Speciation – one of the central tenets of Darwinian evolution claims that when species become isolated to the point they are unable to breed with one another they evolve and separate into unique species with unique genetic and physical characteristics. The species separate into two – or more – distinct groups which, being isolated from one another, can no longer breed. The longer they occupy different environmental niches, the more unique and different they become at the genetic level, until they are far removed from the original ancestral line whence they diverged.
According to natural selection, one predicted result is that species which become thus isolated may be further threatened with factors such as diminishing food sources, over-predation, and loss of habitat, all of which may lead to population collapse and the species’ extinction. Therefore current conservation efforts underway and led by various groups are attempting to minimize and/or prevent this in species such as polar bears, for example.
They fear climate change will cause the extinction of polar bears, unwilling to admit that bears have adapted to environmental changes several times already, and would do so again if needed. Then again, that would mean accepting that adaptation is in response to change, and is the exact opposite of random mutations which may be beneficial if/when the environment changes. This is the evolutionist’s Achilles heel. They can’t have it both ways.
But one wonders: if natural selection has been operating just fine for millions of Darwin years, and we are the products, then why should we humans worry? If the polar bear isn’t “fit enough” then it’s only natural it should die off. Perhaps some lucky furry fella may experience that miraculous random “beneficial mutation” that will allow it to survive the coming doom, whatever that may be, or else it wouldn’t be random at all. Either way, it’s not our problem.
Another predicted result is that such isolated populations are subjected to an increased number of mutations due to limited genetic diversity. These mutations accumulate and negatively affect that species over subsequent generations. This inevitably leads to the species’ decline or complete eradication, unless new genes are introduced into the gene pool to offset the otherwise propagating harmful mutations. That’s one of the many reasons inbreeding is discouraged.
These are some strict predictions of what we can expect according to natural selection, as attested to by Darwinians (originalist and neo). Of course, we know that Darwin himself had no clue about genes and the actual mechanics of genetics at the time his infamous theory on origins was published. In fact, when Mendel’s work began to be taken seriously in the early 20th century, it very nearly demolished the then-popular Darwinian school of thought, had it not been for Fisher’s work rescuing Darwin by mathematically proving that populations continually increase in fitness over time despite mutations.1 It is also rather ironic that neither Darwin nor his friend, Wallace, were fond of sexual selection as the primary solution for biological diversity at the time. As we now know, sexual selection is paramount to genetic diversity and is required for all eukaryotic organisms.
Had it not been for Fisher’s work published in 1930, Darwinism would have died a much-deserved peaceful death. Instead, a new synthesis emerged which included Darwin’s ideas, Mendel’s genetics laws and Fisher’s statistics that became known as Neo-Darwinism. This “modern synthesis” survives to this day despite there still being zero empirical, laboratory-tested and reproducibly proven mechanisms demonstrating random mutations in action leading to new or improved species. In fact, laboratory and even large-scale population experiments are showing just the opposite: directed adaptation in response to induced environmental changes. 2 Therefore, Neo-Darwinism is another dead-end idea.
Luckily for those of us who wish to follow the evidence where it may lead, Fisher’s theorem and corollary have now been corrected by retired Cornell geneticist, John Sanford, and UVA emeritus mathematics professor, Bill Basener. The updated theorem was presented at the International Conference on Ecology, Ecosystems, and Conservation Biology in June 2018.3 After careful observations showing how most mutations are actually harmful , their work demonstrated that even very small negative mutations in populations lead to genetic deterioration and decreased fitness, despite genetic recombination during sexual reproduction. As one example, they mathematically proved that human fitness declines roughly by 1% every generation.4
Also according to Evolutionists, the time when polar bears and brown bears (among other bears) diverged into different species was thought to have been as long as 5 million Darwin years ago.5 However, recent comparative genomics studies reveal that these figures were wrong. More recent results now indicate that polar bears and brown bears diverged roughly no more than 400,000 Darwin years ago.6 For those at home keeping score, that error is by more than a factor of ten which is enormous. Maybe if we wait another ten years, that error rate will be further reduced by another factor of ten.
So, how does the definition of speciation and the strict predictions of natural selection match up with observed events?
Simply put, they are shown to be false:
- Polar bears and other bears can mate when needed, producing viable offspring despite being vastly different genetically separate species. 7, 8, 9
- Isolated (arctic) polar bear populations are actually not declining due to loss of habitat or other threat factors. Instead, they are maintaining and even increasing in some populations.10, 11, 12
Bears are just one example of natural selection and speciation being falsified in real-world life. I could cite other examples but would it deter dilettante ideologues? Hardly.