Amongst the billions of species today is evolution going on? No! Why not !

if evolutionism is the mechanism for biological changing of bodyplans then it must be a option it could happen today, and relative to billions of species, it should be happening to a powerful percentage. new population by the millions should be newly created with need for new scientific names. Yet i say there are none or less than six.  WHY? I say because evolutionism is not accurate as a mechanism . it never existed. other mechanisms exist. the great evidence against evolutionism is the very unlikely situation of it not having occurred in the last twenty years in great, or any, numbers. Very unlikely but i offer the issue.

0

578 thoughts on “Amongst the billions of species today is evolution going on? No! Why not !

  1. Allan Miller: You spend a fair bit of time acting like a dick. I’m only human.

    It’s all in your head.

    Corneel: Sure, but I am not doing any those things.

    Yes, you are:
    Nonlin:
    It’s the sum of knowns and unknowns including the will of the breeder in the case of designer dogs and the equivalent will of God in all cases.
    Corneel:
    Does “the will of God” make conditional mutations lethal? Who knows? Can we demonstrate “the will of God” zapping mutations? No, we can’t.
    Then we are not doing science.
    Nonlin:
    Doesn’t follow. You can’t arbitrarily exclude God from science. God is the ‘unknowns’ mentioned. And you really have no basis for excluding ‘unknowns’ even if a materialist. And again, “evolution” is NEVER science.

    Let’s go over this again. On what basis are you excluding God from “the unknown to you” in particular and science in general when my hypothesis is that God is the Designer responsible for the environment in the same manner a breeder controls the outcome in farming?

    Corneel: Nonlin.org: Let’s not lie. This is exactly what you said: “Corneel: I will stop making these claims once somebody convinces me they are false.” You DID ask for proof against “evolution”.

    Not what I said. Read again.

    Exactly what you said, your words included. You’re not fooling anyone. OK, maybe yourself and a few drones.

    Corneel: Why not present your arguments to people whose criticism you are willing to accept?

    I am accepting your criticism. Else, I would ignore your comments as I am ignoring others.

    Corneel: Are you sure there isn’t anything else?

    “Cancer” is all encompassing… and more than “stupidity”. I am not writing a tome on this.

    0
  2. Nonlin.org: Let’s go over this again. On what basis are you excluding God from “the unknown to you” in particular and science in general when my hypothesis is that God is the Designer responsible for the environment in the same manner a breeder controls the outcome in farming?

    I am not excluding God from anything. I am just saying that the unknown is not known. Will you deny this as well?

    Nonlin.org: I am accepting your criticism. Else, I would ignore your comments as I am ignoring others.

    That’s good to hear, but you might consider changing your tone. I do not get the impression you are giving the feedback you are given the consideration it deserves.

    Nonlin.org: “Cancer” is all encompassing… and more than “stupidity”.

    “Cancer” is a metaphor, suggesting something is disruptive and ultimately destructive. In what way does Darwinism fit this description? I am not seeing it.

    1+
  3. Let’s include God.

    Now what?

    Nonlin.org: On what basis are you excluding God from “the unknown to you” in particular and science in general when my hypothesis is that God is the Designer responsible for the environment in the same manner a breeder controls the outcome in farming?

    A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

    What further investigation can be performed to test your god hypothesis?

    0
  4. Corneel: I am not excluding God from anything. I am just saying that the unknown is not known. Will you deny this as well?

    False. Most definitely not “the unknown is not known”. Instead, you say: “Then we are not doing science.” Explain.

    Corneel: I do not get the impression you are giving the feedback you are given the consideration it deserves.

    Sorry. Sometimes we deserve less than we think. Happens to the best of us.

    Corneel: “Cancer” is a metaphor, suggesting something is disruptive and ultimately destructive.

    “Not writing a tome” rings a bell?

    OMagain: What further investigation can be performed to test your god hypothesis?

    This: http://nonlin.org/intelligent-design/
    …and this: http://nonlin.org/paleys-excellent-argument/

    0
  5. Nonlin.org: False. Most definitely not “the unknown is not known”. Instead, you say: “Then we are not doing science.” Explain.

    If I am following your line of reasoning you claim that God is part of the ‘unknowns’ that make up the environment, and I am not allowed to exclude unknowns. For some unfathomable reason you seem to be incapable of grasping the simple fact that I have no reason to accept that God is part of the ‘unknowns’, because those unknowns are, you know … unknown.

    Nonlin.org: “Not writing a tome” rings a bell?

    You cannot articulate why you think of Darwinism as a cancer either? Do you even know yourself?

    1+
  6. Corneel: For some unfathomable reason you seem to be incapable of grasping the simple fact that I have no reason to accept that God is part of the ‘unknowns’, because those unknowns are, you know … unknown.

