Is anything in biology , man, beast, plant, in millions etc of species evolving as we speak?

I say no but why do evolutionists?

This is a sly way to demonstrate how unlikely evolutionism is on a probability curve.when on thinks of the millions (billions?) of segregated populations in biology(species) then it should be a high, or respectable percentage, are evolving as we speak to create new populations with new bodyplans to survive in some niche. By high I mean millions, with a allowance for mere hundreds of thousands. YET I am confident there is none evolving today. further i suspect evolutionists would say there is none evolving today. WHY? If not today what about yesterday or 300 years ago? Why couldn’t creationists say its not happening today because it never happened? Its accurate sampling of todays non evolution for predicting none in the past!

i think the only hope (hope?) is if evolutionism said , under pE influence, that all biology today is in the stasis stage and just waiting for a sudden need to change, qickly done, then stasis again. Yet why would it be that stasis has been reached so perfectly today relative to the enormous claim of the need in the past for evolutionism?

Anyways i think creationists have a good point here but willing to be corrected.

0

276 thoughts on “Is anything in biology , man, beast, plant, in millions etc of species evolving as we speak?

  1. Allan Miller: No doubt I’ll learn a lot from looking into what you say about the evolution of sex.

    I’m not so sure you will, if you persist in an ‘anti-reductionist’ stance.

    I don’t have an ‘anti-reductionist’ stance. Reducing processes to their component parts is necessary for understanding. The problem lies in going no further than this. Unless we then use this knowledge we have gained to understand how the parts relate to the whole in their actual context, then we have put self imposed limits on our understanding.

    What is more reductionist than reducing the world to a grain of sand?

    0
  2. Allan Miller: The fruiting body is both the end product and the beginning of new life. Life cycles on.

    Life cycles, indeed. Typically, scattering haploid spores in all directions to commence the construction of new ‘individuals’, a process with no analogue in wider evolution.

    I think the distribution of life over the planet from some warm little pond, or whatever you take the beginning to be, is a good example which covers that one.

    0
  3. CharlieM:
    You imply that any and every connection between entities must involve physical contact.

    Not necessarily, but physical linkage generates a shared and direct interest which is very important, from the genetic level outwards.

    Yet here we are, us puny humans, connecting with each other over distances spanning the planet.

    And yet the further apart we are, the more competitive. I’ve just been reading about race riots; we aren’t that harmonious.

    If its a cohesive whole of connected organisms that you seek take a look at the Amazon rain forest with its system of waterways merging into the Amazon and returning to the ocean like the blood flowing through an organ via its system of capillaries and veins finally through the vena cava back to the heart to be recycled. It just takes us to open our eyes and our minds to see the whole reflected in the parts.

    Nah. Analogy again. Not persuasive.

    An individual organism is not a cellular mass glued together, it comprises a constant flow of material […].

    Sure. And through all that churn, the shared genotype smirks like the Cheshire Cat’s smile (barring a Pedant’s Latitude arising from somatic mutation)

    The rationale lies in the fact that the entity (the biosphere in this case) exists through maintaining a dynamic balance among its parts which come and go throughout its existence. These need not be conscious processes. We have very little conscious awareness of the processes that are keeping us in existence.

    No elan vital appears required to maintain individual organisms. But to give your analogy legs, such a force is required at the biosphere level, immediately disconnecting the two things you want linked. I see no need for such vague forces.

    Bodies unroll a program, encoded in the shared cellular genome, progressing cyclically from zygote to zygote. Ecological units don’t. Newcomers simply exploit a niche, either reaching a balance, or going extinct through their own overexploitation. The result is a set of interacting niches whose denizens have not (yet) gone extinct, and along people come and declare it must be the work of a Celestial Gardener, and couldn’t possibly happen unaided. I don’t see why not.

    0
  4. Allan Miller: Similarly, if we are to believe consensus opinion, the end point of dinosaurs was the beginning of the life of modern birds.

    Urgh! No, not at all the same, or even ‘similar’.

    Yes, similar. As I explained earlier, life and death exist at many levels. The various forms of the dinosaurs gave way to the forms of modern birds. Individual forms come and go but life marches on.

    0
  5. CharlieM: I think the distribution of life over the planet from some warm little pond, or whatever you take the beginning to be, is a good example which covers that one.

    No it doesn’t. There’s no cycle there, just lineage.

    0
  6. CharlieM: I don’t have an ‘anti-reductionist’ stance. Reducing processes to their component parts is necessary for understanding. The problem lies in going no further than this. Unless we then use this knowledge we have gained to understand how the parts relate to the whole in their actual context, then we have put self imposed limits on our understanding.

    By ignoring or subordinating the role of nucleic acids in processes, I think you have put self imposed limits on your understanding.

    What is more reductionist than reducing the world to a grain of sand?

    Um, atoms?

