Darwins Doubt - Cambrian Explosion

[DogmaHunter]

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.

That's just false.
Did you actually read up on biology and the progress it has made, since Darwin?

Does the Cambrian explosion make the theory of evolution untenable?

No, not at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yet I wonder who sells more books.

Harry Potter. But I don't see how that's relevant.

 

[Larniavc]

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?

How many millions of years is you definition of spontaneous in this case?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

When trying to answer questions about observable reality, "popularity" never matters.
It's the actual evidence that 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.

That's actually false. Most christians have no problems with modern evolutionary biology.

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.

Projection

Fact is there are gaps in the fossil record

Which is to be expected, considering how hard it is for a cadaver to fossilize.
In fact, it would require its own explanation if fossils would NOT be rare.

and crucially of those intermediate nodal fossils on which the whole tree of life myth depends.

There are plenty of those - most fossils are such actually.
But I'm guessing you are talking about the nonsensical "crockoduck" or alike.

We don't have such fossils for a good reason: they can't exist according to evolution theory. If you would find one of them, then evolution as we know it would be falsified.

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.

Science didn't "invent" phylogenies. Phylogenies were concluded / suggested by comparative genetics. These patterns aren't invented. Instead, these patterns factually exist within our collective DNA.

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

I think what you really means is: "science is not real science if it contradicts my a priori religious beliefs"

 

[DogmaHunter]

You read the DNA with the assumption that similarities are links rather than ways in which the Creator solved similiar problems in different creatures.

It is no assumption that mapping DNA matches on a tree end up exhibited a nested hierarchy.
It is no assumption that genetic changes in generation X are inherited by generation X+1.

You ignore the vast number of differences in what is called junk code.

Nope. Even "junk" DNA exhibits the exact same nested hierarchy.

Different scientists prioritise different kinds of ways of linking one creatures DNA with anothers and produce vastly disparate dating schemes as a result.

No. There's no "different ways" to count DNA matches. DNA markers/sequences either match or they do not.

You ignore the fact that there are next to no physical fossils demonstrating the necessary precursors to those first found in the Cambrian era.

We are not ignoring anything.
Instead, you are pretending as if it is a problem, while it is not.

First, we have plenty of pre-cambrian artefacts.
Second, much of that life was soft-bodied, which is even more dificult to preserve then hard bodies. Next to impossible, in fact.

In effect you read the evidence according to your ideological commitment and find what you are looking for.

Says the creationist with a priori religious beliefs..........................................
Evolution could be proven to you black on white in extreme detail and still you'll be blind to that evidence and stick with your bible. Simply because it is part of the dogmatic doctrine that you are religiously required to adhere to.

YOU are the one with the a priori "ideological commitment" here.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

In the interests of balance I'd be interested to hear the Creationist explanation for the Cambrian Explosion.

 

[mindlight]

In the interests of balance I'd be interested to hear the Creationist explanation for the Cambrian Explosion.

Well that would be my actual view rather than the ID one I was simply quoting.

In a word the Flood.

 

[mindlight]

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.

At least you are honest enough to admit there is an issue here. Intelligent Designers are different from Creationists cause they broadly accept the age of the earth and the view that these geological layers on hundreds of millions even billions of years old. They basically suggest that the spontaneous emergence of most of the Phyla present in the Cambrian layer is unsupported by precursors in the previous layers. Creationists do not have an issue with the Cambrian explosion cause it was all done rapidly and catastrophically by the global flood just 4-5000 years ago. But I completely disagree that alternate viewpoints should simply surrender the floor here to evolutionists. Freedom of thought and discussion is essential to true science.

 

[mindlight]

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?

LOL you have clearly never questioned the assumptions and use of high probability matching that characterises the so called alignments that BLAST and NaligN produce for homologous mappings. There is no absolute precision or certainty here in the methodologies employed.

 

[mindlight]

That's just false.
Did you actually read up on biology and the progress it has made, since Darwin?



No, not at all.

Yes I have done some reading. The current mainstream view is:

" Almost all present animal phyla appeared during this period"

That is to say while some Phyla appeared in the Ediacaran era before that of the Cambrian the vast majority appeared without precursors in the Cambrian era.

Attempts to rescue the theory of evolution from this problem by using phylogenetic linkages are not based on much actual physical evidence.

 

[mindlight]

How many millions of years is you definition of spontaneous in this case?

As a Creationist I would have to say that millions of years is not spontaneous at all. But the ID guys are right in suggesting that some of the Phyla fossils that simply appeared without precursors in the Cambrian era are too complex to have evolved by chance in the relatively short time (by evolutionary standards and requirements) allotted to them by the geological record. Gould tried to get round this issue with his punctuated equilibrium theory. This failed because there is also a complete dearth of experimental fossil forms in the geological record of this time. Most types of Phyla simply appear in the Cambrian without precursors.

