Speciation is the scientific theory attempting to identify the biological mechanisms by which a single ancestral species of organism differentiates, or “evolves”, into more than one descendant species.
The term “macro evolution” is often substituted inappropriately for speciation theory, creating the false impression that speciation is nothing more than a logical extrapolation of Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
But it isn’t.
As I wrote in my book Counterargument for God, either two members of the same ancestor species eventually spawn offspring of a new species, or members of two different species produce a fertile hybrid species. There doesn’t really seem to be a viable third alternative, at least not one that doesn’t involve creation by some form of supernatural intelligence.
In an effort to clarify my understanding of how speciation theory supposedly worked, I wrote an open letter to biologist Dr. Jerry Coyne, author of the book Why Evolution is True.
Apparently, Dr. Coyne couldn’t find time to respond. However, his fellow biologist, Dr. Benoit LeBlanc, was kind enough to answer my questions.
Dr. LeBlanc confirmed that my “basic understanding of the [speciation] process was sound”, but suggested the reason my conclusions were all wrong because I simply don’t know enough about biology.
No offense intended, he said.
None taken, Dr. LeBlanc. But I am still confused.
In my analysis of Dr. Coyne’s work previously deemed sound, I noted he speculated that speciation only seemed possible when a small breeding population comprised of members of a single species became isolated over an extended period of time, eventually branching into multiple descendant species.
While radical changes within a single generation, such as Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monsters”, would be terribly convenient and solve many of my issues with speciation related to time and stasis, the scientific evidence presented by Dr. Coyne in his book clearly doesn’t support that idea.
Sexual reproduction involving members of two different animal species almost always results in the birth of sterile hybrid offspring, though rare exceptions have occurred.
However,those exceptions have invariably been folded back into the breeding stock and overwhelmed by dominant genes. Hybridization seems to play a significant role in the development of plants, but not in the emergence of new animal species.
His paper wasn’t published in The Onion, either.
I’ll bet it was even peer-reviewed, too.