For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Shemjaza]

Can you tell me more about this "branching pattern" in genetics, please?

Okay.

When you study the DNA of multiple people from within on extended family you can examine the degree of difference to detect ultimately how closely related they are, but with multiple you can also detect patterns. which give you what branches of a family different traits descend from.

This same technique is applicable to disparate species.

In particular you can learn a lot from non-coding DNA which doesn't directly effect protein development so variations can be carried on without significant changes or issues with the creature involved.

A particular pattern is the remnants of viral insertions that can be carried in the genes almost unchanged only to be slowly altered by random mutations or overwritten by other viral insertions.

This allows us to measure age of the insertions based on genetic drift on the DNA and compare it to multiple samples across a species or between them.

Another useful example that indicates common ancestry is atavisms. Humans and all the other apes have the genes to grow muscle structures to control a tail... but all these do it attach to our tailbone and sit there. It's weird enough for a hypothetical designer to make humans and apes the same way... but to make them the same way from broken monkey parts is weirder still. More horrifying is that birds actually have the genes for growing a maw full of teeth, scientists have been able to switch off the beak genes and switch back on the teeth genes.

So the point in general is not just that animals are some degree similar, it's the the degrees similar in all the ways directly and hidden is consistent with a family relationship. This goes in both directions in that it indicates ancient branches like the placental and marsupial split where animals with a similar behavior ans structure are significantly different genetically and species who are comparatively structured differently at a glance are more similar genetically.

 

[Buzzard3]

It doesn't, it looks like a shrew. Please explain.

Sorry, but to me, that little elephant looks nothing like a shrew. The fact that it's genetically closer to an elephant than a shrew comes as no surprise at all.

 

[Buzzard3]

Okay.

When you study the DNA of multiple people from within on extended family you can examine the degree of difference to detect ultimately how closely related they are, but with multiple you can also detect patterns. which give you what branches of a family different traits descend from.

This same technique is applicable to disparate species.

In particular you can learn a lot from non-coding DNA which doesn't directly effect protein development so variations can be carried on without significant changes or issues with the creature involved.

A particular pattern is the remnants of viral insertions that can be carried in the genes almost unchanged only to be slowly altered by random mutations or overwritten by other viral insertions.

This allows us to measure age of the insertions based on genetic drift on the DNA and compare it to multiple samples across a species or between them.

Another useful example that indicates common ancestry is atavisms. Humans and all the other apes have the genes to grow muscle structures to control a tail... but all these do it attach to our tailbone and sit there. It's weird enough for a hypothetical designer to make humans and apes the same way... but to make them the same way from broken monkey parts is weirder still. More horrifying is that birds actually have the genes for growing a maw full of teeth, scientists have been able to switch off the beak genes and switch back on the teeth genes.

So the point in general is not just that animals are some degree similar, it's the the degrees similar in all the ways directly and hidden is consistent with a family relationship. This goes in both directions in that it indicates ancient branches like the placental and marsupial split where animals with a similar behavior ans structure are significantly different genetically and species who are comparatively structured differently at a glance are more similar genetically.

Thanks. That's interesting.

 

[Buzzard3]

Proponents of ID and YECism often tend not to know the views of the people they quote. Of course the authors of these books themselves never clarify on their own views, lest they allow themselves to be opened up to more scrutiny. As long as they can sell books and give an appearance of being credible, that's all they need.

Meyers previously worked as a geophysicist, so I assume he's not a YEC.

 

[Job 33:6]

Meyers previously worked as a geophysicist, so I assume he's not a YEC.

Is he a proponent of ID?

 

[Job 33:6]

I haven't read "Darwin's Doubt" in its entirety, but it specifically focuses on the
Cambrian explosion (hence the title of the book) and how it contradicts ToE.

He doesn't argue that the Cambrian biota don't have precursors, but (if memory serves) that there is a distinct lack of an evolutionary pattern leading up the Cambrian.