    0
  7. CharlieM: Yes, similar. As I explained earlier, life and death exist at many levels. The various forms of the dinosaurs gave way to the forms of modern birds. Individual forms come and go but life marches on.

    No, dinosaurs evolved into modern birds (a process well under way before they croaked). The arbitrary ‘end point’ you have decided to draw (coinciding with an asteroid collision) has no analogue in multicellular life cycles. Closer to vegetative growth, but still no banana.

    0
  8. Allan Miller:

    Charlie: So you agree that in this respect the whole is reflected in the parts?

    No, I agree that both individuals and the wider biosphere they comprise are constructed from cellular replication.

    Yes this is a good start. We agree that all life is built up from cellular replication. But should we just leave our investigations at this level? I look out of my window and I can see that the birds are getting frisky. They will soon be mating and building nests in preparation for the eggs to come. Throughout the year I will be seeing the production of like from like. Robin chicks will mature to be like their parents in form and behaviour and the same is true for all the birds I will see over the period. Salmon make the hazardous journey upstream to the place where they were conceived in order for the fertilisation process to be repeated. Sperm swim via a similarly hazardous route to the egg with the aim of fertilisation leading to a repetition of the process. Two seemingly unconnected events that differ greatly in the details but very similar in what they achieve.

    To see that which persists above all the differences, in the way the whole is reflected in the parts, requires a determination of what is essential and what are the incidental, variable aspects. The body persists while its cells come and go, the species or kind persists while its individual organisms come and go, Life persists while species come and go.

    From the words of Goethe in his poem, “Nature”: “Eternally she creates new forms. What now is, never was in time past; what has been, cometh not again – all is new, and yet always it is the old.”

    0
  9. Allan Miller:

    Charlie: But our body cells do not all hang together. Millions of our body cells die […]

    Ahem … They all contain the same genome. They don’t mind a bit. This is a crucial distinction. Relatedness of the soma is the reason it hangs together.

    All the body cells are related because they are descended from the same zygote. The isolated genome is an abstraction. The whole cell, complete with genomes, cell walls, cytoplasm, mitochondria and other organelles, was the source of all subsequent cells.

    It’s not the material that hangs together it is the form.

    It is the block of cells possessed of the same genotype. Turnover does not negate that.

    It was through a certain type of reductionist thinking that lead to the false belief that humans would have at least one hundred thousand genes, and that when the entire genome was mapped the causes of many of our ills. It’s not the genes that make the organism, it ‘s the way they are manipulated that provides the suitable material to build the form and to allow the form to function.

    0
  10. Allan Miller: The costs come from evolutionary theory. I am critical of that aspect of theory.

    Of course. If you were not, you’d have to accept the philosophy of the circular reasoning, like Joe does with his fitness…

    Allan Miller: You should be pleased!

    Why? That people choose their worldview over the theory that contradicts it?
    It’s actually sad, you know…

    Allan Miller: I’ve seen a Creationist try and use a result of evolutionary theory to argue against evolutionary theory.

    Who can blame them…
    ” …a house divided against itself cannot stand…”

    0

  11. Allan Miller: They are pretty similar, except that the revision I’m currently working on is trying to make it more accessible to a general audience.

    Why do a revision then, if it’s going to be similar?
    I won’t have to take it apart. Harshman will do for me while taking a break from his bible study…lol

    0
  12. Allan Miller:

    What we see as the selfish acts of a lion benefits the local

    Purely incidentally. What would you suggest to improve our biome in similar fashion? A bit of eugenics? Hunger games?

    What I would suggest is working with nature and not against it. Trying to think of the wider consequences our actions have. Education rather than coercion. This is not to say that I’m the one qualified to do the educating.

    0
  13. J-Mac: If you were not, you’d have to accept the philosophy of the circular reasoning, like Joe does with his fitness

    You say that knowing it’s not true. So can you link? Or explain the circular reasoning and show where Joe says the equivalent?

    J-Mac: Why? That people choose their worldview over the theory that contradicts it?

    You and others say this because it’s what you must believe. After all, you have chosen your worldview despite the evidence, not because of it. So logically everyone else has also done the same.

    It’s called projection.

    J-Mac: It’s actually sad, you know…

    It is sad. You are not the first person to come here recommending cures other then conventional medicine for cancer. Once chap is convinced his wife was cured by a faith healer, no less. But yet the best outcomes remain not faith healer related. But it appears the fact that you have demonstrably chosen your worldview despite the available facts does not dissuade you from accusing others of exactly that. It’s called projection. You accuse others of what you unconsciously know you are doing yourself.

