Fig 1: Somewhat similar? YES. Related by birth? NO. Proof is impossible.
- When Napoleon’s army invaded Egypt in 1798, a large number of animal mummies were brought back to France.
- These represented many species, including cats, jackals, dogs, crocodiles, snakes, sacred ibis, and other birds, as well as human mummies. George Cuvier analyzed the samples and concluded that no detectable anatomical changes had occurred over the time passed since those animals were mummified. This made him the first to test and disprove the idea of evolution. In opposition, Lamarck’s argument was that a passage of 3,000 years would have been insufficient to observe evolutionary processes because the environmental conditions in Egypt had not changed during this time. Couvier countered that longer timescales simply contain the sum of changes within shorter periods. In other words, he reasoned that since no changes had been observed over approximately 3,000 years, it was unreasonable to argue that any longer timescale would produce them. Is that debate still relevant? Who was right?
- Since many still insist that “evolution” is true, yet we cannot document any historic “evolution”, the debate is relevant to this day. To settle it, we note that environmental conditions change continuously, and that Lamarck could not have known – much less proved – that they did not, therefore his argument was invalid. But aren’t Darwin’s finches, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistance, the great lakes cichlids, etc. examples of ongoing “evolution”? They are certainly examples of adaptations. Yet “evolution”, if true, requires much more than temporary, reversible adaptations as most (all?) of those examples are. To confirm a trend, we must compare short versus intermediate versus long term trends. If we see no intermediate term trends (say 3000 years), then the short term trends are merely noise aka temporary, reversible, inconsequential adaptations. It also means that postulated long term trends – the sum of intermediate trends – are very much doubtful. The only way a long term change is compatible with intermediate term stasis is if nothing happens for a very long time, then everything happens suddenly – a scenario not considered by Couvier. Could it be?
- Punctuated equilibrium is a desperate and failed attempt to explain away the evidence against “evolution”. Belatedly catching up to Couvier, Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Darwin is virtually nonexistent (!) in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species… Before them, Mayr was concerned with explaining the morphological discontinuity (or “sudden jumps”) found in the fossil record. Lack of gradualism in the fossil record is clear evidence against “evolution” and should have prompted these people to discard the theory. However, their blind faith prompted them instead to propose the purely hypothetical scenario (removed from any historical or experimental facts) called “punctuated equilibrium”. Yet, if “sudden jumps” were real, somewhere, sometimes, in one of the many species out there, “evolution” would happen and be observed in real time. In addition, “sudden jumps” would have to be triggered by specific conditions replicable in a lab. Thus we would confirm “evolution” both in nature and in the laboratory. That this is not the case is proof that “evolution” in general and “punctuated equilibrium” in particular are just fantasy.
- “Transitional fossils” presuppose “evolution”, therefore cannot be an argument in its favor. The fossil record consists of more or less incomplete individual finds. No flesh, no colors and certainly no arrows linking one to the other. When fossils in different strata match, we infer stasis over that time interval. Not because we know one particular sample descends from the other, but because we know that any organism descends from matching organisms. This we can observe in the living and thus extrapolate to the extinct like the trilobites. But when a fossil looks like a mix between an earlier fossilized organism and a more recent one, we cannot infer that said organism is transitional between the older and the younger one. Unless we presuppose “evolution” true. That is because we witness no such transitions. The so called “transitional fossils” require “evolution” to be true to even make conceptual sense. Only then these “transitional fossils” may support “evolution” in a classical circular reasoning. So let us not presuppose “evolution” true. Then what is an Australopithecus to us humans? Epihippus to a horse, Pakicetus to a whale, etc.? Nothing! Just extinct organisms that came from nowhere and went nowhere.
- What exactly does “evolution” predict, and how does it stack up against the fossil record? The theory came after some fossils had been known and thus it had a chance to be reconciled with the fossil record. And yet, gradualism and divergence of character – two main predictions of the theory – are clearly disproved by the long term stasis we see everywhere in the fossil record. The trilobites stasis is estimated to have lasted 270 million years and cyanobacteria 3.5 billion. Actually, all organisms current or extinct have undergone stasis periods long enough to invalidate the “theory of evolution”. And when they do transition into or out of existence, said transition is always instantaneous with no intermediate steps as the “theory of evolution” would dictate. Other predictions of the theory are beneficial mutations (improvements), specific response to specific environmental condition changes, and directionless changes. However, the sudden appearance, long term stasis, and eventual demise of organism that disappeared, such as trilobites and dinosaurs, is inexplicable and in fact contrary to the theory of “evolution” as they were not better adapted and were not replaced by better adapted than them organisms. They could not have been poorly designed and yet last millions of years or even a few hundred generations. Furthermore, environmental changes explain nothing in their story, though it should according to the Darwinist theory. This is because homeostasis reduces organisms’ sensitivity to the environment. Vestigial organs and atavism refute the “evolution” story since, on one hand massive “evolution” changes, while on the other “persistence” of useless and even detrimental traits are claimed. Incidentally, these traits make perfect sense if organisms are designed for “manufacturability”, obsolescence, and optionality. Comparative similar progress of all branches (apes vs humans) should also be expected. Therefore, it is illogical that humans would have “evolved” so much when other apes were essentially static over the same period of time and geography. Absence of a precambrian rabbit is not an expectation since “evolution” is supposedly directionless and because of the “convergent evolution” claim. Unity of life is expected not just from “evolution”, but also from creation, panspermia and other theories.
