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.
Yeah, that. Normally, when a creationist talks in terms of “transmutation” they mean that, some organisms changing themselves from one species into a new one.
So let me get this straight. Novel mutations are being removed by being lethal in another environment they never encounter, just so Nonlin.org is spared the embarassment of having to concede that the words “purifying”, “deleterious”, “beneficial”, “fitness”, “selection”, and “evolution” apply to real-world phenomena.
LMFAO
Nonlin. This is getting pathetic. Just admit that genetic change qualifies as evolution and that you were wrong .
You don’t really know how evolution is supposed to work, do you?
Could you tell me why you bother posting here at TSZ? Do you wish to convince other people? If so, you are doing it wrong.
If I were being unkind, I might suggest it(s that nobody reads his own blog and TSZ is about the only other place that let’s him post.
ETA owns up to incorrect use of apostrophe.
Nah, I think he just doesn’t know.
Flint’s assessment was probably the best: current species were created as-is and are not allowed to go outside of their boundaries. Therefore evolution is a Dirty Word, and everything associated with it is contaminated.
But he never really studied it, so he doesn’t really know how it explains current biodiversity.
Why would he want other people to read his screeds, if he doesn’t want them to come around to his views?
Non-lin in particular? I don’t know.
Us in general? Ego, perhaps.
People with large ego’s still dislike people disagreeing, is my impression.
Nonlin.org,
Using the royal “no one” now are we, nonlin?
Anyone springing to mind there? I’m getting a hint of orange.
Allan Miller,
Allan Miller,
Yawn.
That’s what good old fart Darwin had in mind, right? Not “modern to modern”, that’s your “embellishment”. But you know good old fart Darwin better than me. Or so you pretend…
Don’t think so. I recall he was concerned when William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) came up with an Earth age that precluded evolution by small incremental changes.
Past your bedtime?
Alan Fox,
I doubt it. As far as I can tell, nonlin is American, and it’s only the afternoon here.
No, you got that wrong. As always. There’s no “novel” or “another”. Why would you keep adding junk [words]?
Fact is, mutations by themselves are meaningless without “the environment”. And you know this much. But what is “the environment” anyway? Just the rug under which you sweep your screw-ups. 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. Nothing your clueless “process” can explain. Hence you inability to name one “beneficial/deleterious” mutation, to name your “fitness function” and to make sense of “natural selection” and “evolution”. Or to answer the many other questions left unanswered (task 1 & 2 more recently)
This is stupid stubbornness. And after a very clear explanation. You’re beyond help at this point.
I notice you didn’t answer the question: “is everything true unless proven false”? Because that’s exactly what you were saying. If you continue to deflect, I will take that as admission of fault, “winner”.
You know, for a while I thought of you as an honest guy that seeks knowledge, not a slippery snake without principles. Was I wrong?
This has what to do with what?
Evolution. The thing you think doesn’t happen.
Nonlin, once again electing nonlin as judge and jury of this particular dispute.
That’s how you’ll beat evolution! Bring up something that explains everything and doesn’t need to be explained itself. Looks like you win.
Nonlin.org,
I believe that in nonlin world, falling silent is concession. Of course, ‘yawn’ isn’t quite silence, but I will nonetheless break out my little dance of victory.
Nonlin.org,
Hey, save some “scare quotes” for someone else; there is a world shortage.
All these speculations without clear definition of species?
It’s more a wishful thinking by Darwinists than science…
How could you be sure it’s a new species, if you can’t define species?
Because things change overtime? So does my car…
How can you determine my car has not turned into a new species? It has changed overtime…🤔
Sorry if this has been posted before https://www.livescience.com/bilaterian-worm-animal-ancestor.html
Although you evidently find your sneer clever, you can hardly use something entirely to be expected under a hypothesis as an objection to it.
If evolution (descent with modification/change in allele frequency) were true, a difficulty in precisely defining species at the nodes would be an inevitable consequence of the process. Such gradations are certainly not a prediction of most non-evolutionary mechanisms proposed as alternatives, apart from ‘gradual ID’.
