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.
When will you be publishing in a reputable journal?
Don’t do it nonlin, it’s a trap!
And your point is? No one cares about the “evolutionary perspective” BS. You fail task 2:
2. Prove a bidirectional link (if any) between “evolution” and genetics.
Where ‘bidirectional’ means…
Seriously? Regression to the mean prevents many unrelated things. By your logic, “bacteria are viruses because strong chemicals destroy both”. Can you now see how illogical your inference is? Probably not.
Of course you do. If you care about your “reputation”, that is. And I am pretty sure you’re misquoting. Again. Pathetic. Link to my comment. Conceded what? Nonsense.
Of course they do. And you do; it’s the paradigm you are trying, embarrasingly badly, to overthrow. I am merely stating what adaptation is from an evolutionary perspective: the alternative hypothesis to whatever it is you are peddling. I can do that because I’m not scuttling round imaginary traps or quibbling about whether a question can be a ‘point’. You can’t, hence the ludicrous dance of indignation. Your very evasiveness shows you as an empty drum, giving yourself a daily clatter but with nothing of substance coming out.
Evolution is descent with modification. Genetics covers both descent and modification. Done, and done. There’s no end of literature on evolutionary genetics, a curious state of affairs if there is no link. Your counter-proposal? “Waaaah! ‘Tisn’t!”. You are doing the Lord’s work here nonlin, keep it up.
Further, of course, the paper on Drosophila clines linked above proves the case, beyond me simply restating my declaration. There are genetic changes closely associated with adaptation, which is evolution. Clines are a useful testbed for such concepts, because of the simultaneous existence of different adaptations along a geographic axis. Locally adapted varieties breed true, even in a different environment, proving heritability over ‘plasticity’. Now, I’ve no idea what nonlin thinks adaptation actually is – he won’t say – so the point stands unrefuted. The link between genetics and evolution is explicit in those (and thousands of other) papers.
That’s understood. But if there is no “evolution” (as I show) then what adaptation means to “evolution” is also meaningless. Just logic 101.
This is stupid as discussed repeatedly.
“which is evolution” does not belong. Look, you state and re-state. I don’t like playing that game. Let’s see some proofs if any.
Also, “prevents evolution” was a joke. Regression also prevents unicorns, but since neither unicorns nor “evolution” are true, regression to the mean just doesn’t care about either. Get it? It’s sad to see you grasping at straws.
Nonlin.org,
By the gods, man! You sure have thoroughly defeated evolutionary theory quite soundly. When do you intend to publish your competing theory and completely dismantle the entire field? Looking forward to it.
Nonlin.org,
You’re going to have to define “evolution”, then. I don’t know what the scare quotes indicate, nor what you think you’ve shown there’s none of.
It’s not been discussed at all. You’ve just said “waaah! No ’tisn’t” again.
Without any idea what you think adaptation involves (‘cos you’re far too clever to fall into my traps an’ all), or any actual counter to the many genetic differences associated with local adaptation linked as an example above, all I can really do is state and restate. It’s your game.
No you haven’t. Where’s the beef!
If there are no populations to evolve, then there is no evolution.
I don’t know why you evolutionismists can’t grasp that simple logic.
Regression to the mean is a statistical phenomenon that prevents absolutely nothing. Your claim that it can limit genetic variation (mind you: only outside of a laboratory) is absolutely outrageous. Please explain how that works. Do mutations get zapped or something?
A joke? Again? I didn’t realize you were such a jester. So when you wrote “Regression to the mean prevents many unrelated things.” you were NOT including evolution. Did I understand that correctly?
Nonlin will not stop. The idea is to get you tired of responding, interpret that as a “win.” Conclude that her/his “arguments” remain “unchallenged.” Nonlin has an infantile mind. (S)he might be a teen.
What if “the mean” changes?
True, though I find myself with a surplus of time at present …
It never does, apparently. Even if you killed everything below a certain size, for example.
Standard definitions apply where they make sense. Go with those unless I specifically show they suck.
You got it. I used a shorthand for whatever causes regression to the mean, which is also responsible for homogeneity of populations, etc.
I explained very clearly in the comment you quoted.
