Research on Intelligent Design

To put together scientific advances from the perspective of Intelligent Design.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

The Elephant Variation

Encouraged by the most recent (02. January 2006) Dr. Beling's and Dr. Davison's postings to my Intelligent Design studies, I wish to answer with what I have found related to The Elephant Variation:
"An Asian elephant cow, "Sheba" in Chester Zoo, England, November 7, 1978 gave birth to a calf with an African elephant bull "Jumbolino" as the father. The male calf named Motty died two weeks after its birth. It was an early birth and Motty had stomach problems."

"[Being this the first report on interbreeding between] The Asian elephant Elephas maximus and the African elephant, Loxodonta africana... a crossbreed between two genus was regarded as impossible." (broken link)

The same example has been addressed by the Woodland Park Zoological Society from Seattle:
Can African and Asian elephants interbreed?
Yes. A hybrid birth did occur in England at the Chester Zoo in 1979. The calf, which was named "Motty," only lived 10 days. This is the only recorded hybrid birth between Loxodonta africana and Elephas maximus, the African and Asian elephant.
But, let's see elephant examples separated by a less distance than the continents:

Let's see first an example related to other varieties of elephants currently mislabeled as different "species" by the "wisdom of the world", on varieties of elephants recently discovered:

Geneticists define new elephant species, by Susan Milius, reporting on the article by Nicholad Georgiadis and Alfred L. Roca [Roca, A.L., N. Georgiadis, et al. 2001. Genetic evidence for two species of elephant in Africa. Science 293(Aug. 24):1473.]

However, even with the best evolutionary wishes by the previously linked editors of the magazines of Science (Indexed) and National Geographic (Not Indexed), the full text of Susan Milius itself declares that
"Savanna and forest elephants interbreed"
So, according to what we now know, those diverse elephants described by Roca et al should be only considered as 'sub-species', even if currently, the status of "species" for fertile inter-breeders able to produce fertile offspring is misguided and follows after the spirit of error that controlled Darwin and his current followers. Which means that by using minor molecular (genetic) insignificancies and intricacies, Darwinists deliberately forget the big picture of the evident biological breeding already available out there for everybody with a sound mind to see!

The next articles prove that Darwin and the current "speciational evolutionists" are deliberately and intentionally wrong, aiming to deceive the unawares:
The two forms interbreed where forest and ecosystems meet [Duncan Butchart, CC Africa & the WildWatch]
"Dwarf African elephants inhabit the forest lowlands and interbreed with the larger form around the forest edge" [The IFAW, International Fund for Animal Welfare]
"These three elephants can interbreed [David Woodruff talking about the forest and the savannah and the West African Elephants]"
"Unexpectedly, along the Congo-Uganda border the two species do interbreed [Dr Colin Groves, Australian National University, talking about the smaller Forest Elephants and the Bush Elephants]"
Etc... etc...

With such evidences, you need to reach your own conclusions and to answer by yourself to the next questions:

1. Is the current biology dominated by Darwinian evolutionism willing to depict faithfully the relationships between living organisms or not?

2. If not, why not?

3. What are atheists seeking to "gain" by investing millions & millions on distorting the simplest (to understand) biological facts of fertile interbreeding and fertile offspring versus their super-inflated & non-granted and Darwinian or evolutionary "speciation"?

Being Speciation the false origin of new and genetically incompatible "species" from a "common ancestor"; a "common incompatible ancestor" that itself was presumably incapable to interbreed producing fertile offspring with both of its descendants, because and supposedly, also the "always extinct" common ancestor itself was genetically different to the point of being incapable to mate, if still existing, with any of its new and aberrant offspring products, aberrant offsprings at least when compared with their ever utopical "common & incompatible ancestor..." !!!

And these are the sort of inconsistencies that evolutionists are bringing to living organisms in order to keep afloat Darwin's trends of thoughts, not to say their innumerable falsehoods and absurdities stored for the silent and already extinct organisms!

If there is no genetic incompatiblity between two related organisms, then there is no speciation at all, no matter how Schluter, the Grants and company are trying to excuse their, such a poor, logic by declaring that "several studies have demonstrated that speciation can occur in the absence of genetic incompatibilities"

If there is no genetic incompatibility, there is no "origin of new species", there is no "speciation", there is, yes, the "origin of new compatible varieties", there is yes, "variation" within compatible organisms, every group of organisms reproducing according to their own kind as Genesis 1 declared!

