brain sizes: Einstein's and women's: pop quiz

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at
Tue Aug 20 14:59:54 EST 2002

"John Knight" <johnknight at> wrote:
>Let's use a simple example to demonstrate the absurdity of the belief that
>God "guided" or "directed" speciation (speciation being the transition of
>one species across the statistical barriers to another species).
>There are 170 separate and distinct breeds of dog.

No there aren't.  There are perhaps that many identified breeds
recognized by the AKC.  But most dogs are mixed breed mutts and
therefore not distinct breeds.

>From the AKC website:
>A breed is a "relatively homogeneous group of animals within a
> species, developed and maintained by man." All dogs, impure as well
> as pure-bred, and several wild cousins such as wolves and foxes, are
> one family. Each breed was created by man, using selective breeding
> to get desired qualities. 

Get it "developed and maintained by man".  Dog breeds have little to
do with nature.

>If there had been no
>statistical limits on each breed, then they would have been able to
>interbreed with each other for thousands of years,

Except that most of the breeds have been created within the last 1000

>and there would now be more inter-breeds than there are breeds.

There are, but no one counts them.

gives 53 million dogs in the US alone, and says that 45% of them or 23
million are mixed breeds.  That is 23 million "different breeds" which
is a lot more than 170.

>How many more?  The factorial of 170 is 7.3 x 10^306.

Nonsense as usual.  There would not be more breeds than there are
dogs, and dog breeding is anything but random.

  That's a 73 followed by 305 zeros.  That's how many
>inter-breeds there would have been. But there aren't that many, are there?
>The breeds actually outnumber the inter-breeds [read: mutts], don't they?


>This is an example where it's known that two different "brands" can
>inter-breed with each other. 

Which of course makes it irrelevant to what you are trying to prove.

>Most species can't even inter-breed like this.

Indeed.  That is why they are distinct species.

>But if they could, these
>inter-breeds would have "wedged out" [to use Darwin's term] ALL of the other
>original species a LONG time ago.

But since they can't ...

>Why would God "guide" such a process in the first place,

For whatever reasons He chose.  Are you trying to tell God that He
cannot do whatever in Heaven that He wants, for whatever reason He

>when the objective was obviously to *restrict* inter-breeding

It was?

>(and when the only viable forms
>of life could exist only if such inter-breeding was never permitted)?


>A horse can breed with a donkey, and the result is a mule.  But that's the
>end of the line for this inter-breeding, because a mule can't breed with a
>mule.  The only way to create mule is to breed a horse with a donkey.  Does
>this give you a clue about how these statistical boundaries work?

That gives a clue as to the nature of species.

>"Evolution" cannot occur without inter-species transitions.

True, but those transitions don't work the way you seem to think.

>A lower life form can't "evolve" to a higher life form (or vice versa)

Define how "high" a life form is by an unambiguous metric.

>without crossing these statistical boundaries.

There are no statistical boundaries.  And bacteria do not simply turn
into humans spontaneously.

>Because niggers and Whites can inter-breed

meaning that they are the same species.

>doesn't mean that niggers and apes can,

meaning that they are not the same species.

>nor does it mean that any of the species of monkeys can.

because of course they are different species.

>We have not one single example, right now, today, of a species of anything
>that appears to be "speciating" to some other species, do we?

Yes we do, as a matter of fact.

>Yet if this was a common occurrence, there would be almost no original species, because
>they all would have been "wedged out" by the inter-species.

You don't after all see any dinosaurs or trilobites.

Of course they weren't "inter-species" because new species are not
formed by cross-breeding between two different species, but rather
from one species splitting into two or more halves that don't

>So let's assume this is something that happens only once in a million years.
>Do we have a single example of any such species, for anything on the planet?


>No.  Just because you can take three different monkey skulls from three
>different species of monkeys and set them side by side and notice some kind
>of "evolution" doesn't mean that they "speciated". It only means that the
>three different species looked similar enough that you think they might have
>a "common ancestor".  WHAT possible anamoly could come along and upset the
>status quo so much that it would cause a species to "speciate" into another
>species, though?

Quite a large number of possibilities - see the URLs above.

>  Nothing.  Except God, but why would God do that?

For reasons HE chooses and not you.

>Gallup intentionally restricted the questions so that people could provide
>only three responses (plus "no opinion").  This is an incredibly biased way
>to set up a "poll".

Yet you've done it yourself with your silly Madagascar poll and your
"3 questions" that aren't questions that you again include at the end
of this posting.

>What do you "think" would have been the results if the "poll" had been
>objective?  What do you think the answer would be to:
>1)  God created life.
>2)  Life evolved with no help from God.
>3)  Dunno.

Not any more objective, since you've left off
4) Life evolved with help from God
5) Life was created by Satan or some other "god" besides God.
6) Life came into existence by some process other than creation or

and probably a few more.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list