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

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

  1. Nonlin.org:… and there’s adaptation to the environment.

    How do you explain that adaptation happens and evolution doesn’t?

    0
  2. Alan Fox: Where are paleontologists erring?

    In imagining genealogies that link those disparate fossils.

    Mung: Your claim was that there is no observable change.

    Huh?!? Wasn’t it your turn to clarify something YOU said?

    0
  3. Alan Fox: How do you explain that adaptation happens and evolution doesn’t?

    Silly question. The same way you explain that the sun shines and elephants don’t dance.

    0
  4. Nonlin.org: Silly question. The same way you explain that the sun shines and elephants don’t dance.

    That explains nothing. Adaptations happen because evolution happens. You can’t have one without the other.

    1+
  5. Nonlin.org: In imagining genealogies that link those disparate fossils.

    There’s quite a bit of work in identifying and comparing anatomical and morphological features, a bit more than guesswork

    0
  6. Nonlin.org,

    I find the pattern and distribution of fossils pretty amazing. Neil Shubin and his focused search to find Titkaalik for instance.

    1+
  7. PS The profusion of ancient bird fossils from China. The exquisite detail in the preservation of trilobites found in Moroccan sandstone

    1+
  8. Alan Fox: OMagain,
    Number of extant species seems to be an informed guess or prediction rather than a verifiable fact. But it would be good to check what he actually said rather than rely on J-Mac’s recall.

    It’s just the condescending tone from J-Mac that gets my goat. Of course ;P

    I’ve learnt a ton from Joe just being here and reading what he has to say. What I’ve learnt from J-Mac is probably not worth guanoing this comment for repeating!

    But of course, it’s like dung beetles pinging off the side of a battleship. Somebody tell the battleship it’s happening for starters!

    0
  9. J-Mac: ll you have to do is…belive… Well…you know the rest of the science fiction story…

    What is it that you believe then?
    Why won’t you say?
    Everybody else is proud of their understanding, so much so that they spend their spare time trying to educate those capable of being educated! Why are you not proud of yours?

    Perhaps it’s because instinctively you realize that everybody else had to put in hard work to obtain their understanding whereas you just pull your out of your imagination?

    2+
  10. Here’s Joe’s comment:

    Many present-day YECs accept huge bursts of ultra-fast evolution to explain how all 10 billion or so species came from those on the Ark. They tend to say “well, everyone has always agreed that species change”. The history tells a different story — the “fixity of species” was a major issue in biology in the 1700s, being gradually abandoned even by creationist biologists in the 1800s.

    0
  11. keiths: all 10 billion or so species came from

    Thanks for finding that.

    @ J-Mac

    I suspect Joe was referring to extant and extinct species together.

    0
  12. And that’s how it works J-Mac.

    These guys go at it hammer and tongs elsewhere in other contexts but truth matters and can only be a community effort.

    0
  13. Alan Fox: Thanks for finding that.

    @ J-Mac

    I suspect Joe was referring to extant and extinct species together.

    I was referring to extant species. Estimates of the number of those vary a lot, from millions to billions, and I chose 10 billion. If it had been 10 million instead it would not have affected the point I was making then — it was just that there were far too many species to fit into any Ark.

    Not interested in participating further in this discussion which illustrates the sad state TSZ has fallen into. Back to PT for me.

    1+
  14. I will note that Robert is only considering identified species, since he writes “should be newly created with need for new scientific names.”
    So the identified, extant number is more like 1.8 – 2 million.

    0
  15. Joe Felsenstein: I was referring to extant species.Estimates of the number of those vary a lot, from millions to billions, and I chose 10 billion. If it had been 10 million instead it would not have affected the point I was making then — it was just that there were far too many species to fit into any Ark.

    Not interested in participating further in this discussion which illustrates the sad state TSZ has fallen into.Back to PT for me.

    Lol,
    Joe, we have been over this before…and you know very well where it all ends…

    1. You will refuse to clearly define species… We both know why 😉

    2. If you include microbes with YOUR lousy definition of species, then 10 billion is not even close …

    Now, how many “species” of microbes can fit into your sombrero?

    There are 500 – 600, or more, of the dog like variations within what I call a kind (or Canidae) that could be tracked down to wolves…
    A female and male wolf pups could easily fit into your sombrero…

    Behe’s devolving bears, Darwin’s finches…etc. are all variations within “kinds”…

    So, there was plenty of room on the Ark for 10 billion, or more, of your sombreros…🤣

    0
  16. keiths: Joe’s comment:

    Many present-day YECs accept huge bursts of ultra-fast evolution to explain how all 10 billion or so species came from those on the Ark. They tend to say “well, everyone has always agreed that species change”. The history tells a different story — the “fixity of species” was a major issue in biology in the 1700s, being gradually abandoned even by creationist biologists in the 1800s.

