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. Is your intent to just keep posting this same OP full of misinformation, ignore all the corrections that people offer you, and then insist that your ability to simply say these words make them correct?

    1+
  2. where are the evolutionists or thoughtful people. have i made a great killer good point here? Hmmm.

    0
  3. (throws in the towel) That’s it. You’ve conclusively beaten evolution.

    No need for you post on the internet anymore since your work is finished.

    0
  4. Robert Byers: have i made a great killer good point here?

    No. You got it completely wrong.

    People explained that to you in your previous thread. I guess they don’t want to explain it again.

    0
  5. I have made the same point here before, if evolution is constant, has there EVER been a time where one could actually SEE it? Were there populations of elephant like creatures, some which had a mutation which gave a long proboscis type appendage, and some within the same population which didn’t have that mutation, and therefore, the ones with the longer spout were doing better survival and reproduction wise?

    Or a population of bee like creatures, some without stingers and some with, all equal in every other respect, but those with the lucky stinger reproducing much better? Was there ever a time when this could be witnessed?

    If there was, why can’t we witness anything like that now?

    0
  6. if evolutionism is the mechanism for biological changing of bodyplans (sic) then it must be a option it could happen today, and relative to billions of species, it should be happening to a powerful percentage.

    For multicellular animals, it’s variation on two basic themes: protostomes and deuterostomes. I’m assuming you are human, Robert, so you come equipped with a mouth and an anus – you are basically doughnut-shaped. The rest is just topological distortion.

    So you are, well, wrong.

    I suspect I’m not the first to point this out.

    0
  7. phoodoo:
    I have made the same point here before, if evolution is constant, has there EVER been a time where one could actually SEE it?Were there populations of elephant like creatures, some which had a mutation which gave a long proboscis type appendage, and some within the same population which didn’t have that mutation, and therefore, the ones with the longer spout were doing better survival and reproduction wise?

    Or a population of bee like creatures, some without stingers and some with, all equal in every other respect, but those with the lucky stinger reproducing much better?Was there ever a time when this could be witnessed?

    If there was, why can’t we witness anything like that now?

    Good grief! We only see the tips of the branches and what we find of extinct organisms that fossilized (oh, apart from the molecular phylogenetic evidence)

    Bees (let’s say hymenoptera) come in many species showing huge variation on the basic theme.

    Elephants have a long generation time but there is evidence that poaching has (by selecting for large tusks) reduced the average size of tusks in the surviving population. There’s a rich fossil record too.

    0
  8. phoodoo: If there was, why can’t we witness anything like that now?

    Oddly when asked the same question about your deity’s lack of recent personal appearances you are mute. Whereas for your questions, Alan gives an answer.

    Ever notice the a-symmetry there? You can answer literally nothing and support literally none of your claims but every question you ask has an answer.

    1+
  9. Alan Fox,

    Holy shit, can you possibly try any harder to deflect what I asked?

    Was there EVER a time, when there were populations (not segregated populations Alan, because, you know, your whole natural selection some species do better argument) , where one could see both phenotypes competing and one losing?

    Its a pretty straight forward point Alan, but it comes as no surprise that you could find a way to distort or dodge or simply pretend you can’t understand.

    0
  10. phoodoo:
    Alan Fox,

    Holy shit, can you possibly try any harder to deflect what I asked?

    Oh, the irony! 🙂

    Was there EVER a time, when there were populations (not segregated populations Alan, because, you know, your whole natural selection some species do better argument) , where one could see both phenotypes competing and one losing?

    Yes.

    Its a pretty straight forward point Alan, but it comes as no surprise that you could find a way to distort or dodge or simply pretend you can’t understand.

    Oh, the projection! Oh, the irony! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    0
  11. Phoodoo,

    Alan Fox: Yes.

    Remember the elephants. Phenotypes with differing size tusks. Selective pressure against large tusks – result: change in allele frequency and smaller tusks predominate. Evolution in action.

    2+
  12. PS @ phoodoo

    Sickle cell disease remains a problem where malaria is rife. There is a compelling evolutionary explanation. (Remember the niche?) Links can be provided. Can you offer an alternative explanation as to why the sickle cell gene persists in human populations where malaria is rife?

    1+
  13. Alan Fox,

    Oh is that right? So you mean, we can observe herds of elephants, and see, that ones with large tusks just can’t seem to find mates then huh? Or if they do find mates, the’r offspring don’t survive? Sure.

    And then what about when there were no tusks, and the first tusks started emerging, could we have seen those populations, and witnessed how the new tusks played such a vital role in reproduction? Some with tusks, and some who never got them?

