Darwin Wrong Again

Birds Tree of Life


Darwin Wrong Again

In the first edition of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin published in 1859, his “geographical distribution” proposal for the emergence of new species was presented in two chapters: 11th and 12th, both entitled “Geographic Distribution,” but Darwin wrong again.

In Darwin’s own words, the emergence of new species was “chiefly grounded on the laws of geographical distribution, that forms now perfectly distinct [species] have descended from a single parent-form,” Geographical distribution and “isolation… is an important element in the modification of species through natural selection.” Until now, however, Darwin’s theory had been largely unchecked and unchallenged.

Geographical isolation was once thought to result in the reproductive isolation. By preventing inbreeding through isolation, Darwin argued that a new species would emerge−speciation.

The Evolution 101 website sponsored by the University of California Berkley (UCB) under the section entitled “Causes of Speciation,” lists “Geographical Isolation” as the number one cause for the emergence of new species.  

“In the fruit fly example, some fruit fly larvae were washed up on an island, and speciation started because populations were prevented from interbreeding by geographic isolation. Scientists think that geographic isolation is a common way for the process of speciation to begin”

New research, however, published earlier this month undermines this foundational theory of biological evolution. Biologist Daniel Rabosky of the University of Michigan and Daniel Matute of the University of Chicago in an original research paper entitled “Macroevolutionary speciation rates are decoupled from the evolution of intrinsic reproductive isolation in Drosophila and birds” in the 3rd of September edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences refutes . 

By studying Drosophia flies (fruit flies) and birds, Rabosky and Matute surprisingly discovered –

“no evidence that the propensity of organisms to evolve reproductive isolation predicts the rate at which they form new species over geological timescales.” 

In an interview by the University of Michigan, Rabosky explained that “Most research on the formation of species has assumed that these types of reproductive barriers are a major cause of speciation. But our results provide no support for this, and our study is actually the first direct test of how these barriers affect the rate at which species form.”

Rabosky and reasoned that if genetic barriers to reproduction are a leading cause of new species, then groups of organisms that quickly accumulate those genes should also show high rates of species formation.

This theory was tested by comparing speciation rates to genetic indicators of reproductive isolation in birds and fruit flies. Fruit flies and birds were selected for the study because extensive data sets on interspecies breeding experiments exist for both groups. The researchers used evolutionary tree-based estimates of speciation rates for nine major fruit fly groups and two-thirds of known bird species.

Using computer models to perform comparison, the results came as a surprise. “We found no evidence that these things are related. The rate at which genetic reproductive barriers arise does not predict the rate at which new species form in nature,” Rabosky explained further. “If these results are true more generally—which we would not yet claim but do suspect—it would imply that our understanding of species formation is extremely incomplete because we’ve spent so long studying the wrong things, due to this erroneous assumption that the main cause of species formation is the formation of barriers to reproduction.”

“The whole enterprise of finding ‘speciation genes’ is potentially irrelevant to understanding the origin of species,” Rabosky said.

Darwin’s “geographical distribution” theory of speciation joins now his theory of pangenesis, blended inheritance, natural selection, sexual selection, and uniformitarianism on the long and growing list of extinct evolution theories. Darwin argument that “… isolation are necessary elements for the formation of new species” is wrong, again.

In desperation for causes for evolution, UCB has been caught fabricating mechanisms for evolution once again just as genetic mutations were finally removed a cause of speciation. Neo-Darwinism is dead. Over the last 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species, the evolution industry has evolved as master hoodwinking specialists−starting into full gear with the Piltdown Man fiasco.

The once emerging comprehensive theory of evolution has been decimated by technological scientific advances of the late twentieth century. As Alan Love of the University of Minnesota concluded in the watershed book entitled Evolution the Extended Synthesis, “a fully unified view of evolutionary processes may be out of reach.”

Evolution was once a theory in crisis, now evolution is in crisis without even a theory.

Biological evolution exists only as a philosophical fact, not a scientific fact.


13 Responses to “Darwin Wrong Again”

  • Joe Dickinson:

    Once again, the author of this site clearly does not understand the science he is pretending to analyze. The paper is about “speciation genes”, a concept Darwin could not have written about since he didn’t know about genes. The paper offers no challenge whatsoever to the importance of geographical isolation in speciation. My advice: quit pretending actually know anything about the modern evolutionary theory, which is in no more danger of being overturned than, say, atomic theory.

  • It is true, Darwin know nothing about genes or genetics. My advice to you, however, is to read either the blog again, or better yet read the actual paper. The title of the paper makes it pretty clear that based on genetics, “speciation rates are decoupled from the evolution of intrinsic reproductive isolation” – genetics is decoupled from reproductive isolation and speciation. In fact, “no [genetic] evidence that the propensity of organisms to evolve reproductive isolation predicts the rate at which they form new species over geological timescales.”