4. Is such biological anarchy speculated by both, Darwin's "Origin of Species" and by the current evolutionary and speculative research on "speciation" a "bad" original design or rather, and most certainly, a "very bad" and dying evolutionary theory, totally flawed in its "logic" and "reasoning" even if today still is completely aided by its blind followers seated in "high places"?


Blogger fdocc said...

Related Info.:
Woolly Mammoth Resurrection, "Jurassic Park" Planned , by Stefan Lovgren (April 8, 2005)

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is your argument? You are all over the map here, there is no logical flow from one issue to the next! If you're going to write about these issues, try to have at least some small bit of understanding.
You won't win many intellectuals if they can't follow the logic.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Jay Yoon said...

Ehh let's leave the intentions and inflammatory rhetoric aside and look at the issues objectively.

I agree that the species definition has changed from something that is pretty clear cut to something that is ambiguous, blurry, and ill-defined. That's understandable, as without a blurry notion of species, speciation becomes harder to explain and defend in its current form. So the definitions are blurred and made more open to interpretation.

We've given the African and Asian elephants enough time for them to diverge and become unable to interbreed. After all, it's been over five million years since they've last diverged from their common ancestor. Well, it sure looks like they haven't diverged away from each other that much, the African and Asian elephants I mean. So if they haven't changed much from each other, it's probably unlikely that they've changed very much from their "common ancestor," if there is one.

Most likely, the common ancestor of the African and Asian elephant is just an intermediate of the two, with the African having adjusted to its environment and the Asian to its. Sure, the two have a common ancestor. But if the common ancestor is just another elephant, then what can we really say is the usefulness of that concept?

At least the concept isn't that the Asian elephant was once a rhinoceros and the African elephant was once a hippopotamus and their current morphology and genetic code is due to convergent evolution. That obviously doesn't fit the Occam's razor principle.

But in general, I don't think that evolution is a bad theory. It does get the natural selection part right. It does get the part about mutations right - that mutations happen, and that they lead to variation. It acknowledges that genetic variation, while existing at a discrete level at the foundation, can lead to continuous variation in a variety of traits, such as height, body mass, skin color at the level of the phenotype. But this hints that genetic variation, while composed of discrete units, is selected on a continuous level so that the law of averages and deviation always "smooths out" huge changes in populations.

It's the central limit theorem in play. When you have these discrete elements and probabilities going around, it's tempting to think that you can make any result happen no matter how unlikely.

Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:19:00 PM  
Blogger fdocc said...

Dear JY, first of all thanks for the time you took to respond, then:
JY> "What can we really say is the usefulness of that concept?"
Me> Being the 3 potentially compatible, we can, through back-crosses 1) Preserve endangered varieties, sub-species and breeds (all 3 synonymous), currently mislabeled as different "species" or even "genera", condemning them to extinction by an imprecise classification and a stubborn Darwinism, 2) Attempt to recover extinct varieties, 3) Generate new biodiversity by interbreeding the ones being genetically compatible.
JY> "I don't think that evolution is a bad theory"
Me> It makes its terminology meaningless by opposing to differentiate between compatible variation also seen at the DNA level and suggested to be called "micro-evolution" (including the evolutionist Galapagos finches Grant researchers), while the philosophically loaded with atheism/agnosticism, never to be seen or proven, unless under a strong bias and distortion of evidence [even within the apparently ideologically neutral biomedical research, 64% of the publications are faked and non-replicable (Naik 2011)], to be called "macro-evolution" (I must say: "macro-speculation"), here we will include current theoretical,
non-experimental philosophers such as Richard Dawkins.
JY> "It does get the natural selection part right"
Me> Genetic research shows that an advantageous or adaptive genetic change between organisms living under similar conditions may take some generations as the agricultural cross-breeders demonstrate in their practice,
even if they don't write as Darwinism does. Instead of such NS passive concept seen today while ignoring the previous process of adaptation that led to it and experienced by all organisms, my
proposal is to fully discover the natural and active rules participating in their
adaptation, to use them as said before.
JY> "It does get the part about mutations right"
Me> This is another currently deliberate blurry Darwinian idea, as a good, adaptive change or even
an innocuous aesthetic one, can be called "polymorphism" to have a sharp cut way to distinguish it from the dangerous, hereditary diseases rupturing the rules of variation under my study, so only the bad damages can be called "mutations", these distinctions if we really wish to go somewhere in our understanding and practical studies. JY, thanks for your posting and please!, check my work at:

Monday, March 12, 2012 7:09:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home