Cambrian Explosion

[Scotishfury09]

I have seen some people use the fact that so much diversity in animals arose in such a short time during the Cambrian Era to disprove evolution. I've heard of Gould's punctuated equilibrium. I was wondering if this did, in fact, explain the problem or if there was more that can be explained.

I understand this is a fairly general question, but I don't know much about it. I actually own The Origin of Species but have never been able to force myself to read all of it. I've skimmed through the chapter on the difficulties of the theory but that doesn't really answer my question.

 

[shernren]

I have seen some people use the fact that so much diversity in animals arose in such a short time during the Cambrian Era to disprove evolution. I've heard of Gould's punctuated equilibrium. I was wondering if this did, in fact, explain the problem or if there was more that can be explained.

I understand this is a fairly general question, but I don't know much about it. I actually own The Origin of Species but have never been able to force myself to read all of it. I've skimmed through the chapter on the difficulties of the theory but that doesn't really answer my question.

Wikipedia is always a good place to start, no matter how bad it will make uni assignments look. Shuffle around here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion and when you find something that strikes you, bring it up and we'll have some fun.

 

[laptoppop]

How about the glorious complexity of the trilobite eye?

 

[shernren]

How about the glorious complexity of the trilobite eye?

The fact that we start with primitive trilobite eyes early in the Cambrian, see two offshoot structures evolve due to neoteny later on, and end up with eyeless trilobites, right before the whole lot go extinct? I'm not sure exactly what you expect me to see that I should consider impossible for evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

I have seen some people use the fact that so much diversity in animals arose in such a short time during the Cambrian Era to disprove evolution. I've heard of Gould's punctuated equilibrium. I was wondering if this did, in fact, explain the problem or if there was more that can be explained.

PE doesn't address the Cambrian. The explanation for the Cambrian is multifold:

1. It was the appearance of hard body parts, like shells. Therefore there are a LOT of fossils then, which were even rarer before.

2. It was the first of the great adaptive radiations. That is, there was a great extinction at the end of the Eidacaran and you have animals filling a lot of empty niches. When this happened at the end of the Cretaceous, you find mammals diversifying and evolving lots of "new" forms -- for mammals.

Now, imagine this happening at the beginning of animal evolution. You get lots of new species, but they are not identifiable as arthropods, vertebrates, etc. Instead, these new species are going to be the first arthropods, vertebrates, etc. Remember, "phyla" are just groups of species. So, when you get the first species (singular) there, later on we are going to say "it is a new phyla", but in reality it was just a new species. In the Cambrian there are species in something like 30 phyla. About 20 of those phyla consist of 1-5 species! Those are the new genera that died out and never left a lot of descendents. The other 10 phyla left lots of descendents and are the phyla that still have species today -- so there have been thousands of species in those "phyla".

3. In reality, if you look carefully at the literature, you can find ancestors of the new species that appear in the Cambrian that are present tens or hundreds of millions of years earlier. They are very rare because they have no hard body parts, but they are there.

5. RA Kerr, Pushing back the origin of animals, Science 279: 803-804, 6 Feb. 1998. The peer reviewed article is C-W Li, J-Y Chen, T-E Hua, Precambrian sponges with cellular structures. Science 279: 879-882. Got embryonic animal fossils that lived 40-50 million years before the Cambrian.

10. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/0719_crustacean.html Crustacean pre-Cambrian but not hard-shelled.
12. Schopf, JW. Solution to Darwin's dilemma: Discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life. PNAS 97: 6947-6953, 2000. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/6947

 

[lucaspa]

How about the glorious complexity of the trilobite eye?

See Dawkins' Climbing Mt. Improbable Trilobite eyes are compound eyes. There are intermediates to compound eyes in living species.

 

[shernren]

So, when you get the first specie there, later on we are going to say "it is a new phyla" ...

*Grammar Nazi mode*

That was probably a typo, but let me inject a bit of trivia into here. The singular of species is again species (just as one sheep gives you many sheep). Specie has a completely different meaning: it refers to the precious metal reserves which back the value of a nation's money, or more generally to coinage. However, they start out etymologically from the same Latin word meaning "kind".

But I don't think anyone wants to hear another word regarding the origin of the specie(s). Back to our usual discussion.

*Grammar Nazi mode off*

 

[lucaspa]

*Grammar Nazi mode*

That was probably a typo,

Yes, it was. So calm down. You've had too much coffee this morning.

 

[Assyrian]

So it was a specious argument?

 

[mark kennedy]

I have seen some people use the fact that so much diversity in animals arose in such a short time during the Cambrian Era to disprove evolution. I've heard of Gould's punctuated equilibrium. I was wondering if this did, in fact, explain the problem or if there was more that can be explained.

Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, 'the origin of species--Darwin's problem--remains unsolved'“ (p. 361).(​

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories. By: Stephen C. Meyer Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
March 28, 2007

Punctuated Equilibrium hardly describes it, the genetic basis at every node in the Darwinian tree of life is left to supposition and speculation. Evolutionists know this but they desperately don't want you to know the scientific reasons for being skeptical of their treasured naturalistic assumptions. I have asked evolutionists repeatedly for demonstrated and directly observed molecular mechanisms for major transitions and they never have anything but anecdotal evidence to support their flagerant ad hominems.

I understand this is a fairly general question, but I don't know much about it. I actually own The Origin of Species but have never been able to force myself to read all of it. I've skimmed through the chapter on the difficulties of the theory but that doesn't really answer my question.

My friend, if you never take the slightest interest in anything I ever tell you to listen to me just this once. That is a huge mistake, Darwin's On the Origin of the Species is gradualism which is the idea of slight successive accumulation of favored traits.

Just think about it, that's exactly how it works, adaptations happen in a vast array but on a micro scale. Evolutionists would have you believe that there is plenty of time and are fond of stretching things out over millions of years.

I do not recommend his other writings but On the Origin of Species is superbly well written. If you are interested drop me a PM and I'll send you a cheat sheet, you would be amazed at how much Darwin's theory has for a Creationist. Remove the sweeping generalities and naturalistic assumptions and you have classic natural theology.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[lucaspa]

Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian.

Once again Meyer is wrong. In the process of "changes in gene frequency" some alleles become fixed and other alleles are lost. This changes the population over generations such that it has a different genetic composition than the original. And this results in a new species.

Going from fish to amphibian or mammal to reptile is simply multiple speciation events spread thru time. So yes, microevolution does indeed lead to macroevolution.

Meyer should also have read Eldredge:
"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to ever larger clusters of related species. That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.

Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.

I have asked evolutionists repeatedly for demonstrated and directly observed molecular mechanisms for major transitions and they never have anything but anecdotal evidence to support their flagerant ad hominems.

1. Shubin, N. Tabin, C. and Carroll, S. Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs. Nature 388, 14 Aug., 1997, 639-647. Tie-in between fossils and regulatory genes detailing development of limbs in vertebrates, arthropods, and winged insects. Review article with 23 primary references.
5. Averof, M and Cohen, SM, Evolutionary origin of insect wings from ancestral gills. Nature, 385: 627-630, Feb. 13, 1997.
6. EM DeRobertis, The ancestry of segmentation. Nature 387: 25-26,1 May 1997.
7. SJ Gaunt, Chick limbs, fly wings and homology at the fringe. Nature 386: 324-325, 27 March 1997.

Or just do a search on "evolutionary developmental biology" or "evo-devo" for short.

I do not recommend his other writings but On the Origin of Species is superbly well written. If you are interested drop me a PM and I'll send you a cheat sheet, you would be amazed at how much Darwin's theory has for a Creationist. Remove the sweeping generalities and naturalistic assumptions and you have classic natural theology.

Apples and oranges, Mark. I agree that Darwin is classic natural theology -- Darwin is providing the "natural" process by which God works.

But that is not at all the same as "creationist". Creationism proposes a completely different process by which God works.

 

[mark kennedy]

Once again Meyer is wrong. In the process of "changes in gene frequency" some alleles become fixed and other alleles are lost. This changes the population over generations such that it has a different genetic composition than the original. And this results in a new species.

New species are microevolution lucaspa and your right, we have been through this before. Alleles don't change at that rate and they certainly don't build the elaborate molecular mechanisms that are essential. You are arguing in circles, if you have the particulars they would have been forthcoming by now.

Going from fish to amphibian or mammal to reptile is simply multiple speciation events spread thru time. So yes, microevolution does indeed lead to macroevolution.

Say it loud enough and long enough and people will start to believe it.

Meyer should also have read Eldredge:
"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to ever larger clusters of related species. That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.

You should have read Meyer:

The “Cambrian explosion” refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total (Meyer et al. 2003), made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time (Bowring et al. 1993, 1998a:1, 1998b:40; Kerr 1993; Monastersky 1993; Aris-Brosou & Yang 2003). Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total (Meyer et al. 2003), and classes of animals also arose at this time with representatives of these new higher taxa manifesting significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and disparate organismal forms arose in a geologically brief period of time.

To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms.​

The illusion is that bacteria and fauna had billions of years to evolve. The truth is that it would have happened in an impossible brief period of geological time. Microevolutionary changes don't accumulate in natural history, when you actually look at the time line it happens rapidly and punctuates enormous periods of stasis.

Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.

Was there even a point to that quote? The mechanism is a mutation which is absurd. That's like trying to write your doctrinal thesis based on typos in you notes. Like I told you, just say it loud enough and long enough and people will start to believe it, or at least pretend that they do.