    0
  14. Alan Fox:
    PS @ phoodoo

    Sickle cell disease remains a problem where malaria is rife. There is a compelling evolutionary explanation. (Remember the niche?) Links can be provided. Can you offer an alternative explanation as to why the sickle cell gene persists in human populations where malaria is rife?

    Haha, right right..perhaps one day the sickle cell disease morph even further and help the population with it to catch flies for food!

    0
  15. phoodoo: Or a population of bee like creatures, some without stingers and some with, all equal in every other respect, but those with the lucky stinger reproducing much better? Was there ever a time when this could be witnessed?

    Bee stingers are modified ovipositors (egg depositors), as evidenced by the clear homology with the ovipositors in other insect species. Some distantly related parasitic wasps still use their ovipositor to inject venom into their prey, just like bees do when stinging. So yes, there must have been a time when the ancestor population was polymorphic for stinger morphology and venom production. As always, this is expected to have been a gradual process, not one big step. The evolutionary path and adaptive potential both seem crystal clear to me, but let me know if you have any questions.

    0
  16. phoodoo: Oh is that right? So you mean, we can observe herds of elephants, and see, that ones with large tusks just can’t seem to find mates then huh? Or if they do find mates, the’r offspring don’t survive? Sure.

    Gerally speaking the elephants with large tusks are much more likely to be shot and killed by poachers. Yes. So the small tusk allele is significantly more beneficial in the elephant population.

    Why do you have such a hard time wrapping your head around such a simple concept?

    1+
  17. phoodoo: I have made the same point here before, if evolution is constant, has there EVER been a time where one could actually SEE it?

    Yes you have, and it was answered then as it is being answered now. It’s been answered every time.

    Yes, there are countless examples of evolution in action where one allele outcompetes another. The textbook example is peppered moth evolution during the industrial revolution.

    If you spent less time pretending to be extremely ignorant and stupid on an internet forum, and more time actually reading from the primary literature, you might actually discover something. Weird, isn’t it?

    0
  18. Corneel: Bee stingers are modified ovipositors (egg depositors), as evidenced by the clear homology with the ovipositors in other insect species. Some distantly related parasitic wasps still use their ovipositor to inject venom into their prey, just like bees do when stinging. So yes, there must have been a time when the ancestor population was polymorphic for stinger morphology and venom production. As always, this is expected to have been a gradual process, not one big step. The evolutionary path and adaptive potential both seem crystal clear to me, but let me know if you have any questions.

    This seems so devastatingly hard for evolutionists to grasp.

    Your answer first is that the stinger comes from the egg depositor of the insect, as if that solves any part of the question. Do you believe there used to be some bees that could sting with their egg depositor, and some that couldn’t? And the ones who couldn’t were getting out-competed?

    Then you say the process is gradual, so what if it is gradual? There must have been SOME time during this process when half could sting and half couldn’t right? And the ones who couldn’t were doing what exactly-just not reproducing? Or reproducing much less abundantly?

    Is there a scenario comparable to Rumrakets hilarious notion that because poachers are killing elephants for their tusks, that large tusk alleles are dying out for this reason?

    Is it not funny that he can’t see any NEW traits starting, just he can think of animals that exist that someone wants to kill. What is the new trait emerging that he is talking about?

    So when Omagain makes the claim that IDists are trying to fit their theory, he is hopelessly wrong-instead what is happening is that thinking people (unlike skeptics) are looking at this appalling evidence and saying-“This is what you have??? Humans killing elephants? Hohoho”

    0
  19. I doubt there was ever a time that one would readily notice evolution happening, to the standard of any dogged skeptic that happened to be around at the time. It would require some detailed population sampling over many generations – particularly tough if the species has a generation time within an order of magnitude of our own. And our pet skeptic would simply declare, when all the data were in: “huh! that’s not evolution!”. Evolution has to look like Creation – “video, or it never happened!”.

    0
  20. Allan Miller:
    I doubt there was ever a time that one would readily notice evolution happening, to the standard of any dogged skeptic that happened to be around at the time. It would require some detailed population sampling over many generations – particularly tough if the species has a generation time within an order of magnitude of our own. And our pet skeptic would simply declare, when all the data were in: “huh! that’s not evolution!”. Evolution has to look like Creation – “video, or it never happened!”.

    So are you suggesting there would never have been a time when some bees in the population could sting and some can’t then? It was always either all can sting or all can’t sting?

    Likewise, in elephant populations, always either all had trunks or none had, never just some had?