    That’s my hypothesis, yes. Why is my hypothesis “not science”? I didn’t ask you to “accept”. Just to “not reject”. And you have no right to reject not knowing anything about the unknown. When you say “not science”, you are rejecting and you need a basis to do that. A basis which you lack. Do you see your error? Do you understand the difference between “accept” and “not reject”?

    Corneel: You cannot articulate why you think of Darwinism as a cancer either?

    I can certainly articulate but don’t want to write a tome. Get it?

    0
  7. Nonlin.org: That’s my hypothesis, yes. Why is my hypothesis “not science”? I didn’t ask you to “accept”. Just to “not reject”. And you have no right to reject not knowing anything about the unknown. When you say “not science”, you are rejecting and you need a basis to do that. A basis which you lack. Do you see your error? Do you understand the difference between “accept” and “not reject”?

    The reason your hypothesis is not science is because there is neither a way to falsify nor demonstrate it. That makes it a matter of faith.
    On the plus side for you, that means that my rejection of the idea that God is invisibly manipulating life behind the scenes cannot be a scientific conclusion. Count your blessings, Nonlin.

    Nonlin.org: I can certainly articulate but don’t want to write a tome. Get it?

    I wouldn’t want to waste your valuable time. A brief explanation will do.

    0
  8. Corneel: The reason your hypothesis is not science is because there is neither a way to falsify nor demonstrate it. That makes it a matter of faith.

    You made a mess and now you’re making a bigger one trying to clean it. I can feel your embarrassment.

    Bullshit! Of course there’s a way to falsify it: just prove your bullshit “evolution” theory and you’re done. Isn’t that what dimwit Darwin and countless other retards before and after him are trying to do? Of course it is. And this goes beyond “evolution” to “determinism”, “many universes”, “strings” and all sort of other crap like that.

    Your rejection of my hypothesis is unwarranted as you admit. My rejection of your hypothesis, is based on clear evidence as shown over and over again.

    0
  9. Whether or not adaption and speciation are best explained by selection acting on heritable variation and whether or not God exists are logically separate questions, neither having any bearing or relevance to the other.

    1+
  10. Kantian Naturalist: Whether or not adaption and speciation are best explained by selection acting on heritable variation and whether or not God exists are logically separate questions, neither having any bearing or relevance to the other.

    What are you smoking? The question is not “does God exist”? The question is “who did/does it (i.e. create life as we see it)”? God does not need Darwin. So it must be “either/or”.

    You’re shaming Kant, amigo.

    0
  11. Nonlin.org: What are you smoking? The question is not “does God exist”? The question is “who did/does it (i.e. create life as we see it)”? God does not need Darwin. So it must be “either/or”.

    If God were the Creator of all life, it would still be possible that He acted through evolution. For that reason, it cannot be “either/or”. Even if we were to establish that God is the Creator, that would not tell us one way or the other whether speciation and adaptation are best explained by selection acting on heritable variation.

    Nonlin.org: You’re shaming Kant, amigo.

    I don’t believe you understand Kant well enough to have an informed basis for that assessment.

    1+
  12. Kantian Naturalist: If God were the Creator of all life, it would still be possible that He acted through evolution. For that reason, it cannot be “either/or”. Even if we were to establish that God is the Creator, that would not tell us one way or the other whether speciation and adaptation are best explained by selection acting on heritable variation.

    I believe it’s a matter of non-negotiable doctrine that, while we have no good model of how the Christian god creates, we know He didn’t use evolution as one of His tools. Doctrinally, as far as I can tell, the “poof” tool is regarded as sufficient.

    0
  13. Flint: I believe it’s a matter of non-negotiable doctrine that, while we have no good model of how the Christian god creates, we know He didn’t use evolution as one of His tools. Doctrinally, as far as I can tell, the “poof” tool is regarded as sufficient.

    Non-negotiable doctrine amongst whom? All theists? All Christians? Only some Christians?

    What Nonlin doesn’t wish to consider (it seems) is that the debate between theistic evolutionists and creationists turns on biblical hermeneutics: which parts of Scripture are to be read literally, allegorically, metaphorically, etc. While one can accept the “poof” approach, it is not a doctrinal requirement binding on all Christians.

    0
  14. Kantian Naturalist: Non-negotiable doctrine amongst whom? All theists? All Christians? Only some Christians?

    Good question. Clearly creationists, especially the YEC flavor, believe this way. And enough fellow travelers so that evolution is simply not covered in high school biology in many states. And I’ve read that in places where it is nominally covered, there somehow just isn’t enough time in the school year to get to it.

    Also, quite clearly, there are devout Christians (and probably Muslims) who find evolution self-evident and regard the theory of evolution persuasive.

    0
  15. Nonlin.org: Of course there’s a way to falsify it: just prove your bullshit “evolution” theory and you’re done.

