Darwins Doubt - Cambrian Explosion

[mindlight]

I am currently reading a fantastic book by Dr Stephen C Meyer (PhD from Cambridge University) called "Darwins doubt". In his origin of species and in discussion with the top biologists of his age Darwin admitted that the Cambrian explosion of complex life forms without precursors in the fossil record posed a potentially insurmountable problem for his theory. Darwinists have not subsequently been able to resolve this problem and have been unable to demonstrate any precursors to the fossils that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian era nor fill in the key gaps and especially at nodal points of the intermediate fossil record in the so called tree of life. Indeed finds such as in Chengjiang in China demonstrate instead that there are even more fossils without precursors than were originally thought.

Does the Cambrian explosion make the theory of evolution untenable?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am currently reading a fantastic book by Dr Stephen C Meyer (PhD from Cambridge University) called "Darwins doubt". In his origin of species and in discussion with the top biologists of his age Darwin admitted that the Cambrian explosion of complex life forms without precursors in the fossil record posed a potentially insurmountable problem for his theory. Darwinists have not subsequently been able to resolve this problem and have been unable to demonstrate any precursors to the fossils that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian era nor fill in the key gaps and especially at nodal points of the intermediate fossil record in the so called tree of life. Indeed finds such as in Chengjiang in China demonstrate instead that there are even more fossils without precursors than were originally thought.

Does the Cambrian explosion make the theory of evolution untenable?

No. There have been recent discoveries of Precambrian precursors. See Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?

"Late Precambrian fossil discoveries also now include representatives of sponges, cnidarians (the group that includes modern jellyfish, corals and anemones), mollusks and various wormlike groups. Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans. The discovery of such precursors shows that the Cambrian organisms did not appear from thin air."​

 

[mindlight]

No. There have been recent discoveries of Precambrian precursors. See Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?

"Late Precambrian fossil discoveries also now include representatives of sponges, cnidarians (the group that includes modern jellyfish, corals and anemones), mollusks and various wormlike groups. Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans. The discovery of such precursors shows that the Cambrian organisms did not appear from thin air."​

Yes Meyer addresses this rather feeble attempt to explain the problem away (Chapter on the Not missing fossils) that has been employed for what seem like ideological reasons as the evidence does not support them. For example 20 distinct Phyla type fossils spontaneously emerged in the Cambrian era. In the preceding pre- Cambian eras there were only 3 and they were not morphologically analogous to most of the forms that spontaneously emerged in the Cambrian era. The preCambian fossil precursors are missing and there is not really away around the problem for evolutionists. Gould tried by suggesting punctuated equilibrium (evolution by jerks as opposed to evolution by creeps) but the lack of experimental forms in the fossil record give no evidential grounds to support his theory.

As Budd and Jensens analysis of this concluded:

"The expected Darwinian pattern of a deep fossil history of the bilaterians, potentially showing their gradual development , stretching hundreds of millions of years into the Precambrian has singularly failed to materialise."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes Meyer addresses this rather feeble attempt to explain the problem away (Chapter on the Not missing fossils) that has been employed for what seem like ideological reasons as the evidence does not support them. For example 20 distinct Phyla type fossils spontaneously emerged in the Cambrian era. In the preceding pre- Cambian eras there were only 3 and they were not morphologically analogous to most of the forms that spontaneously emerged in the Cambrian era. The preCambian fossil precursors are missing and there is not really away around the problem for evolutionists. Gould tried by suggesting punctuated equilibrium (evolution by jerks as opposed to evolution by creeps) but the lack of experimental forms in the fossil record give no evidential grounds to support his theory.

As Budd and Jensens analysis of this concluded:

"The expected Darwinian pattern of a deep fossil history of the bilaterians, potentially showing their gradual development , stretching hundreds of millions of years into the Precambrian has singularly failed to materialise."

I'm not well up on this era, but I'd expect a paucity of mainly soft-bodied precursors at such early times. It seems Meyer's analysis isn't widely accepted - it's generated very little interest in the field. You might be interested in this (unflattering) review of Meyer's book.

 

[That Guy 11200]

No. There have been recent discoveries of Precambrian precursors. See Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?

"Late Precambrian fossil discoveries also now include representatives of sponges, cnidarians (the group that includes modern jellyfish, corals and anemones), mollusks and various wormlike groups. Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans. The discovery of such precursors shows that the Cambrian organisms did not appear from thin air."​

We've known about multicelled pre-Cambrian (Ediacran) eucaryotes for many decades. As you hint at in your second post, the current thinking is that it was hard parts, like calcite shells, that evolved around the beginning of the Cambrian that meant organisms were much more likely to be fossilised than those that came before.
Dr Meyer apparently only has a PhD in the history and philosophy of science and a BSc in physics from some Christian college.
Frankly, when people try to argue against well established science based on their pre-existing belief of "Goddidit", as well as only having an understanding of biology that's 150 years out of date, they have no credibility as far as the science is concerned.

 

[mindlight]

.