Prothero on Darwin's Doubt:

"Meyer completely ignores the existence of the first two stages of the Cambrian (nowhere are they even mentioned in the book) and talks about the Atdabanian stage as if it were the entire Cambrian all by itself. His misleading figures (e.g., Fig. 2.5, 2.6, 3.8) imply that there were no modern phyla in existence until the trilobites diversified in the Atdabanian. That’s a flat out lie. Even a casual glance at any modern diagram of life’s diversification (Figure 1) demonstrates that probable arthropods, cnidarians, and echinoderms are present in the Ediacara fauna, mollusks and sponges are well documented from the Nemakit-Daldynian Stage, and brachiopods and archaeocyathids appear in the Tommotian Stage—all millions of years before Meyer’s incorrectly defined “Cambrian explosion” in the Atdabanian. The phyla that he lists in Fig. 2.6 as “explosively” appearing in the Atdabanian stages all actually appeared much earlier—or they are soft-bodied phyla from the Chinese Chengjiang fauna, whose first appearance artificially inflates the count. Meyer deliberately and dishonestly distorts the story by implying that these soft-bodied animals appeared all at once, when he knows that this is an artifact of preservation. It’s just an accident that there are no extraordinary soft-bodied faunas preserved before Chengjiang, so we simply have no fossils demonstrating their true first appearance, which occurred much earlier based on molecular evidence."
13-08-07

 

[Buzzard3]

Is he a proponent of ID?

Yes

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry, but to me, that little elephant looks nothing like a shrew. The fact that it's genetically closer to an elephant than a shrew comes as no surprise at all.

Yet it looks like a shrew.

 

[Buzzard3]

Yet it looks like a shrew.

I bet it even trumpets like an elephant.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I bet it even trumpets like an elephant.

Except it doesn't, because it's a shrew, not an elephant.

 

[Buzzard3]

Common designers don't create nested hierarchies

Says who?

 

[Buzzard3]

Except it doesn't, because it's a shrew, not an elephant.

That "shrew" and an elephant are so closely related that they could interbreed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That "shrew" and an elephant are so closely related that they could interbreed.

Except that they can't. Because even though they share the same genetic history, they are not the same species.

House cats belong to the same family as cheetahs, but there is no way they can interbreed.

 

[Buzzard3]

"Even a casual glance at any modern diagram of life’s diversification (Figure 1) demonstrates that probable arthropods, cnidarians, and echinoderms are present in the Ediacara fauna"

The "diagram" Prothero mentions is likely one of those imaginary Darwinist jobs, stacked with inferred branches based on the assumption of common descent.

He's arguing from "probable" organisms?

Wow, powerful stuff.

 

[ottawak]

The "diagram" Prothero mentions is likely one of those imaginary Darwinist jobs, stacked with inferred branches based on the assumption of common descent.

He's arguing from "probable" organisms?

Wow, powerful stuff.

Powerful enough when there is no credible alternative.

 

[Job 33:6]

The "diagram" Prothero mentions is likely one of those imaginary Darwinist jobs, stacked with inferred branches based on the assumption of common descent.

He's arguing from "probable" organisms?

Wow, powerful stuff.

Yes, probable.

I'll highlight some key notes from Prothero:

"Meyer completely ignores the existence of the first two stages of the Cambrian (nowhere are they even mentioned in the book) and talks about the Atdabanian stage as if it were the entire Cambrian all by itself. His misleading figures (e.g., Fig. 2.5, 2.6, 3.8) imply that there were no modern phyla in existence until the trilobites diversified in the Atdabanian. That’s a flat out lie. Even a casual glance at any modern diagram of life’s diversification (Figure 1) demonstrates that probable arthropods, cnidarians, and echinoderms are present in the Ediacara fauna, mollusks and sponges are well documented from the Nemakit-Daldynian Stage, and brachiopods and archaeocyathids appear in the Tommotian Stage—all millions of years before Meyer’s incorrectly defined “Cambrian explosion” in the Atdabanian. The phyla that he lists in Fig. 2.6 as “explosively” appearing in the Atdabanian stages all actually appeared much earlier—or they are soft-bodied phyla from the Chinese Chengjiang fauna, whose first appearance artificially inflates the count. Meyer deliberately and dishonestly distorts the story by implying that these soft-bodied animals appeared all at once, when he knows that this is an artifact of preservation. It’s just an accident that there are no extraordinary soft-bodied faunas preserved before Chengjiang, so we simply have no fossils demonstrating their true first appearance, which occurred much earlier based on molecular evidence.


Mollusks, sponges, brachiopods, archaeocyathids, annelids, and debated filter feeders/echinoderms, trackways that appear to be from arthropods, diplichnites (because remember their bodies were soft so trackways are found without bodies in deep time) and cnidarians such as Hootia:
Haootia - Wikipedia
Are observed in the precambrian.

