Darwins Doubt - Cambrian Explosion

[mindlight]

Um...

I guess you missed the entire point of me posting that:

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

in response to what you had written:

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


What I posted were examples of 'proof of concept' type papers regarding the use of DNA data for phylogenetic research.

You test methods by using knowns.

Yes?

All of that similarity mapping that you say proves this or that is based on computer programmes that assume analogy = homologous and that 98% is a strong match. If the difference makes all the difference these are not viable assumptions.

 

[mindlight]

How is that an explanation?

It is not a purely naturalistic explanation - Facts and miracles are intermingled basically. Basically fossils only form in sedimentary rock. But there is a uniform pattern of fossil deposition across the whole world. The abundance of fossils in the record is explained in scripture in terms of the abundance and longevity that characterised the preflood era. The flood is a supernatural and catastrophic judgment without analogy and the mysterious deposition of the different kinds of fossils in the different layers to do with this unanalogous event.

 

[Jimmy D]

It is not a purely naturalistic explanation - Facts and miracles are intermingled basically. Basically fossils only form in sedimentary rock. But there is a uniform pattern of fossil deposition across the whole world. The abundance of fossils in the record is explained in scripture in terms of the abundance and longevity that characterised the preflood era. The flood is a supernatural and catastrophic judgment without analogy and the mysterious deposition of the different kinds of fossils in the different layers to do with this unanalogous event.

It seems life was restricted to the oceans before this flood, which raises the question of how a flood would kill them.

 

[HitchSlap]

Does the Cambrian explosion make the theory of evolution untenable?

Define "explosion."

 

[Ophiolite]

The way Meyer himself described the process by which he came to write the book was the responses he received from his previous book "the signature in the cell" in which he argued that no chemical processes could spontaneously create the information required for a functioning cell so we had to attribute this to an Intelligence of some sort. This had nothing to do with evolution but was interpreted as such. Eventually he decided to write a book on evolution to deal with these confused and ill-informed responses which had interpreted his book as an attack on evolution

The book arguably focuses on the origin of life, but it also implicitly and explicitly challenges evolutionary theory. I wonder if you have read the book? If so, perhaps you missed these passages*. There are several othersthat are similar.:

page 410
In On the Origin of Species Darwin sought to show that natural selection has creative powers comparable to those of intelligent human breeders. In doing so, he sought to refute the design hypothesis by providing a materialistic explanation for the origin of the appearance of design in living organisms.
<. . . .>
Is the appearance of design in biology real or illusory? Clearly, there are two possible answers to this question. Neo-Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theory provide one answer, and competing theories of intelligent design provide an opposite answer.

page 204-205
The Wistar scientists explained that a similar difficulty confronts the Darwinian mechanism. According to neo-Darwinian theory, new genetic information arises first as random mutations occur in the DNA of existing organisms. When mutations arise that confer a survival advantage on the organisms that possess them, the resulting genetic changes are passed on by natural selection to the next generation. As these changes accumulate, the features of a population begin to change over time. Nevertheless, natural selection can "select" only what random mutations first produce. And for the evolutionary process to produce new forms of life, random mutations must first have produced new genetic information for building novel proteins. That, for the mathematicians, physicists and engineers at Wistar, was the problem. Why?

Meyer then goes on to explain why, supporting the concerns of the Wistar group and thereby attacking a fundamental aspect of evolutionary theory.



Supplemental Supporting Arguments
The subtitle of the book is "DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design". Since Intelligent Design contradicts conventional evolutionary theory it follows that an argument in support of ID is an argument against the current consensus view on evolution.

The classification of the book is:
1. Intelligent Design (Teleology) 2. Evolution (Biology) - Religious aspects 3. Religion and science.

Clearly the classifiers believed that a discussion of evolution was an important part of it, as was ID.

In the dust jacket blurb we read that "Meyer embarks on an odyssey of discovery as he investigates current evolutionary theories and the evidence thatultimately led him to affirm intelligent design.