 

[mindlight]

I'm not well up on this era, but I'd expect a paucity of mainly soft-bodied precursors at such early times. It seems Meyer's analysis isn't widely accepted - it's generated very little interest in the field. You might be interested in this (unflattering) review of Meyer's book.

Boy that guy clearly felt threatened enough to go for it. Though in fairness to Meyer it seems he missed a lot of the points. The criticism of the molecular clock concept and the diversity of ways in which it has been applied (yielding massive discrepancies in dating) for instance was not really addressed and the assumptions that Meyer exposed as self referential but not substantiated by the fossil record simply taken for granted. The reviewer simply spouts the mainstream chronology and ignores the complexity and uniqueness and the lack of analogy between the morphology of the sparse supply of Ediacaran fossils and those of the Cambrian era. He ignores the immense diversity of timescales in the various molecular clock dating schemes and the priorities they attach to links for one body part or another. He may in fact of completely misread the chapter on phylogenetics. It is clear he weights molecular / genetic evidence over fossil evidence but this kind of self verifying assumption is not really science.

As Meyer said the fossils had already testified and revealed a lack of evidence and precursors:

"the testimony of the genes ( and other key indicators of biological history) is grossly inconsistent and that genetic testimony has come to us through a translator, who is shaping the way the jury perceives the evidence"

This review is a perfect example of exactly this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Boy that guy clearly felt threatened enough to go for it. Though in fairness to Meyer it seems he missed a lot of the points. The criticism of the molecular clock concept and the diversity of ways in which it has been applied (yielding massive discrepancies in dating) for instance was not really addressed and the assumptions that Meyer exposed as self referential but not substantiated by the fossil record simply taken for granted. The reviewer simply spouts the mainstream chronology and ignores the complexity and uniqueness and the lack of analogy between the morphology of the sparse supply of Ediacaran fossils and those of the Cambrian era. He ignores the immense diversity of timescales in the various molecular clock dating schemes and the priorities they attach to links for one body part or another. He may in fact of completely misread the chapter on phylogenetics. It is clear he weights molecular / genetic evidence over fossil evidence but this kind of self verifying assumption is not really science.

As Meyer said the fossils had already testified and revealed a lack of evidence and precursors:

"the testimony of the genes ( and other key indicators of biological history) is grossly inconsistent and that genetic testimony has come to us through a translator, who is shaping the way the jury perceives the evidence"

This review is a perfect example of exactly this.

You appear to have that 100% backwards. Meyer is a failed biologist, the person that reviewed his book is highly active in the field.

 

[mindlight]

You appear to have that 100% backwards. Meyer is a failed biologist, the person that reviewed his book is highly active in the field.

Yet I wonder who sells more books.

 

[Goonie]

Yet I wonder who sells more books.

Science is not a popularity contest. I’m sure holy blood and the holy grail, and the davinci Code sold millions but they are still total rubbish.

 

[mindlight]

Science is not a popularity contest. I’m sure holy blood and the holy grail, and the davinci Code sold millions but they are still total rubbish.

When it comes to asserting the great delusion that we have a naturalistic explanation for the origin of all life as opposed to a Divine one the popularity contest matters. Fortunately more than half of all Americans and most of the Christian church and much of the Muslim world still believe either in ID or Creationism. Science is trying to close down the gaps this book exposed and increasingly asserts a one dimensional language system that closes down constructive critique. When a colossus becomes a self referential closed bubble of consciousness like this its grasp on reality is going to be loosened even if those trapped inside that bubble cannot see that happening. Fact is there are gaps in the fossil record and crucially of those intermediate nodal fossils on which the whole tree of life myth depends. That science has invented new phylogenetic ways to support those links even without direct fossil evidence is deeply concerning as it depends on blind faith in the wisdom of the system and process itself. It is not a faith that I and increasing number of people have. But I do not want to reject science nor be antiscientific per see cause of all the wonderful things it has achieved. It is just that science is not real science when it talks about origins

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet I wonder who sells more books.

The proper question is who has more publications in well respected peer reviewed journals. The fact that J.K. Rowlings has outpublished both of them put together times a hundred does not make her books definitive, why do you think that numbers would give Meyers and edge?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When it comes to asserting the great delusion that we have a naturalistic explanation for the origin of all life as opposed to a Divine one the popularity contest matters. Fortunately more than half of all Americans and most of the Christian church and much of the Muslim world still believe either in ID or Creationism. Science is trying to close down the gaps this book exposed and increasingly asserts a one dimensional language system that closes down constructive critique. When a colossus becomes a self referential closed bubble of consciousness like this its grasp on reality is going to be loosened even if those trapped inside that bubble cannot see that happening. Fact is there are gaps in the fossil record and crucially of those intermediate nodal fossils on which the whole tree of life myth depends. That science has invented new phylogenetic ways to support those links even without direct fossil evidence is deeply concerning as it depends on blind faith in the wisdom of the system and process itself. It is not a faith that I and increasing number of people have. But I do not want to reject science nor be antiscientific per see cause of all the wonderful things it has achieved. It is just that science is not real science when it talks about origins

Yes, the fact that most Americans are sadly ignorant about the sciences is a "cross" that we must bear. The good news is that every generation fewer and fewer Americans believe the myth and accept the science. Most Americans actually either accept evolution or a guided evolution.

