Concerning Charles Darwin's great work called "The Origin of Species", it is naturally very important to know exactly what a species is. There is a rule by which "species" is defined so as better to understand what Darwin meant by this very important concept. It is this:
A species is a "fundamental category of taxonomic classification ... and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding".
Thus, the horse is a species, but the donkey is a different species. They are different species because they cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring, the way dogs can for example. Thus, the offspring of these members of different species are not complete individuals and so they fail to pass the test of being what constitutes a species.Thus, being able to interbreed is the sole criterion for determining whether two animals are of the same species or not. It's as simple as that. If they can't interbreed, then the two animals are of different species. Period.
So the best the horse and the donkey can do is produce sterile offspring, or hybrids. It is probably true that some mules have produced offspring in the past, but it is so rare as to be considered impossible, resulting in one occurrence in many millions of matings, hardly enough to survive as a different breed. And as if to close the matter, those rare offspring of two Mules (60 or so in the last several hundred years) cannot themselves breed at all, thus sealing off even the most remote possibility that the Mule could ever qualify as a new species.
Now, the mule and the hinny are hybrids.
This is a mule:
And this is a hinny:
As an aside, the most interesting thing about hybrids is that it makes a big difference just how the parents are arranged. In this case, if a stallion breeds with a jenny-ass, then a mule is produced but if a jackass breeds with a mare, something different is produced. It is called a hinny. Now these offspring are not alike. The mule is much bigger, stronger and more robust than either parent, while the hinny is the reverse. That explains why you never see any hinnys around. See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinny
Although widely studied, most people are unaware that other closely related species can also produce sterile offspring too, like my own favorites, the Tiglon and the Liger (the Tiglon having a tiger for a father, while the Liger has a lion for a father). When I was a small boy, I actually saw a Liger at the Bronx Zoo. Being hybrids like the mule and the hinny, the Liger is always much larger, more robust and stronger than either parent, while the Tiglon is small and weaker. In fact, the Liger is by far the largest cat in the world, sometimes weighing in at 1000 pounds, which is twice as big as any lion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
Notice how enormous these Ligers are:
But back to Darwin's "The Origin of Species", loads of evidence is used in an attempt to prove his theory. But the evidence is entirely made up of examples of subtle changes taking place within a species, and these are called varieties, such as the beaks of the finches that Darwin himself studied on his famous voyage. Evidence for the appearance of new species is entirely lacking. It simply doesn't exist. Nothing even comes close.
That's not surprising either, since all we have to do is to look at our pets to see how many varieties can be seen within a particular species without creating a new one. Clearly, variation within a species not only doesn't prove nor even support the main point of "The Origin of Species", but variation within a species has nothing to do with Darwin's point at all. Not at all.
What is surprising to me is how many people never question that common assertion, accepted as fact by most people, that new varieties within species prove Darwin's theory that new species arise from old ones. The facts are very different because new varieties are not new species at all. That is because varieties can interbreed which means that they fail the test which would qualify them as a separate species, being the inability to interbreed.
Darwinism would be of no importance to people today if it wasn't widely used to support the claim that the appearance of new species is an inevitable consequence of variability within a species, given enough time. But there isn't a shred of evidence to support this, not even a little bit, so many ignorant claims to the contrary notwithstanding. I use the word "ignorant" because learning the meaning of the word "species" is a very easy matter, yet so few take the time to do so.
Moreover, the unquestioning and total acceptance of the claim that new species do arise in this way is so intense in our culture, that it can only be categorized as religious in nature. And like all religions, contrary beliefs are held to be heresy, which is another tip-off that Darwinism is truly a religion. And as almost always among the religious, to stamp out heresy is seen as a duty.
Only this explains why there is enough intense feeling in our culture to have created a climate which supports the ability of the state to have enacted laws forcing, under threat of penalty, the teaching of Darwinian evolution as being the only view taught in our public schools to explain how the human race came to be.
Now Darwin himself was a serious scientist and a very religious Christian. And it is said that he would be appalled if he could see how his work has been so misused today. Well, while he was a good scientist all right, it must be strongly stated that he greatly overreached himself when he entitled his work, "The Origin of Species". The only thing his book proved, and what he therefore should have entitled it is, "The Origin of Varieties".
No comments:
Post a Comment