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.
578 thoughts on “Amongst the billions of species today is evolution going on? No! Why not !”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
With Devolution they do…
Change cannot happen? Really? Is that what you read? You too are a riot, buddy.
Some mutations kill the organism in certain environments, right What you erroneously refer to as “deleterious mutations”. Permanent? Are you sure you want to use such a harsh word? What is “permanent” in this universe anyway?
So the default is “accumulating genetic change” unless an “actively” process to stop your fantasy is shown? Don’t you have it backwards? Yes, you do, failed samurai that won’t uphold his honor. All I know is that ALL examples I could find show loss of “novelty” sooner or later. Remember them all? Let’s add one more that doesn’t want to accumulate: albinism. Can you think of ONE single example supporting your counter-claim? ONE?
I defined something that I used to think was real (yes, I used to think like a regular pope) but now I know it is entirely fictional. Don’t ask for more details.
Remember when I asked for a BIDIRECTIONAL link? Did you gloss over that? Yes, you did, samurai. And now you repeat your mistake. Now, why do I counter with this? Think! Are you thinking?
And what about your tasks? Any time soon?
Nope, nonlin.
So, the emergence of novel bat coronaviruses in Italy is not an example of change? Not an example of the sort of ‘permanent’ directional change that nonlin states does not occur?
Ooookay. So the generation of genetically novel distinct virus species does not occur?
I’m having trouble keeping track of all the aspects of reality that nonlin is denying here, but we’ve been told to not ask for more details.
If it doesn’t exist, it can’t evolve! Like species. 🙂
I am sorry, but you have just described purifying selection again, something you don’t believe exists, remember? Tip: the problem with denying EVERYTHING, is that at some point nothing is left, and you end up constantly contradicting yourself. This makes you look silly.
Try again, what force is “zapping” novel mutations?
Correct. The processes known to result in reduction of genetic variation are genetic drift and selection. You haven’t described your alternative “zapping” mechanism. I think it doesn’t exist.
Nope!
NO! 😃
What is you definition of evolution? Is it speciation, descent with modification, phylogenesis, or something else?
No, I ignored it, because I see no reason for the link to be BIDIRECTIONAL. Genetics, in combination with the environment, determines the phenotype. Done! Why would it need to be BIDIRECTIONAL?
ETA: clarification
Cretinoid, huh? That’s convincing. No, not made very clear, nor explained. Just an endless succession of your usual tics – ‘see above, go read’, etc, interspersed with your curiously juvenile language. It sucks, no doubt, and its proponents are dorks, nerds and spazzes.
The ‘hypothesised process causing transmutation’ is, fundamentally, descent with modification – ie, genetics. Your definition – such as it is – does not appear to be anything distinct from that.
Just havin’ a bit of linguistic fun at your expense. It’s a hobby. Nonetheless, someone who knows a bit about evolution and genetics (like me, for example) is far better placed to evaluate these matters than – for example – you. The ‘appeal to authority’ defence does not mean, for example, that a street urchin’s opinion on medicine is as valid as a doctor’s. The ‘mere appeal to authority’ defence, used in that way, is also a logical fallacy.
It was a joke, but evidently you take a completely opposing stance on that matter to nonlin. Although, true to form, we hardly ever see ID advocates actually disagree.
Schizophora,
A curious feature of the nonlins of this world – they are legion – is that in defending their hypotheses in comments they become strangely mute on the actual topic. They don’t stop talking exactly – that would be too much to hope for – but elaborations, clarifications and considerations of counter-arguments become buried in a squid-ink flurry. It’s an analogue of the lame ‘do your research’ get-out of conspiracists.
When someone challenges me under an OP or following a comment, I do my level best to articulate my position, in the hope that my original point might become clear (or, more rarely (!), I might revise my position). Whereas Creationists – and many others with a similar mission to propagate The Truth – seem to suddenly lose the desire to get the point across.
I’ve told you once.
Not to nitpick, but of all people, someone like you should know viruses are not even life.
On another note, as discussed, since when is ‘change’ same as “evolution”?