When will you meet task 1 and 2? Your childish excuse that you’re off the hook due to some comment I made won’t do it. Those tasks are a direct outcome of some flawed comments you made and whatever x, y, z, will say won’t cancel that. Every single time you go silent, that’s a direct admission of your failings.
General note: I you think “evolution” is “settled science”, stop commenting on TSZ. Your presence here is direct proof of your well founded doubts on “evolution”.
Oh my!
Nonlin.org,
I can’t help but agree! You’ve clearly shown that it isn’t. Now I’m just waiting anxiously until you publish and show these idiots what a genius you are!
What journals have you submitted to so far?
Descent with modification is a standard definition of evolution. It makes perfect sense, and you haven’t shown it ‘sucks’ (what are you, 12?) beyond declaring it does.
If evolution – the thing you are arguing against – isn’t defined as descent with modification (regardless whether that actually happens or not), how do you define it?
Nonlin.org,
Also a general note. Unless you think this comment, from your very own blog, applies only to Swamidass and not to you, you have no business posting on any blog in which evolutionary biology is discussed.
“Once you venture outside your bubble, your competence drops precipitously, you become a mere mortal, and are liable to be opposed with [to you] surprising vigor. Can you claim with a straight face that your knowledge of fluid dynamics, particle physics, ceramics, etc. rises to at least the level of an undergrad in those fields? “Evolution” is not on your CV and for a good reason: your skills don’t set you apart, and you can’t design an experiment (as required for any scientific research) that would prove naysayers wrong. Instead, you rely on philosophical argumentation way outside your competence. Even when wrong, good snake oil salesmen are persuasive. You are not.”
By the by, if I might ask, do you have a bubble yourself?
No, it’s direct proof of the entertainment value of the likes of yourself.
You’ve adapted well. But that’s not evolution.
Mutations get zapped???!? Sort of like a reverse *poof* (a foop, if you like)?
I’ll take that as a yes. Then we can also agree that the matter of regression to the mean is completely irrelevant to whether evolution (defined as descent with modification) occurs, I suppose?
If you wish me to answer that, then you need to fulfill Allan’s request to define what you mean by “evolution”. If it isn’t descent with modification, then I don’t know what it is you are arguing against.
Well, if Nonlin is a tiny tiny bit smarter than I think (s)he is, then when (s)he talks about “regression” to the mean, (s)he has it to be undefeatable by making the “mean” something imaginary, something populations go towards, even if the current population’s mean is not that mean. This way, even adaptations would count as “regression to the mean.” The mean is whatever you can take from all the populations together, adapted one way or another, plus whichever means arise later on. No matter what, Nonlin will always claim anything to be an example of regression to the mean.
Nonlin’s craziness is fascinating. Impossible to grasp. It’s nonsense in several, disparate, directions. I truly don’t know if it’s always about deceiving though. I suspect (s)he fools her/himself.
I did. Go over the long argument that goes well beyond “declaring”.
A hypothesized process responsible for “the origin of species” (aka their hypothesized transmutation from one to the other).
I wrote it and mean it. Applies to all.
Maybe. Despite my best efforts against. That’s why I welcome all serious critics.
Assuming “zapped” is hyperbolic. Is that controversial? Explain.
Wrong. Take it as “evolution is to biology as unicorns are to horses”.
“Descent with modification” cretinism has been discussed. Your insistence makes me seriously worry about you.
Stop finding lame excuses, defeated samurai. You know your duty (figuratively speaking of course). Now! Uphold your honor.
Nope, that’s all you did: declare. Then declare some more. Then declare again.
A definition can be agreed upon without the thing it describes being true. e.g. a perpetual motion machine is both readily defined and non-existent. In fact, by being defined, it helps adjudicate on its reality. But (for reasons not made clear) you want to reject the very definition of evolution as ‘descent with modification’, and define it otherwise. Makes it easier to attack your own private strawman, I suppose, rather than the thing everyone else understands by the term.
Descent with modification, you mean?
Nonlin.org,
When you say “all,” does that include you?
Nonlin.org,
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”-Theodosius Dobzhansky
“Nothing in horses makes sense except in the light of unicorns”-nonlin.org
Schizophora,
“Evolutionary Genetics” by John Maynard Smith. “There is no link between evolution and genetics” by nonlin.org.