- Organisms vary greatly and populations change all the time without “evolving”. If in the distant future one would find fossils of two contemporary dog breeds, they would likely classify those as two different “species”, just as Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans are currently classified. Despite the genetic evidence that they mated with each other which, by the most lenient definition, means they were the same “species”. Other “ongoing evolution” examples (the finches, the moth, antibacterial resistance, etc.) are not “origin of species” transformative but mere reversible minor adaptations as noted.
- Ever increasing life complexity disproves “directionless evolution” and “beneficial mutations”. Current time progression models show ever increasing complexity of life. This is contrary to “undirected evolution”. As new organisms appeared, old ones continued as well, thus resulting in more diversity and increased complexity of life. For instance, when eukaryotes appeared, the prokaryote kingdom continued seemingly unperturbed. Life complexity increased and new life forms are demonstrably no better than the older ones since one did not replace the other. Cetaceans are different from the fish they share an environment with, and thus another example of complexity increased. If “evolution” were true and directionless as theorized, one would expect some intermediate organisms to have “evolved” from “primitive” organisms and other from more “advanced” ones. For instance, some amphibians would be expected to have “evolved” from fish and others from mammals, were “directionless evolution” true.
- “But transitional fossils fit so well, don’t they?” No. They only seem to fit due to the confirmation bias – the tendency to favor information that confirms one’s previously existing beliefs or biases. In this case, the prejudice in favor of “evolution” and against any other explanation. Thus the artist’s impression meant to convince us of the “excellent fit” draws little from the actual fragmentary fossil and much from the myth and theory of evolution. And let us not “affirm the consequent”. Is there anything unique to “evolution” but not to any other theory that would result in the fossil record we know? The answer is “no”. Even if newer organisms derived from older ones by descent – big unsupported if – that would still not validate “evolution” or any of its other associated claims including “natural selection”, undirected, unguided “process”, etc.
- Darwin was right, Kelvin was wrong? Kelvin opposed evolution on the account of the age of the earth. Darwin knew from his work with pigeons that even deliberately breeding for specific characteristics took a long time to produce them. But how much time was necessary? Darwin felt that it required at least hundreds of millions of years. By 1895 the consensus physics view was that the age of the planet lay in the range 20–40 million years. Natural selection appeared to be doomed. Whereas today the consensus is 4.5 billion years, so evolution is safe? Turns out, the consensus (that fellow again) is that there is no scientific basis for determining the speed of evolution. Does anyone wonder why? The story is often presented as “Darwin owning Kelvin or physics for that matter”. The real lesson is the absurdity of a theory entirely based on feelings and not one bit on anything measurable.
Links:
scientificamerican.com/article/when-lord-kelvin-nearly-killed-darwins-theory
wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Many old debates are far more intelligent than what goes on today. In fact, Idiocracy was a documentary that explains why “evolution” is still popular and perhaps more so than when people used to think for themselves.
Besides, anticipating your objection, I made a point of explaining in the essay why this particular debate is still relevant today.
What is not OK is for “evolution” to be fact-free and to fail every single test after all these centuries.
You stated:
I presented a scenario that involved God making two new species which still were related by common descent. You’ll have to believe me when I tell you this took me no effort whatsoever.
Not to put too fine a point on it, by my lights, I just proved that you were completely and utterly wrong. Agree? Why not?
Well sure. Bully for me, evolutionary theory avoids that pitfall.
Yes, I had noticed his awareness of progress since Darwin published On the Origin of Species was around the level of non-existent.
Adaptation as a concept is intimately related to fitness. I was wondering whether you would be as unbending with regard to adaptation as you are to fitness.
And now you made me really curious how you would establish that an organism is “suited to its environment”. Can we measure that?
What happened to 1? I’d like to to know what you take those “characteristics of a plant or animal” to be.