Yet on another note, what justifies the ‘permanent’ and ‘directional’ labels? In your own words, please. Not another link to nowhere.
Did I just say “…you erroneously refer to…”? Did you see/understand that? Seems not. Can you point to the supposed contradiction? Maybe it is just in your head?
Only these are imaginary as shown repeatedly.
You just read my definition a few comments back. Memory problems?
You don’t see too many things. And that’s your problem.
There might be more to life than genetics plus environment.
But that aside, none of that (genetics, environment, phenotype) points to “evolution”. Your essential bidirectional link is broken. If you see the reason or not. Without that bidirectional link, “evolution” is just a parasite on genetics.
So binary!
I just said and you quoted me: “as explained”. What part of that don’t you understand?
Look, you just quoted me above: “Descent with modification” is cretinoid as explained. You don’t like that, do you? I get it. Tough.
Once in a while you need to make good on your promises. Not this time or any other time to date apparently.
False. Apparently, all sides of a discussion MUST agree on the reliability of the authority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Cognitive_bias
Aren’t you tired of being wrong?
I am not sure what the disagreement is but we can explore. As mentioned before, I am not thrilled about ID partially accepting Darwinism: it’s either true or false. The likelihood of “somewhat true” are basically nill.
nonlin, you appear to be arguing that the fact that viruses do change does not affect your anti-evolution argument because they are not alive ? Whether viruses are alive or not is the subject of debate, but either way your ‘they don’t count’ claim is hilarious.
I never said it was. I was making fun of your obviously false assertion that change cannot happen. I’ll let others handle your equivocations re ‘evolution’.
The viruses changed in the ‘direction’ of being better able to infect bats. This change has not reverted to date, and I would be happy to bet you large sums of money that it will never. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate otherwise. So, “permanent” until shown otherwise.
And it is J-Mac who is (unintentionally) making fun of you in this regard. But your failure to realize this is the “true to form” behavior that Allan Miller was alluding to. Your reply to him
is priceless.
On another note, your repeatedly asserting “As explained” or “as demonstrated above” or “as shown repeatedly.” does not lend any weight to your assertions. Rather, it highlights your continued inability to muster a coherent argument.
Nonlin.org,
The part where you actually did any explaining.
The ‘hypothesised process’ you refer to is descent with modification. So if descent with modification is cretinoid, your own definition suffers likewise.
But you evidently aren’t up to evaluating the arguments. You’ve scooted past them. For example, when I illustrated the heritable equivalence of recombination and mutation way above, you had nothing intelligent to say on the matter. When I invited you to say what ‘adaptation’, a word you’d used, actually means to you, you started bleating about ‘traps’. Mitochondrial Eve, embarrassingly misunderstood. The mechanism by which population variation arises from a single couple without mutation: not a clue. You’re a bluffer’s bluffer. You quite evidently don’t understand the material.
Haha. So if one party to a discussion on medicine rejects all medical authorities, they win? This is a get-out for Dunning-Kruger’s the world over. Nonlin’s Law: No link between evolution and genetics can be shown by an acceptable authority!
You think genetics has nothing to do with evolution. J-mac specifically points to genetic change as ‘evolutionary’ (though he prefers the term ‘devolutionary’). So, that.
You made an appeal to purifying selection to explain how novel mutations get “zapped”. This contradicts your previous claim that purifying selection is “total nonsense”.
So what non evolutionary process “zaps” novel mutations? You haven’t mentioned any yet.
I explained why your proffered definition was unclear and asked for clarification.
What is your definition of evolution, is it speciation, descent with modification or a combination of both?
Yes, there is. But I happen to believe that we can appreciate that without sacrificing scientific integrity and rationality.
A change in the genetic composition, or a heritable change in the phenotype of a population IS evolution. This has been explained to you dozens of times.
Now will you please withdraw your silly claim that evolution and genetics are unrelated?