    It would be interesting to know, in your opinion, just which competing theories of evolution are emerging as the most widely accepted – following the aftermath of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism as viable candidates.

    It should be noted, in contrast to theories of biological evolution, the atomic theory seems to be fairing just fine.

  • Joe Dickinson:

    As stated, geographical isolation is still viewed as one of the most important mechanisms of speciation. Totally distinct from “speciation genes”. Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are doing just fine, thank you very much . There are no scientifically significant competing theories. NONE, ZIP, ZERO!!! Get over it.

  • Jason Lowther:

    Unfortunately I think it will be the pan-spermia hypothesis. As noted with books like the Earth Chronicles, the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and the show Ancient Aliens there are a growing number of people who want to believe aliens created us. Given the popularity of the show Ancient Aliens I do not believe this is just confined to the minds of eccentric scientists or UFO/alien buffs anymore.

  • John Tackes:

    Thank you for this well presented information and spot on response to the attempted assault on the validity of your views and your site. Those who adhere to lies will fight to the death to keep others from exposing their “nakedness”. I will share this article with many to help shine the spotlight of truth about Darwinism and false ideology masquerading and science. Thanks again.

  • Perhaps you should check-out a few recently published books that explain why Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are now dead – written by evolutionists. These include The End of Darwinism, Why a Fly is not a Horse, Evolution a view from the 21st century, Nature’s Destiny, Signature in the Cell, Evolution-the Extended Synthesis, Altenber-16, Science and Human Origins, and Darwin’s Doubt – just to name a few.

  • Aliens theories are more popular now following the end of Darwinsim. Current Russian authorities now activity advance the alien concept. Russian Television (RT) that is aired in the United States often feature alien evangelists with alleged alien experiences. A scientific problem with pan-spermia, however, is that it contradicts known natural laws – including those discovered by Louis Pastuer, known as the “father of microbiology.” Alien theories for the origin of life belong in the realm of science fiction – not science.

  • Thanks for you very kind comments. It is amazing to see that evolution adherents actually refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence when the evidence challenges one of their old paradigms. It is the evolution industry that is emerging as the anti-science movement.

  • ruben:

    Let me say this over again..
    Evolution? Natural Selection? Survival of the Fittest?

    Look at the birds, they do not sow or reap or gather into barns for the Heavenly Father feeds them..

    Darwin is dumb and the people who believe him are dumber. I was an Atheist and Darwin to me is nothing but a scientific failure. More so, a clown..
    And so therefore..

    Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you..

    Know the truth, especially You over there!!!

  • Joe Dickinson:

    Stripped to the bone, here is the “logic” of this post: “Darwin said ‘apples’; this recent paper says ‘not oranges’. Hence Darwinism is dead. Moreover, 150 years of research following on from Darwin’s seminal work also must be wrong.” Good grief!

  • You might want to consider what even the evolution industry insiders have finally concluded. According to James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, “It is important to note that [natural] selection has never led to formation of a new species, as postulated by Darwin.” Other books besides Shapiro’s Evolution from the 21st Century with the same conclusion include: Evolution-the Extended Synthesis, Signature in the Cell, The End of Darwinism, Why a Fly is not a Horse, Mind and Cosmos, Altenberg-16, Darwin’s Doubt – just to name a few.

    It is time to stop reading indoctrinating biology textbooks, the Discovery Channel, and Time magazine and enter the world of reality.

  • Thank you for presenting this interesting, though highly technical, study. There seems to be a considerable confusion in the scientific community as to how species are even defined, and the entire premise of the study is somewhat circular. For example, the author states in the discussion, “Under a strict biological species concept, speciation is defined as the evolution of reproductive isolation …” At the end he concludes, “However, a complete explanation for speciation in nature may require that we broaden our explanatory paradigm beyond the mechanisms that underlie reproductive isolation.” So, it is indeed interesting that while reproductive isolation itself defines speciation, there is “no hint of a relationship” between “macro evolutionary” diversification rates between species and reproductive isolation in the fruit flies and birds studies. Thus, a disconnect, or uncoupling, occurs.

    In the end, all of this is still simple variation within a kind of organism. The fruit fly is still a fruit fly, and a bird a bird.

  • Appreciate your kind comments. Really enjoyed reading the “Author” page on your website. Awesome. Already getting “likes” for posting it on Facebook.

    What I find so interesting is that more often than not the scientific evidence that was undoubtedly once intended to support evolution actually undermines it. This study serves as another example.

Leave a Reply

Book Description

Buy Now

Kindle Edition Available

Darwin, Then and Now is a journey through the most amazing story in the history of science - the history of evolution. The book encapsulates who Darwin was, what he said, and what scientists have discovered since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.

With over 1,000 references, Darwin Then and Now is a historical chronicle of the rise and fall of the once popular theory of biological evolution.