    0
  21. phoodoo: So are you suggesting there would never have been a time when some bees in the population could sting and some can’t then?It was always either all can sting or all can’t sting?

    Likewise, in elephant populations, always either all had trunks or none had, never just some had?

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. Have another read.

    0
  22. Allan Miller: I doubt there was ever a time that one would readily notice evolution happening

    If there was a time when some bees could sting and some couldn’t, why couldn’t one notice that?

    If there was a time that some large mammals in a population has thing big nose hanging off their face, and some didn’t why couldn’t one notice?

    0
  23. phoodoo: Your answer first is that the stinger comes from the egg depositor of the insect, as if that solves any part of the question. Do you believe there used to be some bees that could sting with their egg depositor, and some that couldn’t? And the ones who couldn’t were getting out-competed?

    Then you say the process is gradual, so what if it is gradual? There must have been SOME time during this process when half could sting and half couldn’t right? And the ones who couldn’t were doing what exactly-just not reproducing? Or reproducing much less abundantly?

    No, there has never been a time when “half could sting and half couldn’t”. Some solitary parasitic wasps are known use their ovipositor in defense, when threatened, but the sting is usually not very impressive to us humans. Ancestral bees probably had similar abilities. Modern bee stingers are specialised structures and you will be impressed by a bee sting, but the structure no longer functions in oviposition. So, there has been a gradual shift from one primary function to another. A process called co-option or exaptation. This change was most likely associated with the shift to a social life style, with the worker bees being tasked with defending the nest. I am sure you can see why the evolution of an ever more effective stinger was adaptive in that context.

    You are confusing yourself by insisting that the change be qualitative, either one or the other, but it is not: It has been a quantitative change.

    0
  24. phoodoo: If there was a time when some bees could sting and some couldn’t, why couldn’t one notice that?

    If there was a time that some large mammals in a population has thing big nose hanging off their face, and some didn’t why couldn’t one notice?

    What you clipped: “to the standard of any dogged skeptic that happened to be around at the time.”

    If your standard is that both a fully-formed gross feature and its complete absence should be circulating in the same population at the same time, for evolution to be observed, then you are the very ‘dogged skeptic’ we seek, and my point is proven.

    0
  25. Allan Miller,

    The big floppy nose started somewhere right? And it was noticeable enough to have a reproductive advantage right? And at first all didn’t have it right?

    I know just so stories are silly and all, but its not my theory.

    0
  26. Allan Miller: I doubt there was ever a time that one would readily notice evolution happening, to the standard of any dogged skeptic that happened to be around at the time.

    Heh, I was tempted to answer the same: No, there has never been a time in history when YOU GUYS could see evolution happening 😀.

    2+
  27. Corneel: Ancestral bees probably had similar abilities.

    But only some right? Because they didn’t all start off being able to use it, right? Some got a lucky mutation that was useful, right? Before that none could.

    0
  28. phoodoo:
    Allan Miller,

    The big floppy nose started somewhere right?And it was noticeable enough to have a reproductive advantage right?And at first all didn’t have it right?

    Reproductive advantage is actually not something we can readily ‘notice’. It would require careful gathering of field statistics.

    I know just so stories are silly and all, but its not my theory.

    But some bloke went ‘ping’ and there were trunks everywhere. Yeah, I can see why you prefer that to silly just-so stories.

    1+
  29. phoodoo: But only some right? Because they didn’t all start off being able to use it, right? Some got a lucky mutation that was useful, right? Before that none could.

    Yes, ALL were able to use it, because ALL females have an ovipositor. But there was phenotypic variation in how painful / lethal (to small intruders) the sting was, depending on stinger morphology, aggressive behaviour and composition of the venom. Just like humans, animals have individual variation.

    ETA: clarification

    1+
  30. Allan Miller: Reproductive advantage is actually not something we can readily ‘notice’

    Are big floppy noses in half a mammal population? Nose that are big enough to cause an affect?

    0
  31. Corneel: Yes, ALL were able to use it, because ALL females have an ovipositor. But there was phenotypic variation in how painful / lethal (to small intruders) the sting was, depending on stinger morphology, aggressive behaviour and composition of the venom.

    Wasn’t there a time when it wasn’t venomous at all? And then for a few it was, but not for most?

    0
  32. phoodoo:
    I know just so stories are silly and all, but its not my theory.

    Therefore fables win! Why do you insist on shooting yourself in the foot? Remember, you don’t have the intellectual and moral standing to call anything a just-so story. You’re defending fables!!