The so called "gaps" in the fossil record are understood and predicted. There are very few "gaps" in the DNA evidence that tells us that we evolved. In fact any biologist will tell you that even without the fossil record the fact that we evolved is obvious. The fossil record is merely the most obvious evidence for the uneducated, and even they must make wild excuse to avoid the fact that we are evolved beings.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, the fact that most Americans are sadly ignorant about the sciences is a "cross" that we must bear. The good news is that every generation fewer and fewer Americans believe the myth and accept the science. Most Americans actually either accept evolution or a guided evolution.

The so called "gaps" in the fossil record are understood and predicted. There are very few "gaps" in the DNA evidence that tells us that we evolved. In fact any biologist will tell you that even without the fossil record the fact that we evolved is obvious. The fossil record is merely the most obvious evidence for the uneducated, and even they must make wild excuse to avoid the fact that we are evolved beings.

Indeed - when Darwin and Wallace's theory of evolution by natural selection finally provided an elegant and natural explanation for the many years of accumulated evidence of the fact of evolution, it didn't take very long for the majority of biblical creationist members of the scientific societies to realise that God's handiwork in the world itself clearly superseded a literal interpretation of scriptural creation.

The new creationist movement started in the America of the 1920s as a reaction to the arrival of science education in the poorer states, and found a ready audience, encouraged by fire & brimstone literalist preachers who felt it was a threat to their influence.

 

[mindlight]

Yes, the fact that most Americans are sadly ignorant about the sciences is a "cross" that we must bear. The good news is that every generation fewer and fewer Americans believe the myth and accept the science. Most Americans actually either accept evolution or a guided evolution.

The so called "gaps" in the fossil record are understood and predicted. There are very few "gaps" in the DNA evidence that tells us that we evolved. In fact any biologist will tell you that even without the fossil record the fact that we evolved is obvious. The fossil record is merely the most obvious evidence for the uneducated, and even they must make wild excuse to avoid the fact that we are evolved beings.

You read the DNA with the assumption that similarities are links rather than ways in which the Creator solved similiar problems in different creatures. You ignore the vast number of differences in what is called junk code. Different scientists prioritise different kinds of ways of linking one creatures DNA with anothers and produce vastly disparate dating schemes as a result. You ignore the fact that there are next to no physical fossils demonstrating the necessary precursors to those first found in the Cambrian era. In effect you read the evidence according to your ideological commitment and find what you are looking for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You read the DNA with the assumption that similarities are links rather than ways in which the Creator solved similiar problems in different creatures. You ignore the vast number of differences in what is called junk code. Different scientists prioritise different kinds of ways of linking one creatures DNA with anothers and produce vastly disparate dating schemes as a result. You ignore the fact that there are next to no physical fossils demonstrating the necessary precursors to those first found in the Cambrian era. In effect you read the evidence according to your ideological commitment and find what you are looking for.

Once again you are projecting your flaws upon others. Assumptions of the sort that you mentioned are not allowed in the sciences. Perhaps instead of ignoring what we know you could try to learn a little.

And there are precursors to the Cambrian, you simply are unaware of them. You need to ask yourself some questions first, for example:

What event occurred in the Cambrian that made it so significant in the world of fossils?

 

[Strathos]

When it comes to asserting the great delusion that we have a naturalistic explanation for the origin of all life

ToE claims no such thing actually.

 

[mindlight]

ToE claims no such thing actually.

True sorry.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is little doubt in my mind - and as far as I can determine in the minds of those who are experts in the field - that the Cambrian explosion has still not been fully explained. This is hardly surprsing. We are seeking to elucidate events occuring up to one billion years ago and have only been working on the problem for less than two centuries.

Recognising that this still requires a great deal of work is, however, hardly the same thing as believing there is no natural explanation for it. If we still don't have an explanation in 2117 then creationists might have grounds for asking again. Until then a dignified and respectful silence would be more appropriate.

 

[Gene2memE]

Rapid morphological radiations are a feature of evolutionary biology - and there are (at least) a dozen such recorded in the fossil record, outside of the Cambrian Explosion.

It's weird, truly weird, how cdesign proponentsists seem obsessed with the Cambrian all because Darwin acknowledged it as an issue for more research in Origin of Species. Its almost as if they are unaware how much our knowledge of the Cambrian biota, and the Ediacaran biota, and evolution in general, has changed in the past ~160 years.

You could even talk about an Ediacaran explosion. Although it occurs over a longer period, and is not as diverse, there are at least eight phyla that appear in the period, and possibly as many as 13, depending on how you classify some of the fossils (which is very much an open issue at the time).

The rapid diversification of land plants in the Ordovician is just as significant in evolutionary development terms as the Cambrian explosion, but for some reason the rapid diversification of animals 540-510 million years ago get more attention than the rapid diversification of plants 450 to 420 million years ago. Maybe we're just biased towards things that move?