The Daily Star, Oneonta, NY - otsego county news, delaware county news, oneonta news, oneonta sports

Tom Sears

September 4, 2007

On the Right Side: Speciation has never been observed

Finally, as promised, my last column on evolution (I think). There is so much more to talk about and three columns can’t give the topic adequate coverage. So if you like, if you e-mail me, I will give you a list of all the books I have used as research.
One huge stumbling block for Darwinists is to show how one species evolves into another. Has this most basic building block, called speciation, ever been observed or demonstrated as one would expect as a necessary element for scientific validity? Not once.
Even though there are many definitions of the term species, Jerry Coyne and Allen Orr, both evolutionary biologists, use the following in their book ``Speciation’’: "Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
In other words, humans can’t breed with animals, mammals with fish, goats with birds, etc. However, Darwin said we all come from a single common ancestor.
It must be nice to make such claims but it would be nicer if these claims could be backed up. They obviously can’t be. There is a website,, that claims there have been five examples of observed speciation. Every one has been either dis-proven or improperly claimed in the first place.
Two quotes are relevant here. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article, "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
Also, William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, ``Uncommon Dissent’’, which is a collection of articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation, "That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, Darwinism offers just-so stories about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality."
Again, where is the evidence for these remarkable transformations? Shouldn’t we be able to find in the fossil record proof of one species turning into another?
As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."
I apologize for not being able to properly cover some other important areas of concern relating to Darwinism, but there are a lot of conservative issues out there that need to be addressed.
So, in conclusion, as William Dembski says, "Why does Darwinism’s back need to be broken? Because it is no longer merely a scientific theory but an ideology. Darwin’s original proposal was actually quite modest: organisms adapt to their environments as a result of random variation and natural selection."

If the Darwinists kept the theory at this level of explanation, there would be no arguments. When they take the giant leap to use this theory to explain the origin of life, with all its incredible complexity, people can rightly question the validity of these claims.
Michael Behe, PhD in biochemistry, warns us, properly so, when he says, "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of its constructs "¦ in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment , a commitment to materialism."

So feel comfortable with the fact that all Darwinists can do is belittle, insult and demean their opponents when challenged. The people mentioned above are only a few of the highly qualified scientists and intellectuals who are on your side. Also, based on the numerous polls taken by Pew, Gallup and others, apparently the general public has a lot of common sense on its side.
Someone said it perfectly when he/she said that Darwinism was the atheist’s creation myth.
Tom Sears is a professor of accounting at Hartwick College in Oneonta. He can be reached at His column appears every other week.

Text Only
Tom Sears

Additional Content
Join the Debate
Additional Resources
CNHI News Service

Is Israel justified to conduct its military campaign against the Hamas in Gaza?

Undecided/no opinion
     View Results