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.
Schizophora,
Oh geez, you don’t understand the point of the question in regards to this OP? Ok, great, it wasn’t bees. Then it was SOME insect that started with a population that had had NO members of the species which had the ability to sting with venom- are you following? Then ONE member of that species (somehow!) developed some ability to sting. So now, stay with me here, don’t get confused by your religious fever, there was a population of insects with a few, maybe 10, maybe 1000, maybe half, that started gaining this NEW function(you know what new means right, I don’t have to explain that too). So, now we put you into a time machine, send you back to this time, when only SOME of the insects have this ability. Not all males, and not all females, but the few who got the right mutation to begin. If you could have gone back to that time you couldn’t study the not bees, but related to bees insects, and said, “Gee, this is strange, it seems only a few of the insects have this trait, and if we studied them for ten years we might be able to see that in fact those with this odd trait somehow reproduce much better than the ones who don’t. Voila, you can see evolution!
Now, you wanting to ask me all kinds of question about common ancestry, in a thread that is asking why we can’t see evolution, seems just like another typical evolutionist diversion tactic, because its part of your religion. So spare me your creator paranoia.
I wouldn’t worry. I don’t think anyone is expecting answers from you.
Alan Fox,
Well, let’s face it Alan, you don’t even have the intellectual standard, or even the moral standard to even discuss such things. All you believe in is fables anyway.
Is it really asking too much for you to just show a tiny scintilla of honesty or integrity? I know its is difficult for you, but is that asking too much? You get angry if you don’t get the answers you want, but who thinks you could ever understand answers that don’t support the little fairy tales of your low intellectual standard?
The questions are not about common ancestry. The questions are: since, according to you, there’s no common ancestry, then how do you explain that it looks so strongly as if there’s common ancestry?
The question in the OP is based on poor understanding of evolution and timescales. It was already answered: the basic assumption of the OP, that we should see large transformations in species populations, is wrong. At our ephemeral timescale, we see what such scale allows. We do see “small trees, medium-sized trees, large trees, etc”. It’s the timeframe that makes it look as if there’s little, barely visible, change.
To get farther we look at the fossil record and at the molecular record. We look at the variability within species (yes, there’s variability), we look and note changes in allele frequencies. We note some examples where some feature changes in a population due to changes in diet, due to being confronted with a different environment.
That such things won’t persuade you is ok. Your fables are important and undeniable to you. That doesn’t mean that you have to pretend to be stupid just to keep denying what scientists work hard to try and figure out. You can do much better. The issue is whether you want to.
Entropy,
I don’t think you are pretending.
Is it asking too much for you to show just a little intelligence or honesty?
You have no sense or irony, do you? Either that or you’re just too stupid to realize how your “answer” reflects on you.
phoodoo,
You’re just phoning it in now.
phoodoo,
Glad to see that you have resorted to ad hominem attacks; that tends to indicate you have no ground to stand on. Here’s the thing: The question about whether or not we should be seeing evolution on a time scale that you could reasonably observe has been answered. If you need a recap, the answer is generally no, however multiple examples of specific instances where human-induced pressures have caused rapid evolution were presented to you. Now, I assume you neither understood these nor even took the time to try, because you continue with the same ignorance-based objections. I recognize that educating you on that will be pointless. However, I would like to press on and ask you once again to answer the questions I presented to you, which Entropy kindly rephrased for me in a more concise manner:
Of course, I expect you to deflect and insult rather than engage. But maybe you’ll pleasantly surprise me?
Because that’s the way Our Lord And Savior chose to set things up. Prove me wrong.
LoL
“Prove me wrong”? Now that’s an absurd request, following an absurd mock of an “answer.” Your “answer” self-implodes, but I’ll leave you to figure it out.
Hey, give me a break. I’m only trying to lend poor phoodoo a hand here.
(But I might add that “prove me wrong” is the last resort of the religious defense.)
Oh has it? That’s nice. The answer is yes, no, maybe. Very good, skeptic.
Then maybe now you will have the time to answer MY question (that you volunteered to answer by not answering), which is not whether or not you can watch trees growing. It whether or not you can see the result of some trees that have started to grow, and some that have not. Of some trees that show one state of being, while some show another.
