Günter Bechly issues a challenge

[lee_merrill]

New body plans are the product of many, many individual changes. If we're looking for something like that happening now, then we'd just see a small number of changes that wouldn't obviously be part of a transition towards anything in particular.

Please re-read the opening post, Bechly is looking for divergence about 5 million years ago, with changes happening during that time, to produce a difference in body plan like the examples he has listed.

Source: Bechly

... 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.

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Well, they're still more that 5-10 million years apart.


To quote from the opening post: "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."

Blessings,
Lee

The problem with this is you are not citing an actual legitimate peer reviewed journal concerning how actual scientists consider these relationships.

No, it is not valid, because it is claiming an unethical 'argument from ignorance' from a non-scientific source to justify an ID religious agenda.

Again, again and again . . . There are no new body plans,

[Roy]

I would have gone for the reddish one above that.

The black one looks to have bristles around its beak, which are common in flycatchers.

[Roy]

Please re-read the opening post, Bechly is looking for divergence about 5 million years ago, with changes happening during that time, to produce a difference in body plan like the examples he has listed.

And the changes in Hawaiian honeycreepers meet that challenge, as do the other examples provided.

[lee_merrill]

And the changes in Hawaiian honeycreepers meet that challenge, as do the other examples provided.

But a new bill shape would not be a new body plan...

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

But a new bill shape would not be a new body plan...

Blessings,
Lee

Why not? Bechly's definition is so nebulous that virtually any change can count.

And there is considerably more to it than a new beak size. Often tongues and digestive systems evolve more than the beak does although we tend to focus on the latter because it is the most visible

[shunyadragon]

But a new bill shape would not be a new body plan...

Blessings,
Lee

False, a new bill shape would NOT be a new body plan. no more than a new nose shape would be a new body plan, there fore humans have lots and lots of new body plans.

[shunyadragon]

But a new bill shape would not be a new body plan...

Blessings,
Lee

Do you understand what 'body plan' means in biology and comparative anatomy?

[lee_merrill]

Why not? Bechly's definition is so nebulous that virtually any change can count.

But Bechly gives examples.

Do you understand what 'body plan' means in biology and comparative anatomy?

Worms to trilobites was one of Bechly's examples.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

But Bechly gives examples.


Worms to trilobites was one of Bechly's examples.

Blessings,
Lee

I believe Bechly nor you still do not understand the basics of the 'body plans' of life developed when life first evolved.

More to follow . . .

[shunyadragon]

But Bechly gives examples.


Worms to trilobites was one of Bechly's examples.

Blessings,
Lee

The concept of 'body plans' play a role in understanding evolution over time and comparative anatomy, but the validity of evolution is not dependent on the nature of 'body plans.'

A few basic points of primer on 'body plans'

1, Body plans are classified based on types, symmetrical and asymmetrical, and degree of complexity.
2. Animals change in various forms of symmetry as they develop form simple radial symmetry to bilateral symmetry to complex forms and asymmetry. For example. Flounder change simple radial symmetry in the embryonic form to bilateral symmetry ike most fiches to asymmetry as they grow from embryos to adult.

The issue of 'body plans is simply descriptive of the nature of life and not an argument for or against evolution.

Worms in the adult form have a more primitive form of bilateral symmetry with a distinct head and tail.

Trilobites evolved in complexity of body plan bilateral symmetry with no eyes simple segmentation to a more complex form of bilateral symmetry with yes a distinct head, tail and a more complex segmentation showing stages of complexity from their more primitive worm-like ancestors.,


See:

Source: https://www.amnh.org/research/paleontology/collections/fossil-invertebrate-collection/trilobite-website/the-trilobite-files/trilobite-morphology

Sure, not all trilobites looked the same. Some trilobites had eyes… some didn't. Others possessed long, flowing genal spines while others displayed little more than vestigial stumps. Certain species featured posterior appendages comprised of sharply pointed spikes, while others exhibited tail spines that occasionally exceeded the length of their entire bodies. Some trilobites were designed like a hydrodynamic rocket ship while others resembled nothing more than a primordial meatloaf. A few early species even featured a strange, multi-segmented opistothorax, which provided bold evidence of the trilobites' even more primitive, worm-like predecessors.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

But Bechly gives examples.


Worms to trilobites was one of Bechly's examples.

Blessings,
Lee

To add: Bechly failed to provide good peer reviewed articles to support his claim.

The reality is worms and trilobites have the same bilateral symmetry, but vary only in complexity of form. and triilobites show a clear evolution of form from simple worm like trilobites to trilobites with complex segmented forms.

Please learn to distinguish from complexity of form and size and shape from 'body plans.'

On change in worms over time is that the most primitive worms lack distinctive top and bottom while later worms show more complex top and bottom body forms, but all show bilateral symmetry.

[lee_merrill]

To add: Bechly failed to provide good peer reviewed articles to support his claim.

But it's more of a challenge, instead of a claim.

The reality is worms and trilobites have the same bilateral symmetry, but vary only in complexity of form. and triilobites show a clear evolution of form from simple worm like trilobites to trilobites with complex segmented forms.

Please learn to distinguish from complexity of form and size and shape from 'body plans.'

But I think complexity of form is part of distinguishing body plans, as indeed you said here: "Body plans are classified based on types, symmetrical and asymmetrical, and degree of complexity."

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

But it's more of a challenge, instead of a claim.

Cut the fishy wiggling. EVERY challenge reflects a claim.

But I think complexity of form is part of distinguishing body plans, as indeed you said here: "Body plans are classified based on types, symmetrical and asymmetrical, and degree of complexity."

Blessings,
Lee

. . . But I think, . . . is absolutely meaningless, and you are taking me out of context. The complexity in body plans is clearly misunderstood by you reflecting your religious agenda. The flounder was given as a reference as a complex change in 'body plan' progressive maturing of individuals yjrough different 'body plans within the same species resulting in an asymetric adult

My reference and others I can cite clearly demonstrate the 'body plan' relationship and incremental increase in complexity between worms and Trilobites. In fact this is well documented incremental evolution of trilobites from simple worm like ancestors to Trilobites. Not complex ata all, and no change in basic 'body plan. The complex shapes of later Trilobites do not reflect a change in 'body plan.' by definition and reference provided

Also, as I have responded and cited it is abundantly clear that both Bechly and you are clueless s to what 'body plans' are and how they relate to the classification of life and evolution.of life.

You will always fall back on the bogus complexity argument in almost every thread.

[Darth Executor]

They could out-compete the species in that niche, though, re all the invasive plants and animals that plague Australia and other countries.

Blessings,
Lee

Invasive species are already adapted, in that native species are not adapted to defend against them, and/or they have no natural predators in their new environment. If a native species starts evolving towards the body plan of one of your ideal predators, their prey usually adapts as well. Since the changes are slow it's highly unlikely to ever reach the disparity you see with invasive species.

A species that already occupies a niche gains no advantage by going to war with another species to occupy their niche, for which they are already not suited for. Why would they become less adapted to their current niche just so they can go compete with a species adapted to the target niche? It's dysgenic behavior and thus discouraged by evolution. And it's why you usually need an open niche to get serious changes (beyond genetic drift or other random occurrences). It's better to stay in a niche you are already comfortable in until you are pushed out of it by environmental changes.