Even if we ignored the debated phyla, we would still have many established phyla which predate the Cambrian.

The bottom line is, Meyers work is basically just dishonest. It's fine to debate whether a couple phyla are present or not in the ediacaran. But it's completely unreasonable to suggest that no phyla existed before the Cambrian explosion. On the contrary evidence now indicates that most phyla actually did exist before the Cambrian, which wasn't know even just 20-30 years ago. But we know now. And to be fair about the topic, most likely this trend will continue with more and more established in the precambrian rather than their current debated status.

It's interesting that Meyer would argue that there are a lack of fossils predating the Cambrian explosion, but then go on to not mention rock layers that contain modern phyla that predate the Cambrian explosion.

 

[Shemjaza]

Says who?

It's certainly possible for a designer to create nested hierarchies... but it would be stupid.

A example I used earlier is tires. The technology used to develop new and better designs of tire can be applied independently to all the different vehicles that can benefit from inflated rubber tires as a part of their wheels.

If you design in a nested hierarchy, then if you invent a new form of tire after you've already started building planes, road trains and automobiles, then you have to re-invent the tire each time.

This is what happens with the branches of life, because the reproduction of most animals doesn't allow for lateral gene transfer on any real scale, especially between different species.

 

[Buzzard3]

Yes, probable.

I'll highlight some key notes from Prothero:

"Meyer completely ignores the existence of the first two stages of the Cambrian (nowhere are they even mentioned in the book) and talks about the Atdabanian stage as if it were the entire Cambrian all by itself. His misleading figures (e.g., Fig. 2.5, 2.6, 3.8) imply that there were no modern phyla in existence until the trilobites diversified in the Atdabanian. That’s a flat out lie. Even a casual glance at any modern diagram of life’s diversification (Figure 1) demonstrates that probable arthropods, cnidarians, and echinoderms are present in the Ediacara fauna, mollusks and sponges are well documented from the Nemakit-Daldynian Stage, and brachiopods and archaeocyathids appear in the Tommotian Stage—all millions of years before Meyer’s incorrectly defined “Cambrian explosion” in the Atdabanian. The phyla that he lists in Fig. 2.6 as “explosively” appearing in the Atdabanian stages all actually appeared much earlier—or they are soft-bodied phyla from the Chinese Chengjiang fauna, whose first appearance artificially inflates the count. Meyer deliberately and dishonestly distorts the story by implying that these soft-bodied animals appeared all at once, when he knows that this is an artifact of preservation. It’s just an accident that there are no extraordinary soft-bodied faunas preserved before Chengjiang, so we simply have no fossils demonstrating their true first appearance, which occurred much earlier based on molecular evidence.


Mollusks, sponges, brachiopods, archaeocyathids, annelids, and debated filter feeders/echinoderms, trackways that appear to be from arthropods, diplichnites (because remember their bodies were soft so trackways are found without bodies in deep time) and cnidarians such as Hootia:
Haootia - Wikipedia
Are observed in the precambrian.

Even if we ignored the debated phyla, we would still have many established phyla which predate the Cambrian.

The bottom line is, Meyers work is basically just dishonest. It's fine to debate whether a couple phyla are present or not in the ediacaran. But it's completely unreasonable to suggest that no phyla existed before the Cambrian explosion. On the contrary evidence now indicates that most phyla actually did exist before the Cambrian, which wasn't know even just 20-30 years ago. But we know now. And to be fair about the topic, most likely this trend will continue with more and more established in the precambrian rather than their current debated status.

It's interesting that Meyer would argue that there are a lack of fossils predating the Cambrian explosion, but then go on to not mention rock layers that contain modern phyla that predate the Cambrian explosion.

I thought you might find this short article intetesting:

Was the Cambrian Explosion Really an Explosion? – Prometheus Unbound

 

[Job 33:6]

I thought you might find this short article intetesting:

Was the Cambrian Explosion Really an Explosion? – Prometheus Unbound

Seems to be repetition of the same old. No acknowledgement of established phylum predating the Cambrian, quotes from Gould dating 30 years ago.

The article says:
"I’m sorry, but this sounds like an assumption in want of proof: did animals have a vastly long and gradual evolutionary history prior to the Cambrian or not? If, after all, the fossil record is almost wholly absent, then on what is the article’s confident pronouncement based?

It appears to be nothing."

