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.
No, we are not evolving as we speak. But we are evolving as we reproduce.
What your OP mainly shows, is that you do not understand evolution.
I think Joe F will have something to say about that… The last time he mention something about 10 billion species “evolving”…
Who does? 😉
Evolution predicts evolution, so it is self-explanatory as it is circulatory reasoning…
Neil is quite correct. Individuals do not evolve. Our genomes are fixed at conception. It is populations that evolve due to changes in allele frequency and selection.
So, both Joe Felsenstein and Robert Byers were wrong then… 😉
Not the first time and not the last time…lol
Byers is obviously correct, because if we don’t observe something happening with our senses in human time-scales, then there’s no evidence that it ever happened or could happen. There’s no evidence that I had great-great-grandparents so it’s possible that I didn’t and I guess we can never know one way or the other.
PS and Joe is also quite correct.
How about sequencing genomes and comparing them?
Human and Chimp genomes are apparently 99% identical…
What about your genome and your father’s? How close could it get to 100%???
Joe is quite correct, too. It’s a simple concept. Allele frequencies are shifted by differing reproductive success.
What do you mean by “also quite correct”? Who is also correct?
J-Mac,
Joe.
What? So, Joe is correct and also quite correct?
No, we are evolving as we speak, because we either survive to the end of the sentence, or not. We also evolve as we reproduce, as you noted.
And I totally agree with the last sentence.
Well said. While on the subject, what’s with all those trees purportedly growing from acorns. Preposterous! There must be billions of the things standing around, but I am confident that none of them is growing today. Did anyone ever see even ONE of them grow? More evidence that all biology today is in the stasis stage!
😉
Now it shows neither you nor Alan Fox understand evolution, as per Joe’s… lol
Byers! You rock! 🙂
Some evolution… 😉
Well, I sense Joe was indulging in a little humour. Genomes of individuals don’t change after conception. The change in populations is brought about by differential reproductive success.
This makes no sense. ‘Evolutionism’, as any ideology, is held either by choice or involuntarily by a person, an individual, who inevitably identifies as part of some ‘group’ or ‘community’ (not only political). It may still be unknown to themselves as an ideology, even though properly used the signifier ‘evolutionism’ signifies an ideolgy with the ‘-ism’ (even though not all ‘-isms’ are ideologies, e.g. organism, most are). Otherwise, you’re not speaking with accuracy or clarity & just muddying the communicative waters.
The ‘likelihood of evolution’ is a legitimate issue, but not the likelihood of ‘evolutionism’. Evolutionism is around, people accept & push it; there are no ‘ifs &s or buts’ about it. Sorry that you’re lost about that, cousin, not yet found.
Lots of things aren’t ‘evolving’ today. It’s how one talks about those things and why that counts. I’ve never met a creationist whose ideology didn’t obscure, blemish or imbalance their science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse. The same is why people aren’t accepting what you say here.
Canadian Robert, creationists are ideologues. All of them, by definition. No escaping it. Self-labeling ideologues, intentionally ideologizing, yet believe they are not, because almost all in North America do not understand ideology because they were taught to fear and hate it (Marx, cough, Adorno, uggh, etc.) & nevertheless consumed a big one through advertising. What has happened? Ideology has swallowed them. Look around you & in the mirror also reflexively. Many people don’t know how to get out of ideological traps, witness this OP.
Ideological evangelicals with no remorse for their creationism in front of fellow Abrahamic monotheists. Cannot walk into light a non-ideologue who self-labels as ‘creationist’.
Micro vs. Macro Growth.
That’s absurd, why would anyone consider change in frequencies in a population evolving. The evolving part must refer to new, as in NEW alleles or new functions that never previously existed.
If all the alleles already existed by just was represented in smaller or larger numbers, that’s not changing.
Evolution could occur without mutation, and mutation could occur without evolution.
No, I was totally humorless. Fitness is affected by reproduction, but also by viability. If someone drops dead in the middle of the sentence, that affects their fitness.
What about people who are murdered or die in an accident through no fault of their own?
Or the edge case of men dying during intercourse — does their fitness come down to exact timing in that circumstance?
Part of genetic drift.
While we’re on the subject, has anyone ever really watched a pot of water come to a boil? Maybe all that water was already pre-boiling! We don’t know! We weren’t there!
I meant, i say i meant, WAS present populations evolving into new populations/new body plans. Nobody says beings are evolving! NO we are not evolving as we reproduce. Evolution is about selection bringing a bodyplan change and thus a new population thus the evolution of this to that.
Alan Fox,
Well. in the billions of species on earth IS this happening these days and what percentage? In the last ten years how many new species9evolved populations) has happened as a percentage? i think none! in fact if it was common it would conflict with the declining species claims of envirormentalists etc.
Kantian Naturalist,
Not my point about observation. i think I have a innovative idea here about whether in the biology literature/research THEY say this/that percentage of species(billions around) are now evolving and have evolved in the last twenty years. HOW many new populations/new species (with science names) have EVOLVED new bodyplans.??
I say none. No evolution is going on anywhere.All species are in stasis as PE concepts would say.
What’s a bodyplan? How different do two ‘bodyplans’ need to be to be considered ‘new’?
I am surprised you would say we evolve as we reproduce. surely this is not what evolutionary biology teaches.
Reproduction is not demonstrating the evolution of the offspring relative to the parents. This is not a new population but a continuence of the same population and further so alike that the real population is unaffected by the tiny differences and so no selection is taking place on any part of the population and thus no new population with a new bodyplan. No evolution. Indeed by this opinion it would contradict Gould/Eldrege PE idea. they said populations stayed in stasis for long periods and then changed quickly/evolved (relative). The whole point of PE is that nothing is evolving and thats why Darwin was corrected about a expectation of the fossil record showing all the stages or a excellent sample of them. It didn’t and thus was born PE.