*All extracts are from the First Edition, Signature in the Cell, published in 2009 by Harper Collins.
ISBN: 978-0--06-147278-7

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Once again you make a claim that you need to provide evidence for. What are the assumptions? How do you know that they made such assumptions? You do not appear to understand how you are continually violating the Ninth Commandment.

By making claims that you cannot support you are "Bearing False Witness" against your neighbor. If you can show that they made unwarranted assumptions you might actually win the debate, but by making claims and not supporting them you not only lose the debate, your acts are definitely what a proper Christian would not do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Then perhaps you should concentrate on solving the easier problems first. There is no problem demonstrating that the Earth is old. That there was no flood of Noah. How about you start with the easier problems before you move on to the harder ones?

 

[mindlight]

It seems life was restricted to the oceans before this flood, which raises the question of how a flood would kill them.

The land was the last bit to be flooded which is why land animal fossils are generally found in the highest layers. The flood appears to have been far more than a simple raising of water levels. The springs of the deep opened which as we know today probably involved major seismic activity , tectonic plate movement, earthquakes and tsunamis. The spontaneous creation of massive anoxic zones, rapidly moving currents of water burying everything in their path. So you are looking at superheated or toxic waters rising from below killing stuff from below, currents running at hundreds of miles an hour moving sideways and a continual and unrelenting torrential rainful shutting out the sunlight for more than 40 days under dark rain clouds

 

[mindlight]

The book arguably focuses on the origin of life, but it also implicitly and explicitly challenges evolutionary theory. I wonder if you have read the book? If so, perhaps you missed these passages*. There are several othersthat are similar.:

page 410
In On the Origin of Species Darwin sought to show that natural selection has creative powers comparable to those of intelligent human breeders. In doing so, he sought to refute the design hypothesis by providing a materialistic explanation for the origin of the appearance of design in living organisms.
<. . . .>
Is the appearance of design in biology real or illusory? Clearly, there are two possible answers to this question. Neo-Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theory provide one answer, and competing theories of intelligent design provide an opposite answer.

page 204-205
The Wistar scientists explained that a similar difficulty confronts the Darwinian mechanism. According to neo-Darwinian theory, new genetic information arises first as random mutations occur in the DNA of existing organisms. When mutations arise that confer a survival advantage on the organisms that possess them, the resulting genetic changes are passed on by natural selection to the next generation. As these changes accumulate, the features of a population begin to change over time. Nevertheless, natural selection can "select" only what random mutations first produce. And for the evolutionary process to produce new forms of life, random mutations must first have produced new genetic information for building novel proteins. That, for the mathematicians, physicists and engineers at Wistar, was the problem. Why?

Meyer then goes on to explain why, supporting the concerns of the Wistar group and thereby attacking a fundamental aspect of evolutionary theory.



Supplemental Supporting Arguments
The subtitle of the book is "DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design". Since Intelligent Design contradicts conventional evolutionary theory it follows that an argument in support of ID is an argument against the current consensus view on evolution.

The classification of the book is:
1. Intelligent Design (Teleology) 2. Evolution (Biology) - Religious aspects 3. Religion and science.

Clearly the classifiers believed that a discussion of evolution was an important part of it, as was ID.

In the dust jacket blurb we read that "Meyer embarks on an odyssey of discovery as he investigates current evolutionary theories and the evidence thatultimately led him to affirm intelligent design.