    Thanks keiths!
    You can watch “the bursts” within Canidae… much faster than Darwin expected…

    Foxes and brears change drastically within 1-2 generations…
    Loenning and Behe now know the mechanism: broken or overexpressed genes…and more..

    I’m working on something much superior… If it can be tested successfuly in the lab, it could be very interesting… You will be one of the first to know…😎

    0
  17. phoodoo: What was the new body part that evolved 6 million years ago?

    No one said a new body part evolved six million years ago. We both know you’re just trolling but at least learn to read.

    OK you can go whine on the moderation thread now.

    0
  18. Adapa,

    Well, I dunno, I thought the human chin was a good suggestion. 🙂 I guess it depends on what phoodoo thinks is a new body part/plan.

    0
  19. Here is a detailed diagram illustrating an evolutionary summary of species diversification. See below but if you follow the link you can zoom and enlarge it.

    HT/EL

    0

  20. J-Mac: are all variations within “kinds”

    What’s a “kind”? Unless you define that you cannot say that all variation is within a “kind”.

    0
  21. phoodoo: What was the new body part that evolved 6 million years ago?

    You are missing the point.
    I am happy to discuss the evolution of novel body parts, but let’s not pretend that is the one thing that is keeping you from accepting evolutionary theory. It looks like you do not accept evolution by natural selection, common descent, or human evolution.

    0
  22. Nonlin.org: I didn’t say “they can’t”. I said “they don’t” as far as we see. There’s variability (with regression to the mean as explained) and there’s adaptation to the environment. That’s all. No “evolution” needed.

    And now we are playing word games. Very well. So why DON’T genetic changes accumulate outside of a laboratory setting?

    Also, I fail to see how regression to the mean can affect genetic variation when there is no link between evolution and genetic changes. Please explain.

    0
  23. Alan Fox: That explains nothing.

    That was the point.

    Alan Fox: You can’t have one without the other.

    Only in your uninformed opinion.

    Alan Fox: There’s quite a bit of work in identifying and comparing anatomical and morphological features, a bit more than guesswork

    Compared morphology tells you nothing about genealogy. You wouldn’t understand.

    Alan Fox: I find the pattern and distribution of fossils pretty amazing.

    Irrelevant.

    Corneel: So why DON’T genetic changes accumulate outside of a laboratory setting?

    I don’t know. They just don’t. Why speculate?

    Corneel: Also, I fail to see how regression to the mean can affect genetic variation when there is no link between evolution and genetic changes. Please explain.

    Regression limits genetic variation. Why no 9 ft human? Because of regression to the mean. Why no 2 ft adult human? Now you know.

    BTW, did you miss this: Nonlin

    0
  24. Nonlin.org: Compared morphology tells you nothing about genealogy. You wouldn’t understand.

    And yet molecular phylogenetics agrees beautifully with traditional methods based on comparative anatomy.

    1+
  25. Nonlin.org,

    Sure TSZ hosted an OP by non-lin and there were many appended comments. My observation stands, well supported by evidence. Your assertions convinced no-one.

    0
  26. Alan Fox: *chuckles* I like the “adult” get-out clause.

    Anybody dare to guess the number of cases of misidentity of species in the fossile record due to counting younglings as other species? I remember some participating evolutionary scientist commentator here claiming that they cannot even tell who siblings and other direct relatives in the fossile record are, so…

    0
  27. OMagain: What’s a “kind”? Unless you define that you cannot say that all variation is within a “kind”.

    If you clearly define species first…I can try

    0
  28. Erik: Anybody dare to guess the number of cases of misidentity of species in the fossile record due to counting younglings as other species? I remember some participating evolutionary scientist commentator here claiming that they cannot even tell who siblings and other direct relatives in the fossile record are, so…

    More details would help…
    I must’ve missed it

    0
  29. J-Mac: More details would help…
    I must’ve missed it

    Here John Harshman says that they cannot actually tell direct ancestors of species in the fossil record, “We don’t know if we have any fossils of ancestors. […] It doesn’t matter. The evidence for evolution doesn’t demand that we identify ancestors.” http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/jonathan-wells-and-archaeopteryx/comment-page-1/#comment-176903

    From a discussion with him, I have a recollection that he also stated that, in the fossil record, they would not even be able to establish brothers-sisters-siblings and direct parents. But I cannot dig that one up, it is buried I don’t know where.

    Anyway, the statement must be true. I know of modern archeologists debating whether some horse finding is from medieval times or from Neolithic Era even after series of radiocarbon dating and genetic analyses and whatnot…

    0
  30. Nonlin.org: Regression limits genetic variation. Why no 9 ft human? Because of regression to the mean. Why no 2 ft adult human? Now you know.

    Allow me to remind you of one of your previous comments:

    “Evolutionary change” – as concept – was postulated independent of genetics. Right Darwin? Right. Right Mendel? Right. Then it is for you, Corneel, to demonstrate a link (if any) between these two previously independent concepts.