What do organisms adapt to, if not the environment?
If antibiotic resistance has no net benefit, then why did you call it an example of adaptation?
The rest of your comments I’ll address later. It’s too late for me now.
For me, the increase in frequency of the adaptation would have to be associated with heritable changes. This happens to be the case in all examples you cite.
What nonsense! What would stop the Carbonaria morph from growing less frequent again?
You mentioned several yourself: The adaptive radiation in Darwin’s finches and cichlids of the African Great Lakes. I also already mentioned The Trinidad guppy project, the Park Grass experiment and Lenski lab’s long-term evolution experiment. We discussed many, many, many other examples here at TSZ. Are you saying you never saw any?
Yes, they are all wrong.
Heh heh. “in any living organisms”. Thanks for making my point again, Nonlin.
Why? There’s no need for that association. Besides, “fitness” is not a viable concept. We discussed at length and you weren’t able to measure or even compare yours. Remember?
Not my definition – now seems a bit flawed. Anyway, when you get the flu, your organism adapts to it by mounting a defense. The immune system is built in. You can measure the immune response in many ways.
They adapt to specific stimuli. The environment is too broad to even define. Forget about adapting to everything in the environment. Besides, I mentioned homeostasis here and elsewhere. Because of that, organisms are fine with wide ranges of environmental parameters. You knew that, didn’t you?
Because it works against a specific stimulus (threat). Tradeoffs be damned… but only until that particular danger is managed.
People usually think that managing a danger is beneficial.
Heterozygous for sickle cell anaemia offers protection against malaria, when the likelihood of being exposed to malaria is high enough, homozygous not so good.
That makes no sense. What is “frequency of the adaptation”? I’m visualizing sun-tans and immune response right now. Characteristics of the population may change over time but, as we see in all those examples and more, that change is not permanent and not cumulative.
And the fossil record (the one you ignore right now) is quite clear on that: step transition into existence followed by stasis followed by step extinction. Always! Couvier was maybe the first to note.
Nothing if “evolution” not involved. The “no retrace” clause were “evolution” true. Either way, “evolution” fails.
Again, change is not permanent and not cumulative. Hence no “evolution”.
You never answered adaptation vs. “evolution”. This would be it – the true missing link: “not permanent and not cumulative”.
By decree of the Corneel? That would be something. Haha.
You don’t understand tradeoffs.
This guy gets it. Way to go Alan.
In my ignorance, I would think Alan has identified a tradeoff.
Flint,
Indeed. Whether an allele is beneficial or not depends on the niche.
Corneel,
Can you show me a single paper that uses common descent as a working hypothesis and considers God or intelligent creation as a possible cause?
If none exists or only a few exist then your hypothetical scenario is not considered. The single origin tree built by reproduction and natural variation alone is the working definition.
You are trying to justify a model on a speculation that science does not consider at this point. If God is involved separate starting points makes more sense then trying to re arrange existing cells. Can you show a reason with a new design you would not start from scratch?
If you mean scientific papers, then no; God and divine creation are no part of scientific explanations. However, you are wrong to claim that nobody considers both evolutionary theory to be correct and God to be ultimately responsible for its unfolding. I even cited Sy Garte multiple times at you expressing exactly that sentiment:
Millions of people believe this to be true.
Are you telling God how He should be doing His job? Are you His boss? Should I kneel?
Nonlin.org,
I have seen your comments, but I have run out of steam. My answers will come some later time, if that’s OK with you.
Corneel,
I think you’re mistaken here. I have not defined any part of the origin process of distinct species. On the other hand you are claiming reproduction is part of God’s process.
And millions of people think it is false. Where is the evidence that God used the reproductive mechanism as a vehicle to generate different animals?
There isn’t any, of course. The idea that evolution happens AND that some god must be involved is simply a tactic to include an otherwise unnecessary god – that is, evolution is a process that would happen exactly as it does with or without any gods. This kludge enables True Believers to actually understand evolutionary processes without the need to discard their religious beliefs. Without this superfluous claim, True Believers find themselves forced to choose between comprehension and superstition, pick one. So they are obliged to argue against reality, which many of them realize is an untenable position.
This is not new. Planets orbit the sun because of gravity AND it’s their gods’ will. Flowers bloom in the spring to reproduce AND it’s their gods’ will. Etc. Pasting god onto otherwise complete understandings permits believers to better grasp the nature of the world around them. Doing so adds nothing explanatory, but still can open comprehension doors otherwise locked against them.
Ohh…ooo…tricksy…I’m not that impressed.