We’re just worms with a bit of tweaking.
The author of this OP could describe several examples of the environment affecting an organism’s phenotype, but it appears he suddenly forgot:
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.
I did not decide evolution has occurred because it wasn’t proven false, but because I learned there is an enormous amount of research that supports it. Happy?
Not so dramatic, Nonlin. I am willing to listen to you, but you stubbornly refuse to explain your views or to engage with valid criticisms that others bring up. Without supporting arguments, you don’t have a case. It’s as simple as that.
Now, why do you post here? Do you hope to convince other people? If so, reconsider refusing to grant each and every request for clarification.
Would it were true he was the only one. Some local politicians are too full of themselves as well.
The French PM Eduoard Phillipe speaks to the nation today. Another example of the power of self-love.
“Crétins! Imbéciles! Faites comme on vous a dit! Vous m’avez donné aucun choix!”
You always dance after spouting nonsense? Not silence of course – just too much nonsense to deal with.
Can’t have it both ways: if “gradualism” then WHY do we see CLEARLY distinct organisms today? The failures of “gradualism” have been exposed and discussed.
WTF is wrong with you? That OP describes no environment. Read again. Can you [MEANING]FULLY describe ANY environment? Of course not.
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.
There will be happiness when you retract your monstrous blunder (or do the silent admission shtick). The question was: “is everything true unless proven false”? Answer that specific question, not other BS. And reconcile your answer with you also asking others to prove something false.
Ha, ha. This is a joke, right? I am doing nothing but explaining and exposing my views to criticism on TSZ.
NO. Convincing would be nice, but it’s not the main objective. I am testing my views in a hostile environment. I offered plenty of clarifications. The only “clarifications” I cannot provide is force-fitting these views in the “evolution” framework I am disputing. Do you understand why?
Allan Miller,
As opposed to indistinct organisms? What we see are populations. In sexually reproducing populations, the niche environment selects adaptations that result in evolutionary change in those populations over time. If the niche changes too quickly, populations decline and can go instinct. Where population stray into new niches, breeding isolation will result in a bifurcation and two separate species.
Nonsense. You may have made some evidence-free assertions.
ROFLMFAO!
Nonlin.org,
You can have it both ways. Gradualism does not mean that species will never diverge to the point of distinctness, simply that those in the process of separation will be less easy to dichotomise neatly.
“As discussed”. Bingo!
I am not excluding unknowns. I am treating unknowns as unknowns, instead of falsely pretending to know what the unknowns are.
No
“Testing” to what end? What are you hoping to get out of these exchanges?
Nobody asked you to “force-fit your views in an evolutionary framework”. You were just asked for a description of the very concept you believe you are attacking, and you were incapable of providing one. I think you are just attacking the word “evolution” without any proper understanding of what it entails.
Could you tell me the number of CLEARLY distinct plants in this picture of my lawn? Thanks.
Ah, of course! So when you provide endless nonsense and everyone gives up engaging with you, you can claim victory. When you give up on someone else’s nonsense, it is not a loss, merely a bore!
Have you ever considered the possibility that it is not just that your ideas are wholly unsupported by any evidence or logic, but also that you are terrible at debating and that everyone around except for yourself can see it?
Blah, blah, blah nonsense.
False. You were specifically excluding unknowns as “non scientific”. That you can’t read mine is one thing but to not know what you’re saying is on a whole different level.
Of course. I should pursue, but will stop here with the understanding you will avoid this mistake in the future.
Make sure I represent the truth. To bury Darwinism once and for all if so.
False. As the insider you are, you just can’t appreciate.
Rather than make generic unsubstantiated claims, articulate what you think is historically wrong in the definition I provided.
You misunderstand or misrepresent my comment. Alan got it (above), but his “explanation” falls way, way, way too short.
BTW, you’re probing others too much given that you fail your own tasks so often. Agree?
The claim is specific and well-supported. Your comments demonstrate you have no real grasp of evolutionary theory and are ill-equipped to criticize it.