    Do you see how you have defeated yourself with your last comment?

    1+
  31. Alan Fox: Where are paleontologists erring?

    Fossils don’t really represent plants and animals that lived in the past. Or if they do, they are plants and animals that died, and as such could not possibly be ancestral to organisms alive today.

    0
  32. Neil Rickert: Under poaching pressure, elephants are evolving to lose their tusks.

    Evolving in order to is as bad as gene for if not worse. Looks like maybe there is a gene for tusks. 🙂

    1+
  33. Mung: Or if they do, they are plants and animals that died, and as such could not possibly be ancestral to organisms alive today.

    Apart from the fact that most organisms adopt the sensible strategy of reproducing before they die, it is the species that is supposed to be ancestral, not the individuals that got fossilized.

    1+
  34. Corneel: But if Intelligent Design allows for changing, evolving organisms, then I wonder how you will tell it apart from mainstream evolutionary theory.

    In my experience, the way to do so involves attacking common descent. Also, to the extent that mainstream evolutionary theory remains Darwinian, it involves attacking Darwinian theory. And last but not least, to the extent that Darwiism is not invoked, but other possible explanations are offered, it involves attacking those as well (e.g., neutral evolution, evo-dev).

    🙂

    0
  35. Corneel: Apart from the fact that most organisms adopt the sensible strategy of reproducing before they die,

    Just wondering if you find it as difficult as OMagain to tell when I am being facetious?

    🙂

    0
  36. Erik: Here John Harshman says that they cannot actually tell direct ancestors of species in the fossil record, “We don’t know if we have any fossils of ancestors. […] It doesn’t matter. The evidence for evolution doesn’t demand that we identify ancestors.” http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/jonathan-wells-and-archaeopteryx/comment-page-1/#comment-176903

    No wonder Harshman has been reading and studying the Bible…He needs faith 😊

    Erik: From a discussion with him, I have a recollection that he also stated that, in the fossil record, they would not even be able to establish brothers-sisters-siblings and direct parents. But I cannot dig that one up, it is buried I don’t know where.

    What about the ancestors without the chin bone? 🤗

    Erik: Anyway, the statement must be true

    Of course! All you need is faith…the blind one…

    Erik: know of modern archeologists debating whether some horse finding is from medieval times or from Neolithic Era even after series of radiocarbon dating and genetic analyses and whatnot…

    Why don’t you ask them about the chin bone? I’m sure they have faith…😉

    0
  37. Mung: Just wondering if you find it as difficult as OMagain to tell when I am being facetious?

    It’s Poe’s law, I suppose.

    0
  38. Nonlin.org: I didn’t say “they can’t”. I said “they don’t” as far as we see. There’s variability (with regression to the mean as explained) and there’s adaptation to the environment. That’s all. No “evolution” needed.

    At least now we know that when you say there is no change that you actually mean there is change.

    1+
  39. Mung: Evolving in order to is as bad as gene for if not worse.

    I don’t think I said “in order to”. My “to” was intended as “toward”. And that’s just an observed direction with no presumption of intention or purpose.

    0
  40. Corneel: Do you see how you have defeated yourself with your last comment?

    No. How?

    Alan Fox: My observation stands, well supported by evidence.

    To logic, you’re an unmovable iceberg.

    Mung: At least now we know that when you say there is no change that you actually mean there is change.

    ?!?

    0
  41. Nonlin.org: I didn’t say “they can’t”. I said “they don’t” as far as we see. There’s variability (with regression to the mean as explained) and there’s adaptation to the environment. That’s all. No “evolution” needed.

    If there’s adaptation to the environment, what changes when that happens?

    2+
  42. On the elephant’s trunk thing, one might observe that nearest relatives the tapir and manatee are quite … well … it’s rude to stare but … have you seen their fucking conks? What is it about these species that the Designer felt worthy of investing such schnozziness?

    1+
  43. Allan Miller:
    On the elephant’s trunk thing, one might observe that nearest relatives the tapir and manatee are quite … well … it’s rude to stare but … have you seen their fucking conks? What is it about these species that the Designer felt worthy of investing such schnozziness?

    let’s not leave uot the elephant seals

    0
  44. Allan Miller:
    On the elephant’s trunk thing, one might observe that nearest relatives the tapir and manatee are quite … well … it’s rude to stare but … have you seen their fucking conks? What is it about these species that the Designer felt worthy of investing such schnozziness?

    Sometimes I wonder why some evolved a chin to speak instead of the trunk, like an elephant…

    I guess in case of those so-called wise men who can’t comprehend their own logic fallacy so that they wouldn’t blow their trunk about it all over:

    Toot-toot! Come listen to the idiot!

    I don’t know WHY the designer desinged it… So, he sure as hell doesn’t exist and the obvious inference is EvoBullshion…😉

    0

Leave a Reply

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