 

[tas8831]

Boy that guy clearly felt threatened enough to go for it.

So what was Meyer threatened enough by to write a book on a subject that he has no track record or recognized expertise in?

 

[Almost there]

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."

You are going to get the kind of argument you are refuting ad-nausium. I've found that with controversial issues like this, no amount of proof will suffice. It's one of the reasons I stopped debating this years ago, though I accidentally stepped on a mine when I first joined this site.

It's obvious to me that the more we know, the more evidence we find for design, but there are a lot of people with a deep personal interest in keeping the religion of Evolution as the origin of species alive. Nothing regarding intellectual knowledge or wisdom will convince them. It takes a heart change which will be followed by a major paradigm shift.

Pssst...and don't mention the scientists that still believe God did it...

 

[tas8831]

Yet I wonder who sells more books.

Relevance?

Meyer and his ilk have a 'built in' audience of people who are often urged to buy their books and read their essays from the pulp[it. Add to that the fact that the target audience of such books generally lack the requisite knowledge base to tell whether the things in such books have merit, and you have an army of 5-star raters on Amazon that have no idea whether what they read made scientific sense.

 

[mindlight]

It is no assumption that mapping DNA matches on a tree end up exhibited a nested hierarchy.
It is no assumption that genetic changes in generation X are inherited by generation X+1.



Nope. Even "junk" DNA exhibits the exact same nested hierarchy.



No. There's no "different ways" to count DNA matches. DNA markers/sequences either match or they do not.



We are not ignoring anything.
Instead, you are pretending as if it is a problem, while it is not.

First, we have plenty of pre-cambrian artefacts.
Second, much of that life was soft-bodied, which is even more dificult to preserve then hard bodies. Next to impossible, in fact.



Says the creationist with a priori religious beliefs..........................................
Evolution could be proven to you black on white in extreme detail and still you'll be blind to that evidence and stick with your bible. Simply because it is part of the dogmatic doctrine that you are religiously required to adhere to.

YOU are the one with the a priori "ideological commitment" here.

So what your saying is that the fossil record is not an adequate source to support the theory of evolution at these levels. Where then is the proof?

 

[Almost there]

Science is not a popularity contest.

Tell that to Al Gore.

 

[Almost there]

So what was Meyer threatened enough by to write a book on a subject that he has no track record or recognized expertise in?

What's with the Ad-hominem attacks? Sheesh.

 

[mindlight]

You are going to get the kind of argument you are refuting ad-nausium. I've found that with controversial issues like this, no amount of proof will suffice. It's one of the reasons I stopped debating this years ago, though I accidentally stepped on a mine when I first joined this site.

It's obvious to me that the more we know, the more evidence we find for design, but there are a lot of people with a deep personal interest in keeping the religion of Evolution as the origin of species alive. Nothing regarding intellectual knowledge or wisdom will convince them. It takes a heart change which will be followed by a major paradigm shift.

Pssst...and don't mention the scientists that still believe God did it...

Maybe but the exercise is also valuable to clarify what can and cannot be argued. There are patterns in the rocks which we may never explain and knowing what is a credible thing to say , what is argumentative but hollow and what cannot be supported in any which way or form is a helpful process born of combat in my view.

 

[mindlight]

Relevance?

Meyer and his ilk have a 'built in' audience of people who are often urged to buy their books and read their essays from the pulp[it. Add to that the fact that the target audience of such books generally lack the requisite knowledge base to tell whether the things in such books have merit, and you have an army of 5-star raters on Amazon that have no idea whether what they read made scientific sense.

As a creationist I am far from agreeing with Meyer on the age of the earth or the necessity of macroevolution as an explanatory paradigm per see. But he gives a good overview of the Cambrian Explosion discussion and raises interesting and well communicated questions in his book. All truthes need testing in the end.

 

[tas8831]

You read the DNA with the assumption that similarities are links rather than ways in which the Creator solved similiar problems in different creatures.

Actually, we look for patterns of shared mutation using methods that have been tested on knowns:



Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns of shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this is, in fact, based on tested methods:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.

You ignore the vast number of differences in what is called junk code.

In reality, the "junk code" contains a lot of very useful data in terms of evolution. Such DNA is under less constraint than is coding sequence, and so can accumulate more mutation, and this makes it easier for analytical programs to operate efficiently.


I know this because my line of research in graduate school specifically used noncoding DNA to look at phylogenetic relationships.