Here’s the thing, Nonlin, you (of all ignorant peeps in the world) do not have any…what? Authority? Credibility? Validity? Just plain good soulness? for anyone to accept what you declare is or is not science. So, I reiterate my question: what does it need to be “saved” from in any sense by naysayers like you? It’s not like you have any real leverage over what science studies, teaches, gives grants for, and so forth…
…all that said, was the Pinocchio reference to the John Hiatt song, because…honestly….I love that John Hiatt song! Ooo…and there’s a few other great ones off the album from which it comes…Little Head.
As for your comment regarding viruses…just no…
Flint,
I am arguing against universal common descent based on biological evidence and how populations are limited in how much they can change. The current model that is being challenged is misleading and needs to be fixed.
The problem appears with all due respect appears that you think you need evolution or universal common descent for your worldview to be true. You have not gone deep enough into the actual biology to realize that your worldview if it requires evolutions grand claims (UCD) is a house of cards.
Since those who actually understand the evidence unanimously disagree with you, and since your position matches only a religious conviction, your argument will make no converts.
No, the idea of universal common descent is derived from the evidence, and adopted despite the preferences of your religion. Evidence is not a “worldview” to those who draw conclusions from it, it’s only a “worldview” to those unable to accept what it tells them.
But I have to laugh at the “house of cards”, since yours collapsed at least a century ago. And it collapsed because of evidence, not ideology.
Flint,
Is your worldview dependent on universal common descent being true? What if the evidence showed thousands of unexplained origin events that were not connected by ancestry?
So it was not you who wrote:
To me this looks like you presume to be able to tell what does and does not make sense to God when He is creating. Are you a prophet or something?
And that is a question you should be asking of someone whose answer you will accept, like gpuccio, Michael Behe or Sy Garte, all of whom accept universal common descent, if I am not mistaken.
If you are unhappy with your definition, then you are allowed to change it. Just as long as you are making clear that you are changing it.
So how do you establish that the immune response is helping an organism to “suit its environment” and not causing any deleterious effects like allergies or auto-immune diseases? Is there something other we can measure perchance?
That sounds like a distinction without a difference, doesn’t it?
Me neither. If the resistance involves a trade-off that counterbalances the beneficial effect, then it cannot be an adaptation, right?
Visualize the capability for mounting an immune response and the capability for tanning being near 100%. Perhaps that will help.
That sounds like you’ve mangled something. Are you referring to Dollo’s law?
Bollocks! None of the populations in the examples mentioned above reversed to the ancestral condition, as far as I am aware.
Rather, I think, by consensus of everbody in the world minus a handful of exceptionally uninformed creationists. Good to see you are enjoying yourself, regardless.
A “niche” in biology is made up nonsense like “fitness”. You cannot describe either scientifically. Nothing changed.
If they do, they are wrong. Easily proven.
Who are you quoting and what are you asking? What’s so hard to understand about the immune system? Does it bother you that it’s not perfect? I can’t tell.
No. I explained why. The environment is too broad.
I explained. There is no “counterbalance”. Tradeoffs are generally ignored until the immediate danger passes.
I agree that “fitness” invites the question: fitness for what? Reproductive success, in my humble opinion, would describe better what is happening.
But “niche” is a very straightforward concept. In my malaria-vs-sickle-cell-anaemia example, whether the niche includes mosquitoes carrying malaria parasites decides whether being heterozygous for sickle cell is beneficial or not.
Dolo-shmolo. I don’t care. It’s all demonstrably false bullshit.
Let’s see… Them finches go in cycles depending on food availability and certainly do not transform into something else other than finches.
The cichlids in the newest lakes are as diverse as those in the oldest lakes. This proves change is not cumulative like I said.
Antibiotic resistance goes away (is reversible) once the stimulus is removed contrary to the “theory of evolution”.
Lenski has nothing but e-coli after so many generations. They did not transform at all. How could they?
The moths are back exactly as they started. We only learned camouflage matters. No need for any “evolution” theory to know that.
We can look at whatever example you want and confirm population change not permanent and not cumulative.
And what about the millions and billions of stasis years in the fossil record. How much longer will you ignore that?
Fuck the consensus – pardon my French. When will you learn that consensus is less than worthless in science???
“Invites the question”?!? Speak straight : it’s nonsense. “Reproductive succes” won’t do. See, for “natural selection” to work, it must work on something. And that something cannot be the “reproductive succes” that happens only after and only as a consequence of something being “selected”. Time machines are from the movies.
It isn’t. What is your “niche”? There isn’t any you can describe. Look at the geographic spread of so many “species”. There is not one “niche” that fits. And do you know why? You should as I explained : homeostasis – that’s what kills your “niche”.
It’s not at all clear what malaria has to do with anything.