1. Shubin, N. Tabin, C. and Carroll, S. Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs. Nature 388, 14 Aug., 1997, 639-647. Tie-in between fossils and regulatory genes detailing development of limbs in vertebrates, arthropods, and winged insects. Review article with 23 primary references.
5. Averof, M and Cohen, SM, Evolutionary origin of insect wings from ancestral gills. Nature, 385: 627-630, Feb. 13, 1997.
6. EM DeRobertis, The ancestry of segmentation. Nature 387: 25-26,1 May 1997.
7. SJ Gaunt, Chick limbs, fly wings and homology at the fringe. Nature 386: 324-325, 27 March 1997.

Or just do a search on "evolutionary developmental biology" or "evo-devo" for short.

Thanks but I'll do my on google searches.

Apples and oranges, Mark. I agree that Darwin is classic natural theology -- Darwin is providing the "natural" process by which God works.

I see, the Intelligent Design scientist is wrong but the atheistic naturalistic assumptions of Darwin are right. Newsflash for you there, Intelligent Design is natural theology. Paley would have been proud to see them emerge in this sea of antithesitic philosophies.

IN crossing a health, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first?​

Evidences of the existence and attributes of the Deity. Collected from the appearances of nature 12th edition. (William Paley, D.D. Later Archdeacon of Carlisle)

But that is not at all the same as "creationist". Creationism proposes a completely different process by which God works.

You are exactly right, we at least agree on something. You cannot deny the Creator anything but naturalistic processes and call it creationism. You cannot deny any theistic causation and call your philosophy theology, natural or otherwise. You can't even call the requisite naturalistic assumptions theistic if you shun any theistic inference, unless of course you have redefined theistic.

 

[hithesh]

micro-evolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian.

Well a "reptile" doesn't turn into a mammal over night now does he?

What you're looking for is transitional features, and nature speaks abundantly of them.

Here's a fun video, the shows what these transitions would look like:

Simpsons

here's a better one: Carl Sagan

Genetics might be adequate for explaining micro-evolution.

Well, genetics adequately explains macro-evolution as well.

Our genome is like a large string of letters. Something as simple as a rat, also has these string of letters. The order of the letters provide the instruction that determine "what we are", a change in these letters results in "mutations", or a "reordering of the letters". If our letter's are reordered in a certain way, then what "we are today" will not be "what we are tomorrow".

You've already admitted that the letters change on a small scale (micro-evolution), but why assume that these letters can't change on a large scale (which would occur in a long period of time)?

With a long stretch of time, it is inevitable that what was once the letters that the read reptile, would eventually read "mammal".

A crude example of how it works:
Reptile = AUAREPTILEUGC, in order for the reptile to become a rat the letters would be reordered enough to read EPAURATUELIGE (given enough attempts, the letters would read as such)

 

[shernren]

IN crossing a health, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first?​

Evidences of the existence and attributes of the Deity. Collected from the appearances of nature 12th edition. (William Paley, D.D. Later Archdeacon of Carlisle)

Gentlemen, let me press this point upon your earnest attention. I say Physical Theology cannot, from the nature of the case, tell us one word about Christianity proper; it cannot be Christian, in any true sense, at all:—and from this plain reason, because it is derived from informations which existed just as they are now, before man was created, and Adam fell. How can that be a real substantive Theology, though it takes the name, which is but an abstraction, a particular aspect of the whole truth, and is dumb almost as regards the moral attributes of the Creator, and utterly so as regards the evangelical?

Nay, more than this; I do not hesitate to say that, taking men as they are, this so-called science tends, if it occupies the mind, to dispose it against Christianity. And for this plain reason, because it speaks only of laws; and cannot contemplate their suspension, that is, miracles, which are of the essence of the idea of a Revelation. Thus, the God of Physical Theology may very easily become a mere idol; for He comes to the inductive mind in the medium of fixed appointments, so excellent, so skilful, so beneficent, that, when it has for a long time gazed upon them, it will think them too beautiful to be broken, and will at length so contract its notion of Him as to conclude that He never could have the heart (if I may dare use such a term) to undo or mar His own work; and this conclusion will be the first step towards its degrading its idea of God a second time, and identifying Him with His works. Indeed, a Being of Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, and nothing else, is not very different from the God of the Pantheist.
​

John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University, 1854

 

[mark kennedy]

Well a "reptile" doesn't turn into a mammal over night now does he?

The amino acid sequence has to be altered in such a way as to make major innovations in highly conserved organs, brains, lungs, hearts and a long list of others.

What you're looking for is transitional features, and nature speaks abundantly of them.

Not on a macroevolutionary level it doesn't.

Here's a fun video, the shows what these transitions would look like:

Simpsons

here's a better one: Carl Sagan

Thanks but youtube takes forever to download here.

