Bechly's "Species Pairs" Challenge

I guess he would say plants don’t have a body plan. Notice with creationists they are almost always concerned with animals, and usually vertebrate animals. I thought Bechley was an invertebrate paleontologist so I would think he would be more creative in his examples.

2 Likes

I mean this is just ridiculous. Geckos like Nephrurus and legless geckos like Lialis can’t reproduce either. They have all kinds of differences besides just legs. They are evolved for different lifestyles. They clearly differ in their body plan. That should cover the bet, if it were a sincere bet to begin with, and always with these creationist “challenges” it’s not.

2 Likes

Yabut, muh 5 million years.

If it happened at some other, older geological period, it doesn’t count. Bechly wants the same thing to have happened within the last 5 million years and if it hasn’t, he (a former professional paleontologist) literally cannot even imagine a reason for that in his wildest fantasies.
No conceivable reason he says. It is beyond his capacity to conceive of.

4 Likes

Well, Puck, this nostril migration happens during whale ontogeny, so they yet might over the course of their lifetime

1 Like

Well, in the past 10 years one small lineage of horses, out of many that were around in the late Miocene, lost their second and fourth digits. Major body plan change anybody?

3 Likes

That would also apply to sea otters…

2 Likes

Puck invited me back to this discussion, but he’s already said most of which I thought I could add (i.e., rapid evolution only after major environmental disturbance/organisms radiating into “empty niche” space). I’d also note that in the case of a terrestrial organism adapting to water one would expect there to be very high selective pressure for suitable phenotypic changes, which might explain the relatively short time of the fossil record sequence.

However, I do wonder, if Darwinism is somehow trumped by this, what the ID explanation is. Is it:

  1. The Designer made a special creation of Pakicetus, and then guided its change over time by adding various mutations so that it could rapidly adapt to be some sort of “true” whale?

  2. The Designer created Pakicetus, realized that he/she hadn’t made a very good version of an aquatic mammal, so scratched that and started again ---- several dozen separate creations until we finally arrive at Basilosaurus? Which sort of begs the question, why pick Basilosaurus as some sort of final whale? There’s a huge morphological distance between that critter and the whales of today.

But we know what the ID answer is. Darwinism is questioned, therefore ID by default: the mechanisms and the wherewithal aren’t important.

6 Likes

Bechly is a saltationist, i.e. he appeals to divinely caused macromutation. Apparently God’s plan was to tinker around for a few billion years until he managed to produce, at long last, his intended biosphere. And then he stopped. Once he has evolved humans, the pinnacle of creation, evolution is finished. Thus nothing is supposed to be happening recently.

2 posts were split to a new topic: When did Pakicetus and Basilosaurus Diverge?

Excellent question. Timetree.org doesn’t have any info for Pakicetus.

I’m still confused as to the actual nature of the challenge. He is asking for a extant pair, but gives as the point of comparison two species that were non-contemporaneous. Clearly what he should be asking for is either an extant pair, extant species paired with some fossil, or a extant pair AND some ancestral fossil species.

2 Likes

Ah well, but those horses losing their digits managed to give him the middle finger.

3 Likes

That’s Timetree.org. Treetime.org sounds like an interesting web site, but it appears not to exist.

Just keep reminding yourself that this “challenge” was not issued in good faith, but was just a publicity stunt to impress his fellow creationists. Then there will be nothing left that needs explanation.

4 Likes

If only they could rotate their wrists for a better presentation.

1 Like

I think he changed the “challenge” to say within any time period.

5 posts were split to a new topic: Rudeness from the “DI crew”?

I believe that the only species that can be on timetree.org are ones for which we have molecular sequences. Hence the absence of Pakicetus

Urk! Fixed.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.