    J-Mac: Who can blame them…
    ” …a house divided against itself cannot stand…”

    The divisions are there, but there are not what you think. In evolutionary biology there is not nor will there ever be a ‘designer’ and ‘anti-designer’ side. It simply is not the case. There are people on the fringe who write books, of course. People much like yourself who delude themselves into thinking what they are doing is interacting with and making a difference in the scientific endeavour. You no doubt think your blog posts here are actually achieving something other them amusement,

    Gpuccio knows deep down that his ‘ideas’ will fall apart at the first serious interaction with actual peer review. If you could prove that Joe has been using circular reasoning in his work then why not publish a scientific paper about Joe’s scientific work saying as much?

    Otherwise the people who were originally mislead will never get to hear of their error in taking Joe seriously!

    0
  14. Allan Miller:

    and what some see as the insertion of selfish transposons in the genome of a peppered moth benefits the population as a whole. Look at the bigger picture. Equivalent processes at many levels.

    For every transposon ‘domesticated’ I could show you a few hundred that cause damage. Like mutation, transposition is a percentage game.

    Yes and all life processes from development to evolution is about maintaining dynamic balance between constructive and destructive forces. Either of these forces can be detrimental to the next higher level. So the crux of matter is not whether genomic changes are damaging or beneficial, it is whether or not the living entity can cope with the change and live on regardless.

    0
  15. Allan Miller:

    CharlieM:A close look at what has been discovered so far about what is involved from meiosis to fertilisation reveals intricate networks of coordinated activity. And that’s from what we do know, and it is just one narrow aspect of life. Everywhere we look it’s the same story.

    So how did it get like that, mechanistically? No intellectual curiosity in that regard?

    Will this is where our thinking about this really diverges. Our prior beliefs pull our thoughts in opposite directions and we end up poles apart.

    My thinking on this involves the etheric. IMO the etheric can be thought of as energy, very complex dynamically structured energy. Material substance is a condensation of this energy. Goethe’s idea of the archetype is just the etheric given another name. Individual plants come into existence through the interplay of the etheric with the physical which we see as a series of contractions and expansions of form.

    It is the same with every case of gamete formation. Chromatin condenses to form chromosomes. These come together and line up as polypeptides converge to form the spindle and the spindle fibres. This process is repeated later in the meiotic process. Through multiple expansions and contractions gametes are produced. These have a condensed physical form and a very active expanded etheric form. A dead cell will lose its membrane and its contents will be scattered wide. It will lose its form because it has lost its active etheric field of energy.

    The complexities of cell formation do not just pop up from nowhere. They are already present, but unseen, in the etheric. An analogy would be the lines of force in a magnet. They remain unseen until iron filings are scattered round it. Then we become aware of something that was already present. It was only the limitation of our senses that prevented us from seeing it. The physical and the etheric are just two aspects of life. Living substance is physical and living form is etheric.

    And when we think back to the early earth and the original eukaryote cell, in what I am proposing it does not have to come from simpler physical precursors. This makes it possible that it already had physical complexity when it first appeared because it condensed from the pre-existing complexity of the etheric.

    Energetic fields may be unseen but they are not unknown to us.

    0
  16. Corneel:

    CharlieM: It’s like the egg says to the sperm, “when you come to stay there’s no need to bring excess baggage, I have everything you need here. Just bring yourself.”

    “Better yet: Bugger off. I don’t need you!”

    Yes, which begs the question: Why all this complication for something it didn’t need?

    0
  17. Corneel:

    CharlieM: But what causes the gene that encodes the enzyme to switch on? We end up chasing our tail. nothing but convoluted networks.

    When I still worked in a Drosophila lab, you occasionally had to make crosses between different stocks. In certain combinations, this resulted in hybrid dysgenesis, where in the best cases you got unexpectedly high mutation rates and in the worst cases no offspring could be obtained from the cross at all. This phenomenon results from the disastrous massive mobilization of genomic copies of the P element.

    Most very old stocks are of the M cytotype, which means they have no P-elements. This indicates that in the beginning of the 20th century, when stock collection began, P-elements were rare in fruitfly populations. In the late 1970s and early 1980s many researchers started reporting hybrid dysgenesis, and nowadays strains of the P cytotype, that carry both P-elements and their repressors, are ubiquitous. That means that in the course of a century, the entire global population of D. melanogaster was invaded by P-element transposons.

    Now imagine something similar occurring in humans. Does that sound like gene regulation or does it sound like a pandemic?

    Both, it’s not either/or. Take the coronavirus of which there are fears that it could become a pandemic. The virus by itself can do nothing without the regulatory system of the host cell.

    0
  18. CharlieM: Yes, which begs the question: Why all this complication for something it didn’t need?

    Fancy that. I was going to ask you the same thing. My explanation is that parthenogenic lineages all derive from sexual ancestors.

    It’s been said before: you are extremely focused on humans. All those “intricate networks of coordinated activity” in spermatogenesis and fertilisation turn out to be completely dispensable in many other species. Since they managed to get rid of those useless male bastards, one might even argue they are more highly evolved.

