Günter Bechly issues a challenge

[lee_merrill]

Günter Bechly issues a challenge to evolutionists to find just one example of the abrupt appearances of new body plans in current species.

Source: Evolution News

Considering the fact that windows of time of only 5-10 million years account for most of the abrupt appearances of new body plans in the fossil record (Bechly & Meyer 2017, Bechly 2021), the Bayesian likelihood of not finding a single example of similar morphological disparity having originated on a similar time frame among the millions of living species is basically close to zero. I consider this simple argument as a final nail in the coffin of Darwinian unguided evolution.


A Public Challenge

Having made my case, I here formally and publicly pose the challenge again to prove me wrong. My dear Darwinist friends and colleagues, please find in the vast database of 97,000 species at TimeTree.org just a single example of any pair of different species that have diverged about 5 million years ago (give or take a few million years) according to a consensus of multiple molecular clock studies, and that exhibit a morphological disparity in their body plans comparable to, say, Pakicetus and Basilosaurus. To be clear, of course no evolutionist ever claimed that Pakicetus was the actual ancestor of Basilosaurus. It rather represented a side branch of the cetacean stem group. But what evolutionists definitely do imply is that the stem species was roughly similar in body plan to Raoellidae and Pakicetidae. Therefore, this challenge is absolutely valid and reasonable.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

Is this guy totally unaware that there are a number of transitionals between Pakicetus and Basilosaurus, such as Ambulocetus, Remingtoncetus, Maiacetus and Rodhocetus -- just to name a few?

[lee_merrill]

Is this guy totally unaware that there are a number of transitionals between Pakicetus and Basilosaurus, such as Ambulocetus, Remingtoncetus, Maiacetus and Rodhocetus -- just to name a few?

I'm sure he is aware of this, and the challenge is to find similar changes in body plans in current species, similar to the changes between Pakicetus and Basilosaurus, with intermediates or not, within about 5 to 10 million years.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

I'm sure he is aware of this, and the challenge is to find similar changes in body plans in current species, similar to the changes between Pakicetus and Basilosaurus, with intermediates or not, within about 5 to 10 million years.

Blessings,
Lee

Based on this response neither of you are aware of the legitimate science involved. 'Arguing from supposed ignorance' of intermediaries is not science.

You have a habit of throwing ID manure against the wall to see if it sticks, and it never does

[Stoic]

I'm sure he is aware of this, and the challenge is to find similar changes in body plans in current species, similar to the changes between Pakicetus and Basilosaurus, with intermediates or not, within about 5 to 10 million years.

I don't know enough to say whether there have been similar changes in body plans in current species over the last 5 to 10 million years, but assuming there haven't, it seems that a reasonable alternative to answering Bechly's challenge would be to explain why there was such a large change in body plans back in the time of Pakicetus and Basilosaurus.

For example, it's interesting that the sea reptiles (plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, and ichthyosaurs) died out during the K-T extinction, and Basilosaurus (among others) appears to have evolved to replace some of them. Perhaps you need a major change to the evolutionary landscape to enable such large changes in body plans.

[rogue06]

I'm sure he is aware of this, and the challenge is to find similar changes in body plans in current species, similar to the changes between Pakicetus and Basilosaurus, with intermediates or not, within about 5 to 10 million years.

Blessings,
Lee

So you have a string of intermediaries between Pakicetus and Basilosaurus, which show things like a lengthening and broadening of a tail as well as movement of nostrils etc. and yet he still wants to argue it is impossible

Sounds like a case of his saying who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes

[rogue06]

I don't know enough to say whether there have been similar changes in body plans in current species over the last 5 to 10 million years, but assuming there haven't, it seems that a reasonable alternative to answering Bechly's challenge would be to explain why there was such a large change in body plans back in the time of Pakicetus and Basilosaurus.

For example, it's interesting that the sea reptiles (plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, and ichthyosaurs) died out during the K-T extinction, and Basilosaurus (among others) appears to have evolved to replace some of them. Perhaps you need a major change to the evolutionary landscape to enable such large changes in body plans.