No, I was your declaring unknown variables as “the will of God” non scientific.
Please pursue, because I can’t remember making any mistakes.
No, but I’ll give you a specific claim: You are clearly incapable of clarifying the “definition” you provided. The most likely explanation is that you just wrote down some words without understanding what they mean.
No, I don’t. You said that organisms are clearly distinct because, like all creationists, you tend to ignore all non-human life. There are numerous species where individual organisms can be extremely hard to tell apart, like in plants with clonal growth.
No.
I don’t understand. You make sure you represent the truth by having everybody telling you that are wrong?
Also, what precisely is so wrong with a scientific theory that merely aims to explain current biodiversity, that it needs burying?
Huh? What’s “I was your declaring”?!? Regardless, you display bad judgement when declaring beforehand something unknown as “non scientific”.
You asked for proof against “evolution” which you now admit to be wrong (aka your “no” answer to “is everything true unless proven false”?).
For the future: if you have a fish brain, it’s your responsibility to deal with that.
Wrong. That is not specific. You are incapable of articulating anything wrong with my definition.
Yes. You did misunderstand. The issue was “gradualism” aka lack thereof. From homogeneous population (“species”) to homogeneous population, not within a homogeneous population.
Look man, pull your own weight.
You NEVER understand. That’s the problem.
I don’t care about fools disagreeing. I care about valid counterarguments (none so far) and good questions (very few, but more than none). And yes, it’s not ideal, but I’m the judge of those given I deal with too many fools and none whatsoever objective judge. Get it?
Just that it’s not at all scientific. And that it’s a cancer on mankind. Wouldn’t you want to cure a (any) form of cancer? I would.
Nonlin.org,
Another meatless sandwich!
Not that I have anything against vegetarians! Some of my best friends…
True, but that is not what I was doing. What I declared non scientific was the part where you said unknowns were manifestations of “the will of God” without presenting any supporting evidence whatsoever.
No, I did not. I stated that YOU haven’t presented any arguments that changed my mind about evolution.
This is getting a bit repetitive Nonlin, so please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
No, you said:
You were talking about organisms, not populations or species.
Why did you expect to receive valid counterarguments from fools? Isn’t it better to ask criticism from people whose opinion you respect?
Why is it a cancer? What are the symptoms?
Corneel,
To be fair (not an easy task), I read it as the latter, and your response as illustrative analogy.
No, I really thought Nonlin was declaring that since organisms are clearly separated, so should “species” be. Reflecting a bit, your more charitable interpretation may be the correct one. But since he now appears to pick on small typo’s (“Huh? What’s “I was your declaring”?!?”) I don’t really feel like working hard to interpret Nonlin’s confused statements any more.
Also: populations are clearly distinct?!? In what universe is that?
Nonlin,
Just for your information: not once have you been able to recuperate from my criticisms. I and others have devastated your “arguments” time and again. We have given up on you once we’ve seen that you cannot process the criticisms. You remain thoroughly defeated, yet uneducable.
That’s the beauty of “unknown”. It’s all encompassing (other than known) by definition. It’s stupid to even ask for “supporting evidence” for the unknown. It’s also stupid to declare the unknown as “not scientific”. In fact any strong claim about the unknown is absolutely wrong given that, by definition, you must know something to claim something. But your faith in bullshit blinds you.
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”.
Stop it. We both know what I was talking about. It’s what we usually talk about. If you want to play dumb, play alone.
Not what I said. Read again.
Stupidity.
Thank you. Why “not an easy task”? Is this personal, now?
I was genuinely trying to understand your comment.
An universe in which “species” makes no sense.
Nonlin.org,
You spend a fair bit of time acting like a dick. I’m only human.
Sure, but I am not doing any those things.
Not what I said. Read again.
You said that you “care about valid counterarguments”, but repeatedly call us fools. Why not present your arguments to people whose criticism you are willing to accept?
“Stupidity”? That is why “Darwinism” enrages you so much that you call it a “cancer on mankind”? I thought you would come up with something a little more threatening than that. Are you sure there isn’t anything else?