Allan Miller,
That’s a solid point. Nonlin seems to think that, in the fell swoop of one poorly-authored OP on regression to the mean, they have dismantled all evidence for evolution. The fact that people simply stopped responding to nonlin’s inane insults and repeated assertion that anyone who did not immediately drop their belief in evolutionary biology as a result of reading that OP must simply have misunderstood means that nonlin, of course, triumphed in that argument. And if he has “beaten” everyone at an online forum which often discusses evolution, then he clearly must have annihilated the entire field of study. So at this point, all nonlin ever has to do is refer back to that single thread for anyone to realize how thoroughly evolution has been defeated.
It seems likely to me that nonlin, at the time of invention of their brilliant takedown of evolution based on a misunderstanding of linear regression and its relation to genetic variation, had just come to one of the very first units in a high school or early undergraduate intro to stats class.
The main issue I have when reading their comments here, and the responses to their comments, that I am simply unable to shore up is this: given that nonlin does not make coherent arguments, and given that nonlin seems to be opposed to learning anything about the field of study or any of the important parts of the theory of evolution by natural selection, why does anyone continue to engage with nonlin’s evolution-based arguments on a serious level? I lurked on this forum for some months before posting, and I have grown more and more curious as I have watched many members bang their heads up against these arguments with earnest attempts at rational discussion.
My question is this: What is the supposed goal here? I am genuinely curious.
Schizophora,
For me, it’s just a leisure activity, like returning to a piano piece I’ve played 1000 times already. I realise it can get dull for onlookers.
TSZ was founded by neuroscientist Elizabeth Liddle in 2011 partly to allow extended discussion of topics that got lost in the general noise at the “flagship” Intelligent Design site, Uncommon Descent. Many people who were banned at UD pitched up here. I’ve been following the fortunes of ID since 2005 and the Dover fiasco. Whilst ID is a dead parrot, it’s remarkable how many supporters remain unaware and still defend the concept here.
They do not affect my argument. You erroneously brought them up.
Your claim is false. Bring your citation where “change cannot happen”. If “evolution” hangs on your failed lawyer arguments, it’s fucked. As it in fact is.
This is too retard to address.
Are you denying all these arguments have been made over and over? Some very recently? Even this thread?
Once again, you not liking the replies has nothing to do with their validity. Don’t worry, we’ll revisit them soon in another context.
This is a stupid take on something very clear. Or are you just masking your f-up?
If so, J-mac is wrong on this one. And let him make his own case. What are you, the nanny?
False. Bring my original quote and I will show you where you’re wrong.
Are you quoting Pravda, comrade?
That is the parasitic relationship mentioned. You see, genetics has no need for “evolution”. Only “evolution” clings onto genetics like the parasite it is. Genetics doesn’t give a crap about what “change in the genetic composition” means to “evolution”. But you’ll insist because you’re too blind to see.
Meanwhile, you failed your tasks:
1. Show measurable real time trends in “evolution” if any (you know, like rising mountains measured daily and annually)
2. Prove a bidirectional link (if any) between “evolution” and genetics.
Therefore you must stop making these false claims.
Alan Fox,
Yes, I saw the stickied post you authored with the link to the UD thread which seemed to cause Lizzie to start the forum. In fact, I read nearly the entire thread and found much of it reflected nearly exactly the situation I am discussing now. If I might clarify, my question relates not so much to the entire point of the forum. I very much support the idea of providing a space for free and open discussion of ideas, even controversial ideas, and I have found many threads here to be quite enjoyable and informative (especially Allan’s thread on sex, so shoutout to him).
My question, and moreover my curiosity, is focused around the actual decision for individual members to engage in a situation in which their arguments will be plainly ignored and then condescended. Part of my curiosity arises because I, of course, find myself guilty of the very same frustrating actions. After all, it’s not easy banging your [brain] against some mad bugger’s wall.
I would actually say I’ve found it to be quite the opposite; I’ve filled many an otherwise dull moment scrolling through, reading valuable insights and comical misunderstandings. However, I doubt your intent was at any point to entertain and inform a silent onlooker like myself.
Your replies didn’t even address the issues, it’s not really ‘liking’ vs ‘not liking’. It’s all discussion of the discussion, something you’re much more secure with than the actual topic, indicating the shakiness of your grasp. But I’m happy to continue to give you the opportunity to expose your ignorance some more; you don’t occupy a huge deal of my time.