I have become convinced that evolution as nonlin understands it does not in fact exist. To see this, we have to start with our axiom: that nonlin’s god poofed nonlin’s “kind” into existence as-is. Axioms are true by acclamation, not subject to rational debate. Accordingly, any theory which states or implies that his “kind” evolved into present form from something different cannot be true.
From there, we can see that variety within a kind (“species” implies something impossible) is strictly limited. Yeah, people can vary, in fact can vary quite a lot in many ways, but not in any way that would violate the boundaries that keeps people human.
By extension, this is true of all of the creatures poofed by nonlin’s god. So what is disallowed is what nonlin calls “transmutation from one (species) to another.” The boundary that kinds cannot cross, is what keeps one from becoming another. To nonlin, evolution means one kind sort of morphing into another kind. Like ocelots morphing into otters, or dogs into ducks. And sure, by selective breeding we can produce breeds of dogs that can’t interbreed, but they are still dog kind and besides, selective breeding isn’t evolution.
We can tell when we provide examples of evolution that nonlin knows about but cannot think about, because these leave no room to weasel, redefine, self-contradict, etc. So when he resorts to name-calling, he’s under genuine stress. He has to choose between what he sees and what he believes, and like anyone faced with such a choice, he can only lash out.
Stop it right there!
Is it perhaps sort of a evolution DNA_JOCK thinks exists because of change?
Well, now we have three different meanings of “evolution” being discussed.
(1) There is what nonlin thinks is evolution;
(2) There is what DNA_Jock thinks is evolution;
(3) There is what J-Mac thinks that DNA_Jock thinks is evolution.
I’ll start with (1). I have not read nonlins posts with great care, so I cannot be sure what is his/her take on “evolution”. But I have read enough to see that it does not resemble the biologists view of evolution. Flint’s post was interesting, and might well be right about nonlin. But others will have to decide that for themselves.
(2) As far as I know, DNA_Jock is looking at evolution in much the same way that most evolutionary biologists do.
(3) I’m not at all sure what J-Mac takes to be DNA_Jock’s view of evolution. But it seems likely that J-Mac is very confused about that.
No idea, but it’s irrelevant here…
I dont have the foggiest idea,but it’s irrelevant here…
I have made it very clear to DNA-jock more than once that change in life systems is NOT only predicted by the evolution supporters, but its more so by sane people, and I don’t care what they believe… If there is no change then the likelihood of finding the same life systems looking the same is toooòoooooo high… this would mean you, DNA joke and Alan fox could look the same..
Can you imagine what it would be like if I invited you over for a barbecue and I felt like looking in the mirror when talking to you? Or Alan? I wouldn’t talk to Dna_JOCK…He is too funny…😉
Neil,
I think you have missed something important. Evolution-the-word is being used for two distinct things: the observation that life forms change over time, that species split apart, that novelties arise, etc. — And that explanations are proposed for these processes. In other words, evolution the fact (changes) and evolution the theory (what processes produce these changes).
nonlin denies the fact of evolution, that lineages change at all. DNA-jock is trying to describe the causes of changes nonlin denies happen in the first place. My post was directed at the conviction that evolution (changes) doesn’t happen, and how nonlin struggles to accommodate the observation of change with the conviction that it doesn’t exist.
My reading is that j-mac accepts evolutionary changes, but disputes their cause. My reading is that j-mac adopts a common middle ground – that lineages change and biodiversity increases over time, but that this process is guided in some way beyond the rules of biology.
I think it may be possible for DNA-jock to convince j-mac that known biological processes are sufficient to produce all we observe without any additional external guidance. I doubt it’s possible to convince nonlin to question his axioms.
Flint,
The meter-shattering irony here being that J-Mac is referencing “the sort of evolution that nonlin claims cannot happen“, an allusion I made to the FACT of evolution: the appearance and differential growth of novel viral genotypes.
So, his attempt to scoff on this thread
is effectively making fun of nonlin’s belief that change cannot happen.
His follow-up
is incoherent by his standards.
Tough act to follow…
Nope!
