theory is correct.

“Certain naturalists believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This Doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”

Beauty in the eyes of humans is a subjective feeling as no universal criteria for beauty exists. Additionally, the creation of any structure to appeal to humans or for mere variety is not relevant to the theory of new species arrive by the natural selection.

“If it could he proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory.”

Exclusive good of another species are not objectively measurable. Every individual within a species is different, even if criteria to measure the goodness of species can be subjectively established; the results would be diverse and heterogeneous. Members in a species will be 81% goodness, or 35% or 20%, individuals with 100% or exclusive goodness of another species are not survivable.

Neo-Darwinists make the mechanisms of RMNS and GI a pseudoscience

Ernst Mayr, considered as the 20th century Darwin, was also a founder of Neo-Darwinism or Modern Synthesis, wrote:

“Evolution is an opportunistic process . . .Pluralism is characteristic of all aspects of the evolutionary process. Reproductive isolation is effected in most higher animals by prezygotic isolating mechanisms (e.g., behavior), and in others by chromosomal incompatibilities, sterility, or other postzygotic factors. Speciation usually occurs for geographic reasons in terrestrial vertebrates, but it is sympatric in certain groups of fishes and perhaps in plant-host-specific groups of insect (Mayr, E. 2001).”

Many opportunistic processes are present in the world. At one time, persons who received blood transfusions were more likely to acquire HIV infection than those who did not. However, every species and every member within a species is the outcome of natural selection and are adaptated to their environments. Under NS or GI, who then will evolve into different species? Do persons in South Africa have more opportunities to evolve into a new species than those who live at the North Pole?

Scientists might provide many mechanisms for one particular outcome. Hepatitis B virus infection may lead to hepatitis (outcome), whereas Hepatitis C and D viruses also lead to hepatitis. These claims can be supported and refuted separately. There are evidences to support the claim, and ways to falsify it. One way to disprove it is to test bloods from the most suspected patients to see if there is existence of antibodies or antigens of Hepatitis C or D viruses, if not, the claim is falsified or disproved.

Assuming that one group of scientists postulates the theory that flu virus also causes hepatitis (in fact, it does not) To test the theory correct, all patients with hepatitis should be tested and if none of them has flu antigen or antibody, then the theory is incorrect. Even if none of the confirmed cases shows it support the flu virus theory, you can not disprove it; nobody can test ones with the virus infection died 5000 years ago, or ones not borne yet. The flu virus theory is a pseudoscience.

Even if all 1000 species in the study evolved into other species in the study by an instantaneous process, one could say that that the majority of species evolved by RMNS or GI, and all species existed now are only a small portion of all species ever existed.

To be continued….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s