I was simply making merry with the title of a book. But, since we’re on it, can you name an authority on genetics you might agree with? Or is ‘authorities mutually agreed’ an empty set?
It’s entertainment. Watching ID-Creationists bumble and stumble and try to bluff their way through science is like watching old 3 Stooges reruns. You’ve seen Moe step on that rake a thousand times but it’s still hilarious when he gets smacked in the gob. 😀
That’s good (hoping I contribute more to the former than the latter!).
Well, I do hope to do that as well, generally. I enjoy writing, so even though I know I’m flogging a dead horse sometimes, I act as if my interlocutor is capable of grasping my points, against expectation. I’ll talk to anyone. I’ve tried explaining drift to Joe G, fitness to phoodoo and continental drift to Byers! But I’m aware there’s not much meat in the nonlin exchanges.
😃
Well, you’d be wrong about that. My intended audience is that (assumed to be mythical) lurker who gets the hilarity of what we are able to cajole others into saying, whether its nonlin on stats, Sal on entropy, phoodoo on Special Relativity, J-Mac on biology, or keiths on moderation. Byers and Joe G are less interesting — they always step on the same rake.
For my part, I am curious what motivates creationists and what makes them reject evolutionary science. They are a diverse bunch, and some are more rewarding to talk to than others, but they all share certain characteristics.
There is also the irrational hope against hope that they will drop some of their more uninformed objections. Most creationists have an extremely poor background or even disinterest in biology.
This part:
The expression of lethal mutations is purifying selection in action. I am still curious to learn what non evolutionary process “zaps” novel mutations.
Feeling better now? Good! Let’s return to the discussion, shall we?
First, it makes perfect sense that evolutionary biology draws on other disciplines. Not only does it rely on genetics, but also on ecology and theoretical biology, among other things. Second, other disciplines have built on evolutionary biology as well. There are applications in agronomy, breeding, conservation and medicine. Famously, many statistical methods were first developed to study evolutionary problems (regression!). Such cross-fertilization is encouraged in science.
Now, since you have as much as conceded it, please withdraw your claim that evolution and genetics are unrelated. Also, let us know whether you will accept Allan’s definition of evolution as descent with modification, or my definition of evolution as a change in the allele frequency. That, or clarify what you mean by origin of species / transmutation.
I will stop making these claims once somebody convinces me they are false. You are … let’s say … not making a terribly compelling argument.
ETA: clarification
Corneel,
I’ve deliberately steered clear of the ‘allele frequency’ definition, since it seems too far removed from laymen’s understanding of transformation in lineage. Looking backwards, all the subsequent frequency changes take place ‘offstage’, winnowing alternative allele lineages to extinction. The change in a given lineage occurs with the initial mutation, not its increase in popularity. Hard enough to gain agreement on that!
Corneel,
Especially epidemiology …
I can see your point, but a lot of laymen’s misunderstandings on evolution stem from an inability to perform population level thinking. Emphasizing the mutation part in favor of the selection part reinforces that, so I don’t feel inclined to adopt it.
Most of the ID proponents here at TSZ deride the “lucky mutation” narrative. To them, it resembles the supernatural introduction of exactly the right constructive variants. Then it is up to YOU to explain that mutations of all sorts get introduced continuously, but it is the natural selection part that makes the difference. Not exactly easy to get that point across either! Hence, adopting the change in allele frequency as a definition of evolution makes more sense to me: It encourages population thinking, emphasizes the role of natural selection in adaptive evolution and is central in population genetics, which links Mendelian genetics to Darwinian evolution.
Just a matter of personal preference though. Descent with modification is probably closer to most people’s understanding of evolution as a gradual change in morphology.
… which has become exceedingly relevant of late.
And ignore the central concept of the niche.
I have to say as a layman with no background of religious influence distorting my scientific education, it is almost shocking to remember how poor my understanding was. It has been much improved (well, I think so) by trying to address misconceptions and misrepresentations encountered on-line.
I cringe now remembering an artist’s impression in a book I had as a kid of the moment the first land animal crawls out of the sea and on to land. Hardly different from a creation myth.