*All extracts are from the First Edition, Signature in the Cell, published in 2009 by Harper Collins.
ISBN: 978-0--06-147278-7

Thanks for the heads up the book is on my reading list and I have not read it yet. I assumed that because he was focused on chemical rather than biological evolution in Signature in the Cell that this was focused on abiogenesis rather than macroevolution. The theme being that it is impossible to envisage information of the potency and potential of that found in the cell as arising spontaneously from chemical processes. That it was only because people tend to package these things together that he received so much hostility from the evolutionary camp. But you may well be right and that the book was actually addressing these themes also. I shall have to wait and see until I read it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The land was the last bit to be flooded which is why land animal fossils are generally found in the highest layers. The flood appears to have been far more than a simple raising of water levels. The springs of the deep opened which as we know today probably involved major seismic activity , tectonic plate movement, earthquakes and tsunamis. The spontaneous creation of massive anoxic zones, rapidly moving currents of water burying everything in their path. So you are looking at superheated or toxic waters rising from below killing stuff from below, currents running at hundreds of miles an hour moving sideways and a continual and unrelenting torrential rainful shutting out the sunlight for more than hundred days under dark clouds

Nope, we find land animal fossils below sea fossils in places.

Also there is far too much life in the fossil record for flood advocates to explain. You are listening to people that have no clue and are even willing to "lie for Jesus". None of their claims survive close inspection.

 

[mindlight]

Then perhaps you should concentrate on solving the easier problems first. There is no problem demonstrating that the Earth is old. That there was no flood of Noah. How about you start with the easier problems before you move on to the harder ones?

Problems?

 

[Speedwell]

The land was the last bit to be flooded which is why land animal fossils are generally found in the highest layers. The flood appears to have been far more than a simple raising of water levels. The springs of the deep opened which as we know today probably involved major seismic activity , tectonic plate movement, earthquakes and tsunamis. The spontaneous creation of massive anoxic zones, rapidly moving currents of water burying everything in their path. So you are looking at superheated or toxic waters rising from below killing stuff from below, currents running at hundreds of miles an hour moving sideways and a continual and unrelenting torrential rainful shutting out the sunlight for more than hundred days under dark clouds

And all the while Noah and his entourage were snug and dry aboard a 450' wooden boat produced with Bronze age technology.

Tell me, do you subscribe to the rest of that theory, which has the "Fountains of the Deep" erupting with such force as to tear chunks off the Earth and eject them into space to form the Asteroid Belt?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Problems?

Yes, your inability to separate myth from reality. Let's work on the age of the Earth, and the Noah's Ark myth. They are actually intertwined to an extent.

 

[Ophiolite]

Thanks for the heads up the book is on my reading list and I have not read it yet. I assumed that because he was focused on chemical rather than biological evolution in Signature in the Cell that this was focused on abiogenesis rather than macroevolution. The theme being that it is impossible to envisage information of the potency and potential of that found in the cell as arising spontaneously from chemical processes. That it was only because people tend to package these things together that he received so much hostility from the evolutionary camp. But you may well be right and that the book was actually addressing these themes also. I shall have to wait and see until I read it.

As I noted, the emphasis is very much on abiogenesis, but many of the instances he uses are applicable in equal measure to evolution, so the implicit "condemnation" is there and there are the explicit points, such as the two examples I provided.

I urge you to read the wikipedia article on Meyer. It contains a dissection of his views. You may feel it is very one sided, but at least you will then be aware of why he is not held in much regard by the majority of biologists. (For one thing he isn't a biologist.)

I will note in passing that I think it is risky/questionable to speak of the content of a book that you have not actually read, as if you had read it. It would have been more accurate to preface your remarks with a statement such as "I understand from reviews I have read that . . . "

In this regard, for full disclosure, I have not read it in its entirety. It just happens to be one of ten or twenty works by Creationist/ID promoters I happen to have in my personal library. Although I have not read every page I had dipped into enough of it, and scanned much of the rest, to know your characterisation of it was inaccurate.

 

[mindlight]

Once again you make a claim that you need to provide evidence for. What are the assumptions? How do you know that they made such assumptions? You do not appear to understand how you are continually violating the Ninth Commandment.

By making claims that you cannot support you are "Bearing False Witness" against your neighbor. If you can show that they made unwarranted assumptions you might actually win the debate, but by making claims and not supporting them you not only lose the debate, your acts are definitely what a proper Christian would not do.