Um, how about soft bodied lagerstaaten and trace fossils (trackways of arthropods predating shelled fossils for example) and of course research in genetics backing the same conclusions that we are? Shells and bones didn't exist in the earliest metazoans days. And so the logical conclusion is that if you begin seeing soft bodied animals without shells, and they soon disappear into ancient metamorphosed rock as you go further deeper in time, that if shelled animals appeared to abruptly come into existence at a more recent time, it's more likely that it's a result of the evolution of hard parts that gives the appearance of an "explosion", as opposed to actually being an event in which things appeared in thin air. And this logic is supported by genetics evidence and soft bodied fossils and animal trackways predating body fossils indicating that arthropods were alive millions of years before we even have any body/shell fossils, as an example.

The article continues:
"Houston, we have a problem. Palmer (2009) says it took 20 million years for the evolution of the various phyla of the Kingdom of Metazoa (animals); Prothero (2007) says it took 80 million years "

I'll just quote myself:
For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

"The reason the number fluctuates is because the boundaries are sort of arbitrary. Like if you were on a rollercoaster, for example, would you call the beginning of your vertical ascent starting at a 10 degree angle? Or 20 degree? 80 degree? Etc. When would the "explosion" begin on a rollercoaster?

Some ID advocates and critics, they want to use "instantaneous" as their select word, but if the Cambrian explosion were really instantaneous, or lets say less than 5 million years, then it would exclude 90% of phyla (much like 5 seconds on a rollercoasters peak might exclude 90% of the actual full ascension). If it were 10 million years, it might include 50% of phylum, if it were 20 million, it might include something like 80% etc. To really encompass organisms of the Cambrian explosion, 90+%, really it would have to be something like 30+ maybe even close to 40 million years long or beyond.


I'm not sure that the author of this article is even a paleontologist, so I suppose it's understandable that they may not understand why paleontologists are concluding what we/they are. But it is what it is.

And I think I said this before but, using the Cambrian explosion to attack the theory of evolution is like using video footage of Michael Jordan in grade school street ball, to judge the quality of his full career. "Hey look, Michael Jordan missed a free throw in 5th grade! Guess he's not a good player after all!". Meanwhile everyone else is looking at footage of his actual career and is well aware that he is/was a great player. People attacking the Cambrian explosion is seemingly dishonest, because it stretches and reaches to the deepest depths of earth history in an effort to find a question that is unanswered, and then turns and says "see! I knew you guys were wrong!". Like bringing up LUCA or the Big Bang in an effort to argue against speciation events or nuclear fission.

Some efforts just look bad. Guys like Meyer just look so questionable making such a stretched out over the top God of the gaps argument. And you have to do a double take when you hear such a crazy argument, but then upon closer inspection, you realize that it's just some guy who has some kind of religious motivation, who isn't even trained in the science, who's potentially just looking to make a buck off book sales. It's of poor taste and it makes Meyer look bad and quite frankly, it makes the church look bad too when the church gets behind guys like this as opposed to getting behind more honest Christian organizations like the biologos foundation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Seems to be repetition of the same old. No acknowledgement of established phylum predating the Cambrian, quotes from Gould dating 30 years ago.

The article says:
"I’m sorry, but this sounds like an assumption in want of proof: did animals have a vastly long and gradual evolutionary history prior to the Cambrian or not? If, after all, the fossil record is almost wholly absent, then on what is the article’s confident pronouncement based?

It appears to be nothing."

Um, how about soft bodied lagerstaaten and trace fossils (trackways of arthropods predating shelled fossils for example) and of course research in genetics backing the same conclusions that we are?

The article continues:
"Houston, we have a problem. Palmer (2009) says it took 20 million years for the evolution of the various phyla of the Kingdom of Metazoa (animals); Prothero (2007) says it took 80 million years "

I'll just quote myself:
For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...


"The reason the number fluctuates is because the boundaries are sort of arbitrary. Like if you were on a rollercoaster, for example, would you call the beginning of your vertical ascent starting at a 10 degree angle? Or 20 degree? 80 degree? Etc.

Some ID advocates and critics, they want to use "instantaneous" as their select word, but if the Cambrian explosion were really instantaneous, or lets say less than 5 million years, then it would exclude 90% of phyla. If it were 10 million years, it might include 50%, if it were 20 million, it might include something like 80% etc. To really encompass organisms of the Cambrian explosion, 90+%, really it would have to be something like 30+ maybe even close to 40 million years long."g.