Gasterosteus Variation

The Gasterosteus (Threespine stickleback).

Another unfortunate attempt to justify or to prove that a non-existent 'speciation' is going on today was presented by the current President of the Society for the Study of Evolution, Dolph Schluter, with the backing up of Peter Grant (see the "interbreeding between different finches") published in Science an article using as his model the fish Gasterosteus (Threespine stickleback).

Dolph Schluter wrote:

"I used interspecific hybridization to increase the frequency of these individuals, and, therefore, the sensitivity of the test. Hybridization is a valid manipulation because all previous crosses between closely related freshwater sticklebacks have not revealed any intrinsic reduction in offspring viability. F1 hybrids were raised from artificial crosses between the Cranby species and the Paxton benthic species (C x B), and between the Cranby and the Paxton limnetic species (C x L)" [Dolph Schluter. Experimental Evidence That Competition Promotes Divergence in Adaptive Radiation. 1994. Science 266:798-801. References: (McPhail JD, Can J Zool 62:1402 (1985); ibid, 70:361 (1992); Hatfield T & Schluter D, Evolution 53: 866-873). ]

Then, Peter R. Grant comments Schluter's work in the same number of Science:

"...to give the experiment a good chance of working, one extra manipulation had to be made; the frequency of the extreme forms of the two species was artificially increased, by hybridization." [Peter R. Grant. Ecological Character Displacement. 1994. Science 266:746-747.]

McKinnon and Rundle, quoting from the works of Schluter declared:

“Complete viability and fertility of hybrids is the norm... given the ease with which various hybrid crosses can be raised in the laboratory … Indeed, several studies have demonstrated that speciation can occur in the absence of genetic incompatibilities [???]." [McKinnon JS & Rundle HD. Speciation in nature: the threespine stickleback model systems. 2002. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17(10):480-488. [They quoted from Schluter, D. (2001) Ecology and the origin of species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 372–380, pfd)”]

Here, the extreme of inconsistency and incongruity is reached by Schluter et al, as those varieties of sticklebacks are deliberately deemed there as if pertaining to different 'species', in an attempt to justify a biased reasoning in support for a non-existent 'speciation'.

The quoted oxymoron written by McKinnon and Rundle and based on Schluter's work says that “several studies have demonstrated that speciation can occur in the absence of genetic incompatibilities”, which means that the topic here is 'variation' ONLY, the description of 'varieties' or 'subspecies' and their compatible interbreeding, producing fertile offspring!

Because, if "several studies have demonstrated that speciation can occur in the absence of genetic incompatibilities" that means that the topic is variation, just the description of varieties or sub-species.

The figure's legend for Ann's article declares: "One species or two? These sticklebacks may be separate species - or not, depending on the species definition".

So, not only the lack of fossil intermediates, but also the living facts of genetics and its sub-fields oppose any theory of evolution on the basis of a non-existent 'speciation'.

Similar illogical contradictions to the ones presented here by McKinnon and Rundle, by Schluter and by Peter R. Grant, etc. raised such opposition to the point that a review on the issue was presented in the same journal:

"The species concept is all over biology, from genetics to ecology to evolution. Yet biologists have not been able to agree on what a species is, exactly. The textbook definition is a group that can't interbreed with other groups, yet many accepted [as different] species are biologically able to interbreed--they just [sometimes] don't [do it] in nature." [Ann Gibbons. The Species Problem. Science. 1996. 273(5281):1501.]

We can easily see that the problem is not "the species problem," but the real problem is the gratuitous evolutionary concept of "speciation"; the problem is Darwinism and neoDarwinism!

Ann Gibbons then mentioned different attempts to define 'species', it seems as if those people that beforehand got involved in the proving of 'evolution' through 'speciation' are trying to keep as much confusion as possible for their "definitions" of 'species', in the same way that Darwin did it, as that "careless semantics" is necessary for their fallacy. Ann then proceeds to mention Schluter:

"The definition of species is a constant thorn in the side of progress in speciation research," says University of British Columbia ecologist Dolph Schluter, who studies speciation in what may or may not be two separate species of stickleback fish."

The "speciation research" is not going to progress for the simple reason that there is no "speciation" at all. The Gasterosteus fishes are not two separate species but just varieties of the same organism!

"By the leading textbook definition, the sticklebacks probably don't count as two species. The two groups of fish interbreed occasionally and produce viable offspring, which disqualifies them from species status under a strict interpretation of the "biological species" concept…"

"[Ernst Mayr's concept of] reproductive isolation is a kind of mystical definition, in that you know it when it’s absolutely complete, but actually there are plenty of examples of species that do hybridize in the wild," says evolutionary biologist James Mallet at University College in London."

"Coyotes interbreed with wolves and dogs, blue whales interbreed with fin whales, and many species of Protozoa, lower Metazoa, and plants do as well. "Are we going to say [that] those [interbreeding animals] aren't [of the same] species?" asks Mallet. [words in brackets mine].

"… [evolutionary] scientists would still like to winnow the definitional diversity, so that when researchers such as Schluter publish on stickleback speciation, others won't voice doubts that he was looking at separate species in the first place. "Perhaps the best we can do is to agree to disagree in a rational manner" and agree on a limited set of concepts, says entomologist Stewart Berlocher of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaing" [emphasis and word in brackets mine].

Other postings:

D. S. Wilson wrote:

"...Evolution is famously controversial, despite being as well established as any scientific theory... Even worse, most people who do accept the theory of evolution don’t relate it to matters of importance in their own lives..." "...there are two walls of resistance to evolution, one that denies its validity altogether and another that denies its relevance to human affairs. It is easy for academics to ridicule the first wall (creationism and its born-again cousin, intelligent design)..."

The difference with other scientific theories is that evolution is "established" by the deliberate concealing of the details that make it false, like this detail on "speciation", and by all the other outward lies of "evolution".

D. S. Wilson wishes to ridicule Intelligent Design, however, the next postings available for everybody to read are demonstrating where the real burden of "ridicule" really stands:

By Design, Newsweek fails to tell the truth about Finches

E. O. Wilson and his “Darwinian Fairytales”

The arrogance of Darwin’s physical and intellectual family tree

D. S. Wilson wishes "Evolution for Everyone", while:

"We deeply encourage everybody to critically analyze evolution. The real science must be something non-esoteric and non-cryptic, but rather, fully available to everyone’s consideration, and this, of course, is contrary to the views of those supremacist evolutionists in control today.

The most critics of evolution available, the best results for the freedom and for the progress of today’s real science!"

Are then out there "established facts" of evolution? Well, our Gasterosteus friends are shouting it: NO!

I “agree to disagree” a thousand times with those evolutionists that deliberately lie by losing their common sense and their rationality, just to preserve the myth of evolution started by Darwin.