A mass extinction event, like that which ended the Cretaceous, is followed by a period of rapid diversification and adaptive radiation as the survivors start to fill the ecological niches left empty by the extinction. As they move into the niche they will evolve to better fill it .

[lee_merrill]

For example, it's interesting that the sea reptiles (plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, and ichthyosaurs) died out during the K-T extinction, and Basilosaurus (among others) appears to have evolved to replace some of them. Perhaps you need a major change to the evolutionary landscape to enable such large changes in body plans.

But the K-T boundary is at 65.5 mya, and Basilosaurus appeared about 41.3 to 33.9 mya, so the K-T event would not seem to be within the range of 5-10 million years of Basilosaurus. Apparently such changes are not restricted to times of extinction.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

So you have a string of intermediaries between Pakicetus and Basilosaurus, which show things like a lengthening and broadening of a tail as well as movement of nostrils etc. and yet he still wants to argue it is impossible

Actually, he's arguing that we should see these processes today, if evolution can produce them.

Blessings,
Lee

[Stoic]

But the K-T boundary is at 65.5 mya, and Basilosaurus appeared about 41.3 to 33.9 mya, so the K-T event would not seem to be within the range of 5-10 million years of Basilosaurus. Apparently such changes are not restricted to times of extinction.

I didn't say that all ecological niches would be filled within 5-10 million years. Just that there seems to be a need for an empty ecological niche before you will get that kind of a change in body plan within that period of time.

To put it a little differently, the reason we don't see such processes today may be that the evolutionary landscape has been relatively stable. (I'm not counting the mass extinction that we're in the middle of, because it may be millions of years before it results in new body plans.)

[lee_merrill]

I didn't say that all ecological niches would be filled within 5-10 million years. Just that there seems to be a need for an empty ecological niche before you will get that kind of a change in body plan within that period of time.

Well, why so? Why wouldn't changes accumulate, and creatures change as much during quiet times as during turbulent times?

Blessings,
Lee

[Stoic]

Well, why so? Why wouldn't changes accumulate, and creatures change as much during quiet times as during turbulent times?

Competition. Changes that move them towards a particular niche aren't as likely to be advantageous if there is already a species in that niche.

[rogue06]

And in some cases the same body plan keeps reemerging as a new creature moves into fill a niche. Look at the streamlined shape and prominent dorsal fin of large predatory fish / marine reptiles / marine mammals for just one example:

hqdefault.jpg

[Roy]

Günter Bechly issues a challenge to evolutionists to find just one example of the abrupt appearances of new body plans in current species.

Hawaiian silverswords.
Ferrets and sea otters.
Humans and chimps.

That last one is a particularly good response given Bechly's human-exceptionalism.

But there are numerous problems with Bechly's challenge.

1. He is comparing a period of post-mass-extinction radiation, when there were ecological niches that had been emptied and were being refilled, with a period millions of years later.
2. He has no explicit criteria, only his subjective opinion, and so can make up excuses for dismissing any response (e.g. plants don't count).
3. He is ignoring the responses that have been made.

Bechly's challenge was met less than a day after it was issued, but will forever be claimed unmet by Lee and his cronies. It's a complete sham, as worthless as Hovind's similarly bogus challenges.

[rogue06]

Hawaiian silverswords.
Ferrets and sea otters.
Humans and chimps.

That last one is a particularly good response given Bechly's human-exceptionalism.

But there are numerous problems with Bechly's challenge.

1. He is comparing a period of post-mass-extinction radiation, when there were ecological niches that had been emptied and were being refilled, with a period millions of years later.
2. He has no explicit criteria, only his subjective opinion, and so can make up excuses for dismissing any response (e.g. plants don't count).
3. He is ignoring the responses that have been made.

Bechly's challenge was met less than a day after it was issued, but will forever be claimed unmet by Lee and his cronies. It's a complete sham, as worthless as Hovind's similarly bogus challenges.

Unfortunately, Lee has already demonstrated that he does not understand "1." despite having it explained over and over, again and again, in numerous threads.

Well, why so? Why wouldn't changes accumulate, and creatures change as much during quiet times as during turbulent times?

Blessings,
Lee