Of some animals showing one state of being, while some don’t posses that new trait that you guys claim pops up every now and again when no one is looking. When you answer why that state can never be seen ever in history, then maybe you will actually said something.
In the meantime, I put you in the Omagain, Entropy camp of bluster without saying anything. You don’t write your first post to me, full of ad hominem attacks, and then say “Oh, now you are resorting to ad hominen attacks!” and not expect me to snicker at you.
phoodoo,
Your failure to understand doesn’t mean that we didn’t say anything, it just means that you’re an uneducable idiot.
The same? What?
phoodoo,
indeed what would it look like. i hadn’t thought of that. if evolution was going on how would we notice relative to it not going on?
So amongst the billions you find one.. A bacteria thing. Hmm. its come down to this. i think its different. anyways creationists welcome bodyplan changes, like a new ability, but just not by random mutations. in fact i would say this was not from a random mutation but merely a adaptation from another mechanism.you saw a mutation appear and get selected on? however still its bacteria and not everything one can pet on the head or put in a salad.
phoodoo,
You fail to grasp the point of an analogy, in that it is not necessarily meant to match 1-1 with reality so much as provide a simple means of explaining a concept which is much deeper. The fact that you are able to point out where the analogy differs from reality has no bearing on reality so much as on the efficacy of the analogy. In reality, no sane evolutionary biologist would make the claim that the lifespan of a tree mimics the timescale on which most evolutionary changes happen (or at least those of a magnitude required to convince one such as yourself).
As has been explained to you numerous times, these changes do not “pop up” occasionally; they change very slowly over the course of long time scales (or relatively short ones if Eldredge and Gould’s punctuated equilibria holds true). This has been explained to you many times, but it has become clear that you will continue on as if it has not. However, the fact that you don’t realize this does not change reality.
I am indifferent to which camp you place me in. The fact that you refer to my well-reasoned objections to your beliefs as “blustering” does not actually change the truth of the points I have made.
You are wrong on both counts: That was not my first post here (the first post was earlier in the thread) and I have leveled no ad hominem attacks against you. I only made predictions about how you would respond to evidence being presented which is contrary to your most deeply held beliefs based on historical evidence of your behavior.
It is at this point that I might point out that those predictions were true; you have not attempted to answer any of my questions. As I said, I expected that to be the case, but I am nonetheless disappointed you wouldn’t engage in a more thoughtful manner. The door is still open should you choose to do so.
Robert Byers,
If you really felt the desire, you could easily pet a plate of media with a bacterial culture on it or put it in your salad.
Great, we have another entropy with reading problems. Try again, let me help:
To “ME”. See the “me”?? It says the first post to “me”. You know why I wrote the first post to me, and not the first post? Because they have two DIFFERENT MEANINGS!
So I am supposed to listen to you about what I am wrong about? About how we can’t see evolution? About what analogies are? About your love of common descent? About your fear of a creator?
Now for those who actually are paying attention-the issue is not whether the process is slow or not. Trees grow slow, good, we got that? Now can you take a photo of trees in a forest in different states of being? The answer IS NOT that trees grow too slowly to take a photo of, for crying out loud!
Now if some (bee like!) insect can get a mutation which makes it sting, or a huge mammal can get a mutation that begins the process of a big droopy nose which helps reproduction, why can’t that be seen?? What is the “slow” argument which prevents seeing that mutation?
THAT is the question. THAT is the point of the OP. How is a mutation, that is invisible to any eyes, supposed to give a reproductive advantage, if it is so small it can’t even be seen?
Entropy,
Its not MY misunderstanding. i’m making a clearer observatuon that evolutionism is not happening so we can see it since say twenty years passing. no new species have appeared needing a new scientific name.
I say its not happening. your side says SURE it is. One just can’t see it. Then is it all the billions of species or what percentage or none? how would know if you can’t see/tell.?
My point is that it must be obvious evolution is not going on for any relative to how many. Although i think it can happen from other mechanisms. But the great point is how in a probability curve its super unlikely/impossible a great mechanism said to have been creating biology forever has gone silent. As if finished.