Corneel,
In coining the term Darwin, with his inevitably vague conception of inheritance, probably meant population processes rather than my post-Mendel mutational process in any case.
One reservation about allele frequency is that it doesn’t capture speciation well, but nothing’s perfect.
Another issue I blithely thought I understood and didn’t. Some might recall the eccentric physiologist John A. Davison who insisted that evolution was impossible because sexual reproduction would mix alleles and prevent speciation. Took me a while to see the flaw in that argument and that it was physical processes that prevented that mixing which would create opportunities for speciation.
Yep. One complication of single-population thinking is that one of the physical processes, or at least factors, is simply geographic distance, to which one could add a layer of latitudinal variation in some parameters (clines). Without the perfect mixing assumed by simple models and intuition, extended populations are always in the process of incipiently diverging. In principle, it only takes local extinction to complete the severance and allow it to proceed unrestrained. Sex is a vector of mixing, keeping everything in step, but gene flow is somewhat ‘viscous’.
Likewise. I’ve also been educated by the patient (and not-so-patient, I guess). I felt I had a fair grasp of evolution from uni days, and took a subsequent interest in the popular treatments – Dawkins etc – but have (I feel) come to understand it better and in more detail latterly, due to online discussion with people from both main camps.
Your issue is that you have nothing meaningful to say.
OK. You screwed up. Stop further embarrassing yourself. It’s not a pleasant sight.
Yes, that part. But you don’t read /understand it properly. Very important: “some mutations… certain environments”. There’s nothing in the mutation itself without the environment. Hence no “purifying”, no “deleterious”, no “beneficial”, no “fitness”, no “selection”, and ultimately no “evolution”. But you know this by now, don’t you? Hence you’re no longer even attempting those other futile tasks: to cite a “deleterious”/”beneficial” mutation, and to produce your “fitness function”.
Blah, blah, blah… Too many words – failed attempt to fudge your problems. Always.
First, no one cares about your first. Second, you’re not making your case with your second. Statistical methods are in no way “evolution”. So you’re proving me right once again – genetics doesn’t depend one bit on “evolution”. No link.
Huh?!? Quit smoking that weed.
No to either. You have my clear definition. What more do you want?
So “everything is true unless proven false”? Are you not thinking this through? Obviously not.
Nonlin.org,
Right back atcha.
You prove my point, then. There is no-one that you consider to be authoritative on genetics. Or rather, if an authority demonstrates the widely-accepted link between evolution and genetics (which they all do), they are automatically discarded as not someone mutually agreed to be authoritative. Leaving the sole authority you will listen to on the subject as … you, someone, grotesquely ignorant on the matter, to anyone who isn’t you. You are hermetically sealed from comprehension. Which is fine as far as that goes, but I don’t know why you feel the need to keep telling the world it can never persuade you otherwise. I think we get it.
OK, let’s have a look at nonlin’s hilariously inept definition: “A hypothesized process responsible for “the origin of species” (aka their hypothesized transmutation from one to the other).”
What’s this ‘hypothesised process’? I mean, shorn of the bit in parentheses, that could apply to Creationism. With the bit in parentheses, it resolves perfectly satisfactorily to ‘descent with modification’. If it’s not descent with modification, what is it?
Nitpick: it should be “No to both“. We have your clear definition?
What more do we want?
A link to that “clear definition”.
That’s it?!?
When you’re right, you’re right.
Yes, on the previous page. Do a search.
Nonlin.org,
Linking isn’t that hard.
Good grief! That was it! 😕😉😜
Allan Miller,
I took nonlin’s “hypothesized transmutation from one to the other” to require cats giving birth to dogs, or at least some form of orthogenesis wherein one (modern) species transforms itself into a different (modern) species.
That’s it.
Yes, me too, but it’s hard to be sure without clarification from the author! It’s a process no-one actually hypothesised, if so.
I took Nonlin to mean that if we left a spider monkey in a cage, we come back later and it’s now a chimp. You know, like that thing about lead transmutation into gold.
Entropy,
I keep thinking ‘transubstantiation’.