    0
  33. phoodoo: Are big floppy noses in half a mammal population?Nose that are big enough to cause an affect?

    I thought you were talking about the past.

    0
  34. phoodoo: Wasn’t there a time when it wasn’t venomous at all? And then for a few it was, but not for most?

    Working from memory here, but as I recall bees are believed to have evolved from parasitoid wasps. Several members of modern parasitoid wasps catch prey, paralyse it with their sting, and feed the unfortunate victim to their grubs who devour it alive. The ancestor of bees probably had the same life style, hence they were already venomous.

    If I have time, I will try to find some more details.

    0
  35. Corneel,

    Oh my heavens, and the wasps were also evolvd from something else that can sting. And that something else that can sting was evolved from another thing that could sting? And before that the venomous stingers was used for locomotion? And before that the venomous stinger that was used for locomotion was used for finding metal on beaches? So you see, it just repurposed what it already had…

    0
  36. phoodoo:
    Compared to what-“Yes, you could see it, no you couldn’t see it?”

    Compared to anything. At least on the science camp we’re trying to figure out the answers, while you just believe a mere fable. When confronted with an evolutionary enigma scientists try and figure out, they gather data, they propose hypotheses, they do venture into speculation to try and figure out if they can make more testable hypotheses. Scientists aren’t afraid to tell which is which, and creationists think that such admissions are a problem for the scientific side of things, when the honesty and the openness of the procedure is right here for all to see. So, it’s a strength, all the while you just believe a fable. You criticize, yet you just believe a fable. You get angry if you don’t understand the answers, yet you believe a fable. You complain that you don’t get detailed answers for everything (even though you get detailed answers for some of it), yet you just believe a fable.

    So, I insist. You neither have the intellectual nor the moral standard to call anything a just-so-story. You’re defending a fable. You stand for a fable. Worst of it: you lack any standard for siding with your fable. Every time you laugh at something and call it a just-so-story, you’re arguing against yourself. Is it so bad to ask for a tiny bit of honesty and self-respect from the likes of you?

    2+
  37. Evolution is false If evolution were true we’d expect organisms to adapt to their environment. Part of that adaptation would include learning from previous mistakes. Robert can’t learn from previous mistakes, therefore evolution is false

    QED

    2+
  38. phoodoo: I have made the same point here before, if evolution is constant, has there EVER been a time where one could actually SEE it?

    It’s the same with trees. You never actually see them grow.

    It’s obvious that the tree fairies show up when you are asleep, dig up the tree, and replace it with a slightly larger one.

    2+
  39. phoodoo: So you see, it just repurposed what it already had…

    It makes perfect sense. Lacking foresight, adaptive evolution needs to work with the stuff that is already there. And why else should the stinger be homologous to ovipositors in other insects?

    1+
  40. Neil Rickert,

    You never see some trees tall, some trees short, some trees as saplings, some trees with flowers, and some trees broken and fallen down, all at the same time?

    0
  41. Fig trees, fig wasps? Makes no sense unless you consider evolution. Curses!

    0
  42. phoodoo,

    To answer your question as it is posed, no. Bees stem from a lineage which already had developed modified ovipositors for the use of injecting venom. The lineage is called Aculeata. So by the time that members of that lineage began diversifying into Anthophila (bees) they already had stingers for injecting venom. To your previous points however, there have been bee populations in which the ability to sting was lost over time. The entire tribe Meliponini is a lineage of honey bees in the same family as honey bees (Apidae) which lack stingers. Further undermining your poorly-based assumptions is the fact that, in non-social bee populations, approximately half of any population is stingless: All males lack stingers. The reason for this is that male Hymenoptera have not at any point possessed ovipositors because, obviously, they are unable to lay eggs. The best explanation for the phenomenon of male bees lacking stings is the evolutionary one: Stingers in hymenoptera have homology with ovipositors.
    Now, all this said, I have very little confidence that you will even attempt to grasp these concepts, let alone do anything outside of raise another objection from what you perceive to be absurdity in comparison to your creation myth that Beardman decided that only lady bees should have stingers, and voila.
    I will, however, pose a question to you, assuming you intend to answer and not deflect: Other than evolution as we understand it, why would it be the case that Meliponini would have DNA sequences strongly suggesting the fact that it is nested within Apidae, a sting-possessing lineage, and yet lack stingers? Why would there be DNA evidence strongly pointing toward their closest common ancestors having stingers, unless the assumptions you so readily throw away are true? Furthermore, why would that DNA evidence suggest just that? Is it an attempt by your creator to mislead us?

    4+

Leave a Reply

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