Variation is a term employed in genetics for a phenomenon that causes individuals or groups within a living species to display different characteristics from one another. For example, all humans on Earth possess essentially the same genetic information, but the potential for variation allowed by that information means that some of us have almond-shaped eyes, some have red hair, others have long noses and still others are short in stature.
Variation is caused by different characteristics within the gene pool of a living species and occurs as these are manifested in life forms’ physical appearance. For example, all human beings on Earth possess essentially the same genetic data, but thanks to the diversity permitted by that information, some have oriental eyes, or red hair, and different skin colors. Variation constitutes no evidence for evolution, because variation consists of the emergence of existing genetic information and bestows no new characteristics upon the individual. Evolutionists today agree that variation is no proof of evolution.
Evolutionists, however, see the diversity within species as evidence for their theory. Yet diversity constitutes no proof of evolution at all, because variation consists of different combinations of already existing genetic information, but can add no new characteristics to that information.
With respect to my far-distant work on species, I must have expressed myself with singular inaccuracy, if I led you to suppose that I meant to say that my conclusions were inevitable. They have become so, after years of weighing puzzles, to myself alone; but in my wildest day-dream, I never expect more than to be able to show that there are two sides to the question of the immutability of species, i.e. whether species are directly created, or by intermediate laws, (as with the life & death of individuals). I did not approach the subject on the side of the difficulty. . . .340
You ask what effect studying species has had on my variation theories; I do not think much—I have felt some difficulties more. 341
Certainly I have felt it humiliating, discussing and doubting and examining over and over again, when in my own mind, the only doubt has been, whether the form varied today or yesterday. . . . After describing a set of forms, as distinct species, tearing up my M.S., and making them one species; tearing that up and making them separate, and then making them one again (which has happened to me) I have gnashed my teeth, cursed species, and asked what sin I had committed to be so punished. . . .342
Birds, which have struggled in their own homes, when settled in a body, nearly simultaneously in a new country, would not be subject to much modification, for their mutual relations would not be much disturbed. But I quite agree with you, that in the time they ought to undergo some. 343
When we descend to details … nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case, seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change. 344
In the Autobiography, my father has stated what seemed to him the chief flaw of the 1844 Sketch; he had overlooked “one problem of great importance,” the problem of the divergence of character. This point is discussed in the Origin of Species, but, as it may not be familiar to all readers, I will give a short account of the difficulty and its solution. The author begins by stating that varieties differ from each other less than species, and then goes on: “Nevertheless, according to my view, varieties are species in process of formation . . . . How then does the lesser difference between varieties become augmented into the greater difference between species?”345
Luther Burbank, a geneticist and one of the world’s most eminent authorities on the subject of livestock breeding:
There are limits to the development possible, and these limits follow a law. 346
Norman Macbeth, an evolutionist known for his criticisms of Darwinism:
The heart of the problem is whether living things do indeed vary to an unlimited extent. . . . The species look stable. We have all heard of disappointed breeders who carried their work to a certain point, only to see the animals or plants revert to where they had started. 347
W. L. Johannsen, a Danish scientist:
The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of “indefinite departure.”348
340 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 394.
341 Ibid., p. 397.
342 Ibid., p. 400.
343 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, p. 5.
344 Ibid., p. 210.
345 Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, p. 376.
346Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Boston: Harvard Common Press, , 1971, p. 36.
347 Ibid., p. 33.
348 Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey, Vintage Books, 1958, p. 227.
This sites is based on the works of Harun Yahya