    Alas, no. First, there is KN’s excellent observation that God, being omnipotent and omniscient, can use any mechanism He bloody well likes, including evolutionary mechanisms. I will add that you specifically situated God’s interventions in the ‘unknowns’ of the environment. Even though evolutionary theory has been overwhelmingly supported, there will always be unknowns where God might have invisibly intervened. There is absolutely no way to falsify that this has happened.

    Nonlin.org: Your rejection of my hypothesis is unwarranted as you admit.

    I never said it is unwarranted. There are very good reasons to reject your hypothesis. They are just not scientific reasons is all.

    Nonlin.org: My rejection of your hypothesis, is based on clear evidence as shown over and over again.

    Your rejection of evolutionary biology is based on denial, as shown over and over again.

    0
  16. Nonlin.org: The question is “who did/does it (i.e. create life as we see it)”?

    And what is the answer to that question?

    If it’s ‘god’, then which one and how do you know that?

    0
  17. Kantian Naturalist: If God were the Creator of all life, it would still be possible that He acted through evolution.

    “Evolution” is godless by definition. Therefore, “either/or”.

    Kantian Naturalist: What Nonlin doesn’t wish to consider (it seems) is that the debate between theistic evolutionists and creationists turns on biblical hermeneutics: which parts of Scripture are to be read literally, allegorically, metaphorically, etc.

    Like I said, God has no need for a lowlife like Darwin. Also, Darwin and followers reject God from everything “evolution”. Therefore, “either/or”.

    Corneel: First, there is KN’s excellent observation that God, being omnipotent and omniscient, can use any mechanism He bloody well likes, including evolutionary mechanisms. I will add that you specifically situated God’s interventions in the ‘unknowns’ of the environment. Even though evolutionary theory has been overwhelmingly supported, there will always be unknowns where God might have invisibly intervened. There is absolutely no way to falsify that this has happened.

    Wrong on all accounts. Where do I even start?

    Corneel: I never said it is unwarranted. There are very good reasons to reject your hypothesis. They are just not scientific reasons is all.

    Your mess is too big to even attempt to clean.

    Corneel: Your rejection of evolutionary biology is based on denial, as shown over and over again.

    Well, duh! Denial is “a statement that something is not true”. Well supported denial, of course.

    OMagain: If it’s ‘god’, then which one and how do you know that?

    There is no “which one”. Your question is too deeply ignorant.

    0
  18. Nonlin.org: “Evolution” is godless by definition. Therefore, “either/or”.

    That seems misleading. Yes, there’s no mention of God in the theory of evolution. But so what? There’s also no mention of God in thermodynamics. Does that make thermodynamics “Godless by definition”? Does that mean that there’s an “either/or” between believing in God and accepting thermodynamics?

    Nonlin.org: Like I said, God has no need for a lowlife like Darwin. Also, Darwin and followers reject God from everything “evolution”. Therefore, “either/or”.

    What about Theodosius Dobzhansky, Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Jonas, Kenneth Miller, Simon Conway Morris, Alister McGrath, Francisco J. Ayala, and Francis Collins? It seems to me that you’re deliberating ignoring the whole history of theistic evolutionism (past and present) in order to construct a false dichotomy.

    1+
  19. Kantian Naturalist:

    What about Theodosius Dobzhansky, Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Jonas, Kenneth Miller, Simon Conway Morris, Alister McGrath, Francisco J. Ayala, and Francis Collins? It seems to me that you’re deliberating ignoring the whole history of theistic evolutionism (past and present) in order to construct a false dichotomy.

    Nonsense, of course. Assuming you didn’t just make those people up (I’ve never heard of any of them), they are also lowlifes so they don’t count.

    Hey, this skeptical stuff is a piece of cake!

    0
  20. Nonlin.org: “Evolution” is godless by definition.

    It is? Let’s look at your definition again:

    A hypothesized process responsible for “the origin of species” (aka their hypothesized transmutation from one to the other).

    No, it seems to lack the part that says evolution is “godless”.

    Nonlin.org: God has no need for a lowlife like Darwin.

    But He desperately needs Nonlin.org to defend Him from “godless” evolution.

    Nonlin.org: Wrong on all accounts. Where do I even start?

    You can start by telling us about the time when God revealed to you He didn’t use evolution to accomplish His means because it’s “godless”. After that, I’d like to hear how you would falsify what happens in the unknown.

    Nonlin.org: Your mess is too big to even attempt to clean.

    Haha, yes, that is the idea: Don’t try to clean my mess. I would welcome some respect by way of attempt at understanding though.

    1+
  21. Kantian Naturalist: Yes, there’s no mention of God in the theory of evolution.