Not clear to you, you mean.
Nonlin, your inability to grasp the basic concepts of evolution is not a problem I feel motivated to help with.
Just my two cents, but when debating, words like fitness are unhelpful. And Dollo’s Law is not a law.
But then, I find any interaction with nonlin to be unproductive.
Looks like Nonlin went into six-year-old mode again. Oh well. Let’s see what we can salvage.
Stimuli are not part of the environment?
Can you explain what you mean by the word “tradeoff”. You appear to be using the word differently from everybody else.
Could you please show us an example of a species from the fossil record that was in stasis for billions of years? I wasn’t aware there were any.
On the fitness part, I disagree. I thoroughly enjoy seeing creationists squirm to avoid conceding that there is such a thing as fitness variation.
The other two: yeah sure.
Your comment was about malaria. You really can’t support your own comment? As far as “evolution”, your problem is that I understand the underlying nonsense much better than you. That’s why you can’t sustain a conversation.
Because you’re trying to produce confusion. That’s why.
What about intelligent design? Isn’t that part of the environment as well?
Here we go again… What seems “different” to you? From “everybody” ? Did you actually ask every body?
For shame… https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html
And Corneel, why do you always get worked up over insignificant details? Like billions vs millions of years (or even less) in this case? You still have a major problem with the fossil record.
It seems you two have issues with each other. Better settle them like adults: mud wrestling.
Not convinced of your understanding of evolution as evidenced by what you post here.
What I post is almost always way over your head.
Now, just so we’re clear, you’re giving up on that malaria thing, aren’t you?
Dawkins managed to find a single honest creationist (https://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_2.php), which is one more than I’ve ever found, though I’ll admit some are too ignorant and/or incoherent to assess their honesty. Kurt Wise is smart enough to know better, but he seems to share the sincerity of those who are not.
No, but thanks for playing.
Nonlin cannot explain what he means by the word “tradeoff”. Check!
Oh, well done! Of course, cyanobacteria is not a species but an entire phylum and the oldest unambiguous cyanobacterial fossils do not quite make it to the two billion years, but I appreciate the effort. If you like this topic I recommend Andrew Knoll’s “Life on a Young Planet” which I happen to be re-reading myself at the moment.
However, cyanobacterial fossils do not have a much of a morphology to speak of, so I am going to play my creationist Uno reverse card and claim that you are looking at convergence NOT stasis of a single lineage for *nearly* billions of years.
Also, I am rather dissappointed. Where are the archean elephants? Where are the proterozoic zebras? Any rabbits in the precambrian? No? Then where did these modern species come from? Any ideas?
Because that is a difference of three orders of magnitude buster. If you think that is insignificant, I fear for your financial situation.
ROFLMAO!
I do enjoy the claim that cyanobacteria have not been evolving in the interim, as they all look like cyanobacteria. It’s epic!
Likewise nonlin’s “why you always get worked up over an insignificant details, like billions vs millions”, when the punchline of this OP is Darwin’s agonizing over the difference between 100 and 300…
Why not? Show your work.
You have access to a dictionary? Yes. Check!
Is that a yes, no, maybe? What is a bacteria “species” anyway? Why does it matter? How did they know it was cyanobacteria 3.5 bya? Hint: something something ‘about the same’ as modern one. Haha.
What’s “convergence” and how can you define that for someone that rejects your “theory”? Got proof of your”convergence” claim by any chance? No? Didn’t think so either.
I know for a fact they (modern species) didn’t come from “evolution”. How so? Because nothing does. You as well as I, know that whenever zebras, rabbits, etc happened – regardless of their origin – they reproduced basically unchanged for too many generations for “evolution” to be true. Couvier noticed the same. Was he wrong???
Why should there be “proterozoic zebras” or “precambrian rabbits”?
In this case – and there’s always a case-by-case clause – it’s irrelevant. If “evolution” doesn’t happen in years, thousands / millions / billions of years it still doesn’t happen.
Here’s DNA Joke (I stole that one) and his unrelated links again. Dude, don’t just throw links at people. It’s rude. Do explain how you think they support your assertions. And be very specific.
No, that is not the punchline of this OP. That’s just a very funny aside. OMG, your reading comprehension really stinks if you think that was the punchline.
And do tell, why was Darwin agonizing again? How long should “evolution” take? You don’t see how hilarious that is??? Your loss.
Gentle reminder to non-lin regarding site rules.
Alan Fox,
Can you be more specific? Thanks.
I’m very disappointed in the counterarguments to this OP. Is everyone giving up on “evolution”? Do you all agree with this essay claims? Have all evolutionistas been mentally weakened by Covid?