Behe, Loennig …many, many more, then J-mac at the very end know, because we all can prove it that genes break to make THE CHANGE…
Lol,
You forgot to enter you name…
Do you know how embarrassing it would be if I addressed a scientific conference the way you just did? Unfortunately, I can’t get fired, but you would, for contradicting yourself… which is norm now…
Have you been drinking?
Stop it right there!
You are repeating your own assumptions conflating my views with someone else’s.
You can’t do it to me and Behe? Can you?
Why me and nonling?
The number of guesses I must make, for this to be meaningful to me, likely means I’m missing it. I’m guessing that “at the very end” means “now”, that “genes break” refers to mutation, and that THE CHANGE refers to the fact of evolution generally. So I read this sentence as saying that you and others can prove that mutations result in evolution. OK, and?…
Genes? What on earth have genes got to do with evolution? 🤔
Mutations do not disappear; they are permanent changes (barring back mutations). There is no known process that actively eliminates novel mutations just to stop populations from accumulating genetic change; that’s just wishful thinking.
It is quite funny actually, because you are forced to constantly introduce imaginary processes that actively prevent species from moving outside their current range of variation.
Thanks for that, but it’s confusing: these are two different things. New species arise by the splitting of existing species (speciation), whereas transmutation is an archaic term used in opposition to the idea that extant species are immutable. These concepts correspond to cladogenesis and anagenesis respectively. Combined, they result in the process called phylogenesis. Is that what you mean by “evolution”?
Anticipating your response: both speciation and evolutionary change within a lineage are grounded in genetics, contra your claim that genetic change is not evolution.
That is actually an argument I was able to understand. Good for you, J-Mac. But the fact remains that you need to accept some limited amount of evolution to make this argument. And you are going to need to explain what prevents this “change” from accumulating to produce the large evolutionary change we observe in the fossil record.
Yep!
THE CHANGE is just your eufemism for evolution. Why don’t you just get it over with and start calling it by its proper name? Then you can move on and join your heroes in discussing whether the evolutionary mechanisms we see today suffice to produce extant life forms (especially humans).
Nothing has anything to do with evolution, ’cause it doesn’t exist!
Of course it doesn’t. It fails its definition! Go argue it with google!
(That was an actual “argument” by Nonlin, seriously.)
😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂😀
Made very clear, actually. “Descent with modification” is cretinoid as explained.
See above. You asked for a definition, you got it. Now quit complaining and do something funny.
Appeal to authority is a well known fallacy. Is that all you got? Pathetic.
Isn’t this what Darwin said? “Origin of species” means anything to you?
What “examples of evolution”? Name one that is verifiable.I’ve only asked like 1000 times for such elusive example before. None valid was ever offered. Just more and more nonsensical rants like yours.
The very fact you have different takes, goers to show the whole thing is a myth.
And that was more or less my definition. When I say it is rejected. When someone else says it, it stands. Go figure.
Well, can you disprove that nonlin guy? Because if you can’t – and you can’t – then that guy has a point. Right? I spoke with that nonlin guy and can assure you that he will accept your valid arguments if any. Will you disappoint as always?
You’re a riot, Flint.
Flint,
I believe you are correct in this theory about nonlin’s axiom. It seems to me also likely that there exists another axiom: that of the brilliant provocateur. Nonlin seems to have the idea that they have had a groundbreaking realization which is only possible of someone as intelligent as they are, and that they must immediately deliver their analysis to the world. From the frequency with which nonlin simply decries various facets of evolution false based on his past repeated claims that they are false, and against all evidence, it seems quite clear that nonlin’s final authority is nonlin’s own intelligence. So to tell nonlin that they are wrong about evolution (and moreover about how logic and evidence in general work) is to assault another of their axioms.
Nonlin.org,
It seems that the issue here is, once again, one of definitions. Because, in this situation, you have decided that you are the arbiter of what is considered a “valid” argument or not. We see this playing out in the dynamic that all arguments that you provide are immediately dubbed “valid,” while all arguments anyone else provides are dubbed “invalid.” In this way, the playing ground is not level; no one can ever gain any ground when debating against you, because you have predetermined that you are correct and, despite your repeated claims, you are not actually open to being proven wrong.