    0
  19. CharlieM:
    Me: Now imagine something similar occurring in humans. Does that sound like gene regulation or does it sound like a pandemic?

    Both, it’s not either/or. Take the coronavirus of which there are fears that it could become a pandemic. The virus by itself can do nothing without the regulatory system of the host cell.

    You believe SARS, HIV and influenza to be part of human gene regulation? That should bring you lots of joy next time you come down with the flu.

    0
  20. CharlieM,

    [Charlie looks out of his window]

    Yes, things are gearing up for the annual return of haploid genomes, the true ‘organism’ of which we are mere nurturers and amplifiers!

    0
  21. CharlieM:Me: Ahem … They all contain the same genome. They don’t mind a bit. This is a crucial distinction. Relatedness of the soma is the reason it hangs together.

    Charlie: All the body cells are related because they are descended from the same zygote. The isolated genome is an abstraction. The whole cell, complete with genomes, cell walls, cytoplasm, mitochondria and other organelles, was the source of all subsequent cells.

    You keep beating this drum, and I keep saying ‘no’. How long can we keep this up? The fundamental process is semiconservative nucleic acid replication. That creates two copies where once there was one. Without it, there would be no ‘purpose’ to cellular fission. If it did something other than create two for one, most hypothetical fission products would be empty.

    It was through a certain type of reductionist thinking that lead to the false belief that humans would have at least one hundred thousand genes

    Not really, but anyway you can’t chuck out a viewpoint just because it was wrong once. What was that about chucking the baby out with the bathwater?

    The true number of genes wasn’t discovered by ‘holists’.

    It’s not the genes that make the organism, it ‘s the way they are manipulated that provides the suitable material to build the form and to allow the form to function.

    Sorry, it is the genes. Transplant a foreign genome into a cell and it starts making that genome’s proteins. Change a gene, you change the way the program runs – look at antennopedia, for one of a squillion examples.

    More importantly, over evolutionary time, genotype is all that persists. Yes, in cells, but cells made by genes.

    0
  22. Corneel: You believe SARS, HIV and influenza to be part of human gene regulation? That should bring you lots of joy next time you come down with the flu.

    Our genomes are littered with the scars of old infection, of course, some of which end up ‘getting with the program’. The rest lies there waiting for a ‘holist’ to come up with a DNA-as-system-tool explanation.

    0
  23. J-Mac: Why do a revision then, if it’s going to be similar?

    Because I feel like.

    I won’t have to take it apart.Harshman will do for me while taking a break from his bible study…lol

    Well, I think John was wrong. He actually played a significant part in the genesis of my ideas, way back in Talk.Origins days. He didn’t buy it then and doesn’t buy it now, but his critique served to strengthen my conviction. If I fail to persuade, that’s down to me, but I know why I think as I do, and can defend it.

    But it is interesting that you automatically side with John – someone with whom you profoundly disagree on everything – for the mere fact that he disagrees with me. Sometimes it must be a struggle to decide whose coat-tails you are going to hang on today.

    1+
  24. CharlieM: Corneel: “Better yet: Bugger off. I don’t need you!”

    Charlie: Yes, which begs the question: Why all this complication for something it didn’t need?

    Heh heh. You haven’t read my paper then! All is revealed … my stance, however, is ‘reductionist’. 😉

    That said, reductionism hasn’t been hugely successful in understanding sex either. A poorly-thought-out version of ‘selfish gene’ theory leads to an imaginary ‘twofold cost’ of meiosis. There is, however, a reductionist stance which does make sense, both of sex and of the multicellular bodies it builds. It’s not simple to expound, hence 55 pages.

    0
  25. Allan Miller:

    CharlieM: What we inherit is functional cell along with its cellular processes.

    Wrong. We inherit a genotype. How did ‘the cell’ get passed down from LUCA? Everything in it that isn’t imported is made from genes. Even the ‘import control’ is made from genes.

    Genotype makes phenotype.

    I’m not saying gene-centrism is the only way to look at a cell, or even evolution, but your insistence that it’s only to be viewed as an ‘inherited system’ is starting to look dogmatic.

    Yes, we do inherit a genotype, but with it comes along with other things. We actually inherit two genotypes, cytoplasm, cell membranes and organelles.

    What I wrote above can be seen in another way. I did not inherit a functioning cell, In fact I was a functional single cellular organism. I became multicellular, I became sentient, I became a rational thinking being. All these things are a part of who I am.

    I agree that all the substances within me are either imported or made from genes. Does this mean that genes are the ultimate cause of form? No. To say that genes cause form is like saying that building materials cause the form of the house that has been built. The creativity comes from epigenetic marking, cascade instigation and suppression, alternative splicing and all the other ways in which genes are manipulated.

    0

Leave a Reply

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