Saying anything? I spend my time pointing out your inability to support most anything you say. Likewise J-Mac et al.
I’m not here trying to make a case for evolution or ‘Darwinism’ or anything like that. That case does not need to be made, it’s been made and is the defaut. Go pick up a textbook.
Bluster? What would you like to know that I can tell you? Go on ask me something.
One definition of bluster is: talk in a loud, aggressive, or indignant way with little effect.
and it’s certainly true that I have little effect on you.
But it seems to me that that definition better suits you. You are aggressive, loud, indignant that your critiques don’t have the effect you obviously think they should. You literally achieve nothing here other then to show how empty your criticisms actually are at heart. Can’t see things evolving in real time? Well, I just linked a video that shows exactly that. Oh, they remain bacteria? Well, creationist, you asked for evolution in real time and that’s exactly what that is.
Or is it perhaps that the designer is tweaking those bacteria in real time and they are not evolving at all?
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224
Lamichhaney et al. document a case where cross-species hybridization established a reproductively isolated lineage, which demonstrates a process known as homoploid hybrid speciation in action
How do you explain the lack of personal appearances by your god compared to, say, biblical times when it was turning up all the time?
Seems like it’s gone silent to me.
OMagain,
You should try listening to the clip. What’s the last words they say?
“In an extremely short period of time” Extremely!
Hmmm. Interesting.
OMagain,
What’s the new body plan?
1. It’s not evolutionism, but evolution that you’re trying to talk about. “Evolutionism” can be many things, but not the natural phenomenon.
2. We do see a few cases of speciation. It’s few because we’re too ephemeral to be able to witness much more.
3. If you understood evolution, as the phenomenon, you’d understand that a strict boundary between species is, in practice, hard to draw, precisely because evolution is not a sudden appearance of completely novel organisms. It’s divergence from ancestral populations.
Because we do witness divergence from ancestral populations, because there’s such studies as those in the field called population genetics where changes can be witnessed, because there’s such thing as a fossil record, because there’s such thing as biogeography (looking at species distribution showing patterns of spread and divergence), because there’s such thing as a molecular record, etc.
You just think it’s silent because your lifetime is too short to be able to witness more, and because you ignore the evidence. Because you think that evolution is about new species sprouting from nowhere in seconds, when it’s about divergence of populations. Etc.
Have a great weekend.
That article was not one of those creation fables that you believe. Therefore no new body plans appear just by the mere wishing of a magical being in the sky. Stop projecting. You’re shooting yourself in the foot.
But this is the evolution story. have you never heard of the story of how the eye evolved. Don’t you know its the sudden emergence of a light-sensitive spot which gives the organism its reproductive advantage? Why are you saying that is not sudden? It has to start somewhere right?
Evolutionists always like to muddy the water, by forgetting that with each new advantage, the appearance must be sudden, even if the advantage is subtle. First you have no light sensitive spot, and then you do. Next the light sensitive spot can’t focus light, and then it can. And then it can some more. If each step was meaningless in its affect on the individual, then natural selection wouldn’t make any sense. It would be a pointless concept. But, of course you are trying to downplay that.
Entropy,
You guys always like to brag about antibiotic resistance, like this is evidence of evolution. But you don’t claim that resistance is slow, unnoticeable do you? Do you see the little youtube video that Omagain so helpfully provided? The bacteria resistance isn’t slow, its immediate. One mutation, some resistance. You can look right at it. Its not like a tree growing. The resistance mutation wasn’t there, then suddenly it was. And then it divides and the next generation has it.
So why do you pretend that is is so gradual that it can’t be seen. If it can’t be seen, it also likely can’t play a role in reproductive success. Inconvenient for you, I realize, but necessary for your argument.
Has to appear somewhere.
Maybe we descended from algae, which already had light-sensitive abilities enabling it to photo-synthesize. And, over time, this function was repurposed. Or maybe our early single-celled ancestors gained light-sensivity by horizontal gene transfer from other organisms such as algae.
Just because you want to think of it as magic poofing, doesn’t mean that any actual magic poofing was needed.
Are you really comparing a light-sensitive spot with the sudden appearance of completely novel organisms?
