Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Günter Bechly: Species pairs as a new challenge to Darwinists

arroba Email

Does this mean humans are responsible for maintaining the planet?:

There is no conceivable reason why a disparity like that between Pakicetus and Basilosaurus should be limited to the fossil record, where it can be found in numerous examples among all groups of organisms, while being totally absent among the millions of recent species. So, let’s be generous and not restrict the challenge to the TimeTree database. Just find any pair of species among the millions of living species to meet the challenge. Only one! Come on, if unguided evolution really can do its magic, this should not be too difficult, should it? Well, I won’t hold my breath, but if the challenge cannot be met, Darwinists should be asked to explain why.

Here is my explanation. Darwinism is wrong, and this applies not only to the neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection but to any unguided evolutionary processes including those suggested by proponents of the so-called Extended Synthesis (e.g., Shapiro et al. 2014, Laland et al. 2014, 2015, Garte 2016, Müller 2016, 2017).

There is no evolutionary reason why the creative power of this process should have been active over all of Earth history but then ceased to function within the past 10 million years. Intelligent design proponents can easily explain this pattern: there was creative intelligent intervention in the history of life, but this creative activity deliberately ceased with the arrival of humans as the final telos. Any further explanation would have to transgress the methodological limits of the design inference, but Judeo-Christian theists will certainly recognize an eerie correspondence with the Biblical message, which says that God rested from his creative activity after the creation of humans (Genesis 2:2-3).

Günter Bechly, “Species Pairs: A New Challenge to Darwinists” at Evolution News and Science Today (April 25, 2022)
ChDarw: The "supposed" time frame of whale evolution is around 15 million years. Bechly knows this. Again--and I'm not going back to dig this up for you but encourage you to do so, my memory tells me that the fine point he's making is that the last stage of this 15 million years ( the 4.5 million) is where we finally see a transition to a fully aquatic way of life. As to Daley's paper, Bechly is talking about "body plans." While arthropods "diversified" over millions and millions of years, its "appearance" is abrupt: that is, "saltational." PaV
ChuckDarwin- Email ENV to inquire about the challenge. Ask for clarification and references for that 4.5 million years. ET
CD @ 4, 7 & 9: In Arthur Hunt's response to Bechly, he states, "There are clearly limits to what unguided evolution can do within a few million years, and these limits are far below the level of any major body plan transitions." Surely going from Pakicetis to Basilosaurus qualifies as a major body plan transition, even for 15 million years. However, to answer your question about the 4.5 million year window, here is a popular humorous YouTube video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq_oYftA2ow And he posted a follow-up video to counter the critiques raised against the first one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCM1MjEFvqE They also provide numerous backup references for you to dig into if you are so inclined. I hope this addresses the question you asked. Fasteddious
PaVB/8 You are missing my point: I'm trying to identify where in the literature on whale evolution the data show, as Bechly claims, that the transition from terrestrial ungulates to water-bound whales took only 4.5 million years. For example, in the very first sentence in Wiki's article on whale evolution one finds:
The evolution of cetaceans is thought to have begun in the Indian subcontinent from even-toed ungulates 50 million years ago (mya) and to have proceeded over a period of at least 15 million years. (emphasis added) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans)
This time frame is three times longer than Bechly's. In this same vein, there's another issue I found while looking at sources that Bechly does cite in the EN article linked to this post. Bechly states:
As I have laid out in various publications (e.g., Bechly & Meyer 2017) and lectures, the fossil record demonstrates that the history of life was not a series of gradual transformations by an accumulation of small changes over long periods of time. Instead of conforming to this gradualist prediction of Darwin’s theory of evolution, the fossil record consistently documents a series of saltational transitions with abrupt appearances of new body plans within very short windows of time.
Bechly then cites Daley , et al., for a different point, but if you actually read the paper, this statement occurs at the very end of the paper pertaining to evolution of arthropods:
The fossil record of euarthropods provides our most complete view of the origin and radiation of a major phylum during the Cambrian explosion. Rather than being a sudden event, this diversification unfolded gradually over 40 million years of the lower to middle Cambrian, with no evidence of a deep Precambrian history. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1719962115, (emphasis added)
CD/7: Bechley is looking at the transition from to a completely aquatic form of life, which, apparently, happened within a 4.5 million year time frame. (From what I remember reading) PaV
PaV/5 What I meant was where in the literature are the data supporting the 4.5 million year transition? Even if they are directly dating the fossils, they must be reporting that data somewhere. In all of the literature I’ve read related to whale evolution, the transitional time from ungulates to whales is 12 to 15 million years. chuckdarwin
That is an excellent presentation. I have not seen that argument before. Expertly done. Silver Asiatic
CD: I presume the 4.5 million year transition comes directly from the fossil record. PaV
Bechley states:
Whales are thought to be nested in and derived from artiodactyl ungulates. The fossil record shows that the transition from quadrupedal whale ancestors similar to Raoellidae (such as Indohyus) and Pakicetidae to fully marine pelagicete whales like Basilosauridae happened in just 4.5 million years. This implies that the body plan transition from a pig-like animal to a dolphin-like animal happened within the lifespan of a single species.
Where does the 4.5 million year transition number come from? chuckdarwin
Here is the downfall of Arthur Hunt's argument: the "genetics" behind this grand assertion that all these wildly divergent forms are related comes from "electrophoresis," with the page not having been updated since 2000! Genomics has come a long way since then. As to the "Silversword" species themselves, here are some Google images you might want to look at. PaV
Like the chump he is Arthur Hunt changes the challenge and claims victory: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/answering-bechlys-challenge/15020/1 Unfortunately, Arthur cannot demonstrate that blind and mindless processes produced the HSA or its variants ET
He does make valid points. I've yet to hear any Darwinist make valid points of their own. Basing things on assumption of what they believe should happen, rather than follow the actual evidence of what is witnessed should be expected. BobRyan

Leave a Reply