I actually got hold of the code a few years ago and worked through some of it - I believe it is out there if you want to check stuff but what I have said is actually not that controversial or that deep into the code either and I doubt if the BLAST programmers would disagree with it. BLAST for example assumes analogy shows homologous common descent and it is not precise working with a best match that is never 100% for its pairwise comparisons. You are looking at probability calculations that are never precise. If the difference between two kinds makes all the difference then the assumptions of the BLAST programme are highly questionable if they believe their programme is demonstrating relationship or descent. Given that the difference between the ape and the man has led to the one scratching his bum in front of gawking children in a zoo while the other has been to the moon and back the difference makes all the difference.

 

[mindlight]

Yes, your inability to separate myth from reality. Let's work on the age of the Earth, and the Noah's Ark myth. They are actually intertwined to an extent.

We can do it here to the extent that it is relevant to the thread. These are all interwined assumptions after all

 

[mindlight]

As I noted, the emphasis is very much on abiogenesis, but many of the instances he uses are applicable in equal measure to evolution, so the implicit "condemnation" is there and there are the explicit points, such as the two examples I provided.

I urge you to read the wikipedia article on Meyer. It contains a dissection of his views. You may feel it is very one sided, but at least you will then be aware of why he is not held in much regard by the majority of biologists. (For one thing he isn't a biologist.)

I will note in passing that I think it is risky/questionable to speak of the content of a book that you have not actually read, as if you had read it. It would have been more accurate to preface your remarks with a statement such as "I understand from reviews I have read that . . . "

In this regard, for full disclosure, I have not read it in its entirety. It just happens to be one of ten or twenty works by Creationist/ID promoters I happen to have in my personal library. Although I have not read every page I had dipped into enough of it, and scanned much of the rest, to know your characterisation of it was inaccurate.

What I said was based on what Meyer himself said in his prologue to Darwins Doubt. It is entirely possible I did not grasp what he said entirely accurately. In the current scientific scene a bad review in Wikipedia (which I have read) and non membership of a fellowship that does not really admit creationists is a compliment and does not undermine his credibility.

 

[mindlight]

And all the while Noah and his entourage were snug and dry aboard a 450' wooden boat produced with Bronze age technology.

Tell me, do you subscribe to the rest of that theory, which has the "Fountains of the Deep" erupting with such force as to tear chunks off the Earth and eject them into space to form the Asteroid Belt?

Yes that Noah survived is a miracle and probably not possible without supernatural intervention. I would suspect that there were better boats that sunk at the time.

I am all for exploring the asteroid belt to find those chunks of Atlantis but to be honest I do not know if that theory is true or not. There is no biblical support for it except for the violence and destructive power of the flood on earth on the basis of which it is hypothesised.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I actually got hold of the code a few years ago and worked through some of it - I believe it is out there if you want to check stuff but what I have said is actually not that controversial or that deep into the code either and I doubt if the BLAST programmers would disagree with it. BLAST for example assumes analogy shows homologous common descent and it is not precise working with a best match that is never 100% for its pairwise comparisons. You are looking at probability calculations that are never precise. If the difference between two kinds makes all the difference then the assumptions of the BLAST programme are highly questionable if they believe their programme is demonstrating relationship or descent. Given that the difference between the ape and the man has led to the one scratching his bum in front of gawking children in a zoo while the other has been to the moon and back the difference makes all the difference.

Your claims are not very reliable to date. Do you have any actual evidence that supports your claims? What are the assumptions. You need to show them in the article and prove that they are unwarranted assumptions. Creationists quite often mistake well justified conclusions as being "assumptions". Saying, I read it and saw it will not convince anyone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can do it here to the extent that it is relevant to the thread. These are all interwined assumptions after all

You mentioned the age of the Earth. Geologists have known that the Earth is old for quite some time. And it ties into the Noah's Ark myth in the sense that many early geologists were Bible believing Christians looking for evidence that confirmed the Noah's Ark story, instead they found evidence that refuted it.