Changes

Darwin attempted to explain how unguided, purposeless processes could create new species.  Darwin analagized 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.<br /><br />

Darwin attempted to explain how unguided, purposeless processes could create new species.  Darwin analagized 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.<br /><br />

Modern science 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.<ref>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.</ref> No amount of intelligent selection, as in breeding, has ever producted any new, beneficial features, like new organs, new eyes, new wings, etc.<ref>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 http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/12/icons_of_evolution_a_response_4.html)</ref><br /><br />

Modern science 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.<ref>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.</ref> No amount of intelligent selection, as in breeding, has ever produced any new, beneficial features, like new organs, new eyes, new wings, etc.<ref>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 http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/12/icons_of_evolution_a_response_4.html)</ref><br /><br />

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?<br /><br />

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?<br /><br />