Comments on Jeanson Accuses Duff Again

Let’s think for a moment however about what Jeanson is claiming. He is saying that there may be NO speciation events between sister taxa beyond a few thousand years. He’s saying that ALL speciation is rapid. We know this is false.

1 Like

You are wrong. Common ancestry, the age of the earth and evolution in general do not rest on any one uniform rate of speciation. That simply isn’t part of the body of evidence that lead us to accept that life shares a common ancestry and changes over time and that the earth is old.


Can you give a scientific explanation as to why this is the case as you claim? Or is it just your subjective opinion?

Jeanson’s real accomplishment here is preying on our own sense of fairness to actually take him seriously when really there is no reason to do so. I’ve fallen for this myself. It is very difficult to resist the temptation to take him seriously because we all have a knee jerk tendency to give everyone a fair hearing. Jeanson really has given no one any reason to do that however any more than a flat earther has earned the privilege of professional scientists to comb over their every online manifesto. It think we need to emphasize that people like Jeanson are science deniers and drive that point home.


@Toni_Torppa Who is “we” is this context (AiG?), and what it your role? Mildly curious. :slight_smile:


Do you notice the quote?

And you completely ignored the three papers I cited that show that the conclusions of Lamichhaney for rapid hybrid speciation in Geospiza finches that Jeanson is so enamored by because he believes he can spin it to suit his agenda is an area of considerable debate. There is little evidence that the two parental populations of the supposed species “hybrid” are in fact different species to begin with so therefore really little evidence this constitutes a new species. Ignoring work that doesn’t fit his agenda and then throwing a fit that people don’t read his work is however what Jeanson does.

1 Like

So very true. Like for example when Jeanson turns a blind eye to the mountains of research showing the conclusions of his naive brand of young earth creationism are wrong.

I do now. Thanks.

Let’s be clear on something Toni.

ANY speciation is evolution. Whether any particular instance of speciation is considered to occur fast or slowly doesn’t matter.

Are you trying to claim that this scientific journal is spreading false information about biology here? Rapid hybrid speciation in Darwin’s finches | Science

If, as a result of speciation, a new population has fewer different alleles than a strain population, then how is it evolutionary? And I’m referring to evolution as a process that would have evolved people from microbes.

Also Toni it’s not MY claim. I just cited the literature documenting the considerable disagreement on this particular topic of species limits in Geospiza finches. Like Jeanson however it’s apparently convenient for you to ignore that work.

I’m saying the reality of the situation is not cut and dry. There are at least three papers on the rats nest of confusion that is Geospiza finches and the authors of Lamichhaney et al. 2018 are likely wrong in their interpretation of their results. Jeanson is unfamiliar with the field to such a degree he is unaware of the ongoing debate underlying this work and frankly he has no incentive to learn about that debate because it would only get in the way of him usurping this work for his agenda.


It’s obvious at even the most cursory examination. Jeanson writes:

[I]n chapter 6 of Replacing Darwin , I walked the reader through very detailed calculations on what the rates of speciation might be. Since mammals are familiar to most people, I focused on the numbers for these types of creatures. Applying these calculations to birds, we can predict the rate at which new species should form.

This should be our first red flag. A quick skim of this paragraph would leave the reader with the impression that Replacing Darwin predicted bird speciation rates, but closer examination reveals otherwise. He says that in Replacing Darwin he predicted speciation rates for mammals and that he is merely applying the same calculation to birds now. Any time that you are making “predictions” after the evidence you are claiming confirms your predictions, there’s a problem.

[I]n birds, about 11,000 recognized species exist. If birds formed new species at a constant rate over 4,500 years, then on average about 2.4 new species should form every year (11,000 species / 4,500 years = 2.4 species per year). […] As long as the long-term average is 2.4 new species per year, either of these ways is consistent with the YEC timescale. Both of these ways lead to predictions that we can test.

We have two more problems here. First of all, we are making predictions after the fact. If he could have predicted the Darwin hybrid speciation “rates” then why didn’t he? You can’t come along after a discovery and rework your math and say “See, this is what we would have predicted if we had known to predict it!”

Second, and more fundamental…where is he getting this 11,000 number from? Does he believe there was only one “bird kind” pair on board the Ark? IIRC, AiG claims something like 40 different bird “kinds” representing all extant species, so we would be starting not at 1 but at 40. What about the thousands of fossil bird genera? Why is his calculation linear? If he is advancing created heterozygosity, where a population splits into two, then he would need to say that 40 kinds became 80 sub-kinds which became 160 sub-sub-kinds and so forth, exponentially. He doesn’t say that, of course, because that would imply that we would be seeing the fastest speciation rates now of any time at history.

His only purpose in choosing to use these numbers is to come up with a post hoc prediction which appears to be close to the numbers he will later fudge from the actual science research.

And that’s not even dealing with the bigger problem, that hybridization speciation (if that’s in fact what happened with these finches) is a different type of speciation event than the created-heterozygosity-speciation he proposes. You can’t have hybridization speciation unless you already have two separate species to hybridize.


You have to remember, YEC’s redefine evolution as an increase in information.

…and I have already pointed out to you in response that a hybridization speciation would be expected to be abrupt compared with other paths. Jeanson is suggesting lions and bob cats came from a single breeding pair. Tell me, what species did these proto cats hybrid with to generate all the cat species today? Oh, that is right, none. So how does this support Jeanson’s model? That is right - it doesn’t. He has just seized on a mainstream report of abrupt species development and claimed support for rapid evolution like this somehow lends credence to the idea that some weird looking ancestral menagerie off the ark can account for all the species today. Not only is that rubbish, but it misrepresents or misapplies the substance of the report. So your gold standard turns out to have feet of clay.


A “strain” population? What on earth are you talking about Toni. I’m talking about evolution and what it actually is.

Speciation is the splitting and divergence of independent population lineages. It is therefore a form of change in biological populations over time (i.e. evolution).

Going from a polymorphism in a population to fixation is also evolution Toni so losing genetic diversity is hardly some deal breaker for calling something evolution. That loss of diversity within a population is a hallmark of much of evolutionary change from natural selection to drift so saying it’s not evolution because the result is “fewer different alleles” is just completely out of touch with what evolution actually is.


I remember. Frankly I don’t care how they define it. I’m talking about what evolution actually is.

1 Like