From the rest of your comment, you certainly are. But an evolutionary biologists would be laughed at if they claimed that since a new advantage, even if subtle, would appear “suddenly”, then a completely new organisms would appear suddenly.
That’s also often referred to as a new body plan. I guess you never heard the term.
Turned into an eye?
Are you really so stupid as to confuse the reproductive advantage provided in each generation with the rate of change of features between each generation?
Never mind, we already know the answer.
Just like the point on the color spectrum where orange becomes yellow. Has to appear somewhere.
Neil Rickert,
believe me, I do enjoy when evolutionists keep wanting push all new novel features, further and further back into history. You know the old Kenneth Miller mousetrap, every thing that ever existed in complex traits was once some other complex trait, so see, no need to invoke the mousetrap irreducible complexity argument, because we just replace it with some other irreducible trait.
Its magnificent in its ludicrous explanatory powers. The eye, it was something else, that got re-purposed. Sex organs, well, they were something else that got re-purposed. The brain, well, it was something else, got re-purposed. The jaw-re-purposed. Heart-yep. Lungs-why not. Elephants trunk-could have been something else-what’s so funny about that.
How this helps evolution’s problem of new traits, can only be explained by saying, well, it at least muddies the water so hopelessly, then we can run from ever explaining anything, and then complain by saying, well, so what’s your idea.
I don’t brag about it. It’s a problem for our well being, but, yes, it’s evidence of evolution.
I don’t claim that antibiotic resistance is equivalent to new body plans either. So?
I did. I have used it for some of my courses. The presented instead with finches, you asked for the new body plans. obviously because there’s none. Now you shoot yourself in the foot by claiming that the antibiotic resistance is equivalent to new body plans. I see a huge difference in scale, but suit yourself.
Another mutations, a bit more resistance, etc. Therefore new body plans should appear suddenly? Really?
I do not see how being able to understand the differences in scale would be problematic for me. It’s problematic for you that you can go from we can witness the evolution of antibiotic resistance in real time to “we should see new species sprouting all around us in the millions,” or “we should see new body plans sprouting out of nowhere”.
Sorry. I appreciate that you tried this time to engage, but it seems a bit backwards. As if antibiotic resistance is at the same scale as new body plans, contradicting your own stance (if they’re equivalent then what are you complaining about?), then complaining that you don’t see what you just claimed to have seen. The equivalent to new body plans. (?!)
I might not be able to come back and check the other comments you made. I am still grateful. As I said, you can do better. Have a great weekend.
Adapa,
Rainbows. Love it!
Are you really so stupid as to believe people don’t know you are stupid?
Adapa, Jock’s muse! Great stuff.
What’s the new body plan on finches?
Ok ,where and how?
You didn’t get it the first time? Here it goes again: that was evolutionary science, not your creation myths. Stop projecting. There’s no magical being in the sky wishing new body plans in evolutionary theory. You’re shooting yourself in the foot.
Adapa: “Where on the color spectrum does orange stop and yellow start?”
Dumbass: “Rainbows”.
Creationist science. Gotta love it. 🙂
You forget that Natural Selection is Godlike in its powers. Everything is scrutinized. Everything is judged. Heaven for this one, Hell for that one. This view certainly explains the religious fervor surrounding the adaptationist cult.
Stories, phoodoo. The eye evolved many times.
Yes, I’ve been on many a airplane flight and never once seen a magical being in the sky. Therefore, there must be no magical being in the sky.
Mung,
Are you trying hard to lose my respect? Ah! That’s not it! You want me to say something about reading for comprehension, don’t you? OK OK: Learn to read for comprehension Mung.
What’s there to get? We are asking, when a new body part begins in a population, why can’t it be seen. For some reason you decided to bring up finches. But all finches already have beaks so who knows why the hell you are talking about that. That seems like pretty good evidence that you don’t understand.
Some of the evolutionists want to try a different (the same old) tact, and just claim that every new trait was just co-opted from an old trait , and so THAT’S probably why you wouldn’t ever be able to see the appearance of a new one-because they are all old ones!
Everything already existed everywhere apparently (sounds pretty biblical to me, but suit yourselves), they just found new uses for them.