    Absolutely False! And you should know it. Darwin can’t stop with his “inexplicable on the theory of creation”. And there is practically no piece on “evolution” that doesn’t falsely claim said “theory of evolution” disproves God.

    Kantian Naturalist: There’s also no mention of God in thermodynamics.

    There’s all manner of so called physicists that are in fact just philosophers and that try to disprove God with thermodynamics. That is in fact ironic given that one thing physics tells us is that it is not the same backwards and forwards in time, that determinism fails, and that nothing arises as “evolution” would have you believe.

    In brief, thermodynamics is science (failed philosophers notwithstanding), while “evolution” is not.

    Kantian Naturalist: It seems to me that you’re deliberating ignoring the whole history of theistic evolutionism (past and present) in order to construct a false dichotomy.

    They are simply wrong. And I debated them at Biologos and PS until they couldn’t take it (the truth) anymore. Go see if still there.

    Corneel: No, it seems to lack the part that says evolution is “godless”.

    Your logic sucks.

    Corneel: But He desperately needs Nonlin.org to defend Him from “godless” evolution.

    Who told you? Not me. Quit making up stuff.

    Corneel: You can start by telling us about the time when God revealed to you He didn’t use evolution to accomplish His means because it’s “godless”.

    Just apply simple logic if capable. Has nothing to do with a revelation.

    Corneel: Haha, yes, that is the idea: Don’t try to clean my mess. I would welcome some respect by way of attempt at understanding though.

    Look, you’re playing chutes and ladders: you seem to make some progress and then slide back to square one .

    0
  22. Nonlin.org: Absolutely False! And you should know it. Darwin can’t stop with his “inexplicable on the theory of creation”. And there is practically no piece on “evolution” that doesn’t falsely claim said “theory of evolution” disproves God.

    Let’s try to take this one misunderstanding at a time.

    “Evolution” refers to two distinct things, a set of facts and various proposals for explaining those facts.

    The fact of evolution is that organisms change over time, and from one generation to the next. Offspring aren’t identical to their parents – even bacteria populations have variations, and these variations change over time. I don’t think anyone (except possible YECs) argues that nothing ever changes, and that they are identical clones of their parents. Change happens.

    Then we get to the question of HOW things change. What causes these changes? Why do some changes persist and others do not? What is the mechanism behind the success of breeding programs for livestock and crops?

    Darwin addressed one part of this issue, suggesting that the environment could act as a breeding program, just like farmers could. That indeed, from the viewpoint of livestock or crops, the farmers ARE the environment. Since breeding programs work through the selection of which organisms survive to breed, Darwin argued that the environment itself acts to favor some variations over others. Subsequent research supports Darwin’s argument, although other mechanisms are also operating.

    As for gods, no biology text mentions them at all. I will accept that creationist pieces, focused as they are on rejecting evolution, invariably try to make the claim that the “theory of evolution” disproves god. But this argument (1) is irrelevant outside narrow religious circles; and (2) relies on a deliberate misrepresentation of the theory of evolution for their own purposes.

    Any theory of evolution is a proposal of mechanisms for observed changes over time. No theory of evolution covers how life originated, ONLY how it changes. That’s because theories are proposed explanations of observations, and there simply are no observations of life originating, so there can’t be any theories.

    It may help you to step outside your religious circle and read secular biology texts. You will find nobody’s god mentioned, not even yours.

    2+
  23. Nonlin.org: Absolutely False! And you should know it. Darwin can’t stop with his “inexplicable on the theory of creation”. And there is practically no piece on “evolution” that doesn’t falsely claim said “theory of evolution” disproves God.

    How many would be needed to disprove the claim of “ practically no piece ” ? Three, fifty, one hundred?

    0
  24. Flint: Let’s try to take this one misunderstanding at a time.

    False. Long and senseless rant.

    Corneel: Since you stopped engaging my arguments, does that mean I won the discussion?

    No. You must be some sort of squid squirting lots of nonsense so you can hide in that thick fog. Others do it too – see Flint above. Too much crazy stuff at once. And it’s not just one shot but an endless stream. This will not save “evolution”… but it keep TSZ and other such forums indefinitely open.

    0
  25. Nonlin.org: Long and senseless rant.

    Nonlin.org: You must be some sort of squid squirting lots of nonsense so you can hide in that thick fog. Others do it too – see Flint above. Too much crazy stuff at once. And it’s not just one shot but an endless stream.

    Do you understand why people will laugh at this comment?

    1+
  26. Kantian Naturalist:
    Whether or not adaption and speciation are best explained by selection acting on heritable variation and whether or not God exists are logically separate questions, neither having any bearing or relevance to the other.

    Worth repeating!

    0
  27. Nonlin.org: And there is practically no piece on “evolution” that doesn’t falsely claim said “theory of evolution” disproves God.

    Can you link to, say, 10?

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.