If it was true all biology was evolving in its populations then pass some threshold why wouldn’t new populations have evolved and thus new names for these new species? Since 3000 years etc?! How many ? Name one!
I can only GUESS you mean , say, North american deer have been evolving since Columbus despite not becoming new species but still have evolved as a group. yet i don’t think deer experts would agree. I don’t think an biology has evolved in our time despite billions of species and evolutionism ONLY can retreat to saying all is in stasis.
I’ sincerely surprised at what you say but indeed i might misunderstand some major/minor details about evolutionary biology.
OMagain,
For evolution to have happened IT must of happened in a different poulation relative to another from whence it came. SO it must have a different bodyplan to justify it as a new evolved population. It must be different enough. Otherwise no evolution has happened.
your point really is that WE can say evolutionism is going on in the world despite no new species. In other words all species are evolving always. i say they are not at all.
Indeed evolutionists would say, I think, all species are now in stasis.
Good point! While we’re on the subject, who is moving all those slugs? I have seen slugs in my garden one day, and the next day they were gone. Sure, some people claim that slugs can move by themselves, but this is mere micromovement. Despite my insistent requests, nobody has ever been able to show me all the intermediate steps of a slug leaving my garden.
Do herring and black-backed gulls have different ‘body plans’? That’s the kind of distinction you’d expect to see at a local, short-term(ish) level. You wouldn’t see whole new organs appearing in a step, even if evolution were the case.
If you took a photo of a moving car at a fast shutter speed, you’d say it was in stasis too. Of course, you have access to prior and subsequent states, and so are in a position to detect motion. We need to think ‘slower’. Look at a glacier. It’s not moving. But set up a time-lapse camera and speed the frames, it’s like a river.
Slower still … continental drift. You’re 2cm further away from me than you were this time last year. Come back! But we can detect this motion from satellites.
The kind of thing you’d expect to see ‘if evolution were true’ isn’t the kind of thing evolution proposes you would see.
Quite correct! … so not completely correct then … lol
/J-mac
(eta – I posted that as a joke, before scrolling on to see him actually do it! I must be careful to use my gift only for good)
Another one of your racist comments?
You should begin with providing evidence for your ideology first, starting with zoophilia prohibition…
You won’t, because you can’t … so you resort to your long winded bs… as one of our homegrown, phony theists does…🤣
Right, that makes sense.
What concerned me was my reading of you relating accidental events to fitness in the post I quoted.
But I’d better stop, because I am dangerously close to talking philosophy — in this case the concept of fitness being understood as a propensity, ie a sort of conditional expectation, not as an actual count.
O/T: I appreciate your responses to Sal over at PS; I am certainly learning from them.
Oh, grow up phoodoo!
Darwinists needed it to explain evolution by natural selection…
So, they cooked a marriage of inheritance with statistics (probabilities) into population genetics to make it “work”…
Joe Felsenstein so proudly and scientifically defends PG here…
Just look at his comments regarding fitness…
Have you ever seen any nonsense like that and called science too?
Bruce is the only one who suspected illogical conclusions of PG…
It’s a comedy club …😂
Of course it does…
Just try to substitute the death during sex with loose suspenders, or a tight sombrero, and their effect on fitness, and you will have the same results…🤣
Or, like Joe commented earlier, on someone’s comments having the effect on fitness, and the survival, and therefore reproduction…
“Why did so and so not reproduce?
Because he wasn’t fit.
But how do you know he wasn’t fit?
Because he didn’t reproduce…”
Now you can plugin anything into this circular reasoning that could have effected fitness, and voila! You cooked yourself population genetics based evolution…
Nice, huh?
😉
If our genome doesn’t change during our lifetime, how come we develop diseases later in life then?
If walto has a gene for baldness, why wasn’t he balding as a child, or a teen?
Yeah! And why didn’t he grow a moustache when he was a baby?
Well, I had better not “talk philosophy”, but in the models we fit to real data, fitness is a conditional expectation, not an actual count. In discrete-generations models, the conditional expectation of the number of newborn offspring in the next generation, per newborn in this generation, conditional on its genotype.
Thanks, Joe.
Are you suggesting moustache is a genetic disorder???😉
You shoudn’t…but…
Thats exactly what you just did…
Whats next?
The omnipotent natural selection should come to the rescue of the phylosophical world view rather than the evidence as it has many times before?
Lets see…🤨
BruceS,
Dawkins has a good chapter, in The Extended Phenotype, on difficulties attaching to the term ‘fitness’ – “An Agony in Five Fits”. It’s a work aimed at specialists, though in an Afterword, Dennett praises it as a work of philosophy too.
There was a time when the Wikipedia article on fitness reported John Maynard Smith as saying fitness was “a bugger”, though it is not there now – that may well have been made up!
No, I was in my own subtle and charming way telling you that age dependent processes, such as development and senescence, don’t require genomic changes.
Rumraket,
At this point in the video you linked to they have written, “Sure we can observe microgrowth…”. Can we? Would we be able to look at this sapling and actually detect growth?
And now it’s time for me to refer to Goethe (surprise! surprise!) Goethe referred to the human being as the most perfect scientific instrument, as the “most exact physical apparatus”. The brain can be thought of as an organ of perception. Using our eyes we see disjointed snapshots. But using our minds we can combine the static perceptions that we receive through our senses into the dynamic reality of our world. We can see the ever changing forms using the mind’s eye.We see the ever changing forms whether it be in individual organisms or in species or in life as a whole.
Look at that sapling in the video through a microscope and you will see plenty of movement, but this is only a confirmation of what we can already see with our minds.
Evolution and individual development are the same in essence.
No they aren’t.