Well, genetics adequately explains macro-evolution as well.

No it doesn't.

Our genome is like a large string of letters. Something as simple as a rat, also has these string of letters. The order of the letters provide the instruction that determine "what we are", a change in these letters results in "mutations", or a "reordering of the letters". If our letter's are reordered in a certain way, then what "we are today" will not be "what we are tomorrow".

With 4 nucleotides you have 4^4 (64) possible combinations but there are only 20 amino acids. This is one common outcome of a random mutation, it's called a frameshift.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/ill...91F9F8F4064110A0DDE6926E] Frameshift mutation

You've already admitted that the letters change on a small scale (micro-evolution), but why assume that these letters can't change on a large scale (which would occur in a long period of time)?

Basically the process is cyclical not linear. You imagine an upwardly mobile accumulation of increased complexity and favorable traits. While that happens on a micro scale in vast array macroevolutionary adaptations are far less common. What is more most adaptive changes in the amino acid sequence that results in adaptive traits are simple repeats, no new information is being added to the genome.

With a long stretch of time, it is inevitable that what was once the letters that the read reptile, would eventually read "mammal".

Stretching it over time makes it seem statistically viable but it does not account for the physiological costs of the supposed adaptive evolutionary process. Mutations for the most part do nothing at all and the vast majority of those with an effect are deleterious.

A crude example of how it works:
Reptile = AUAREPTILEUGC, in order for the reptile to become a rat the letters would be reordered enough to read EPAURATUELIGE (given enough attempts, the letters would read as such)

What happens as a result of the failed attempts? The reptile is subject to sever deleterious effects while the natural roulette wheel spins at random. What is more most adaptations are due to recombinations, genes being turned on and off and changes regulated at a molecular level.

I'm well aware of the basics, it's the innovation of increased complexity and novel genetic adaptations that are at issue in the Cambrian Explosion.

 

[gluadys]

What happens as a result of the failed attempts?

Nothing happens. This is the point you seem to continually miss. Nothing happens to the species.

 

[hithesh]

The amino acid sequence has to be altered in such a way as to make major innovations in highly conserved organs, brains, lungs, hearts and a long list of others.

It's misleading to use words such as "major" with out defining what it means, but more on that later.

Basically the process is cyclical not linear. You imagine an upwardly mobile accumulation of increased complexity and favorable traits.

Of course it's "upwardly mobile accumulation of increased complexity and favorable traits", and of course it's a linear process.

Each adaptation that led to woodpeckers traits was beneficial, or in other words each single mutation that led to the woodpeckers traits you mentioned were beneficial, or else they would not have been selected.

For example in the Woodpecker's Tongue that seems to be used often:

"the strange tongue of woodpeckers is actually just an elongated version of that found in all birds, and is in fact a perfect example of how anatomical structures can be shaped into new forms by mutations and natural selection."

While that happens on a micro scale in vast array macroevolutionary adaptations are far less common. What is more most adaptive changes in the amino acid sequence that results in adaptive traits are simple repeats, no new information is being added to the genome.

Again, a word you need to define "new information". You don't need to add anything, the result could be from a number of mutations, that result in change in the order of the letters. These mutations don't have to be the result of only frameshit mutations, as far as I know any type of mutation can be beneficial. You would just need to reorder or reword the current information to result in new instructions.

There is no reason to assume that the mutation that results in a caterpillars resistance to a particular pesticide, is any different that what gives a particular bird, an elongated tongue. That is perhaps our problem here, you assume that a mutation that resulted in "eloganted tongue", is much more complex than the mutatation that resulted in the caterpillars resistance, but in actuallity these traits can be equally "simple".

Mutations for the most part do nothing at all and the vast majority of those with an effect are deleterious.

Evolution works on the population not on the individual. A mutation in a particular individual, has no effect on the population, unless the mutation results in a selective advantage.

 

[shernren]

With 4 nucleotides you have 4^4 (64) possible combinations but there are only 20 amino acids.

A small but critical correction, 4^4 is 256. You're thinking of 3 (not 4) nucleotides giving 4^3 = 64 possible codons coding for 20 possible amino acids (actually there are a few more non-standard ones used in proteins and added in via post-translational modifications), with redundant codings explaining why there are less amino acids than possible codons. It's surprising to see you still saying the same thing six months on, hopefully you'll get around to fixing it up for good.

Resume the usual banter.

 

[lucaspa]

New species are microevolution

Since when? You are moving the goalposts. Speciation is macroevolution. Microevolution is changes within a species. Macroevolution is speciation and

Alleles don't change at that rate and they certainly don't build the elaborate molecular mechanisms that are essential. You are arguing in circles, if you have the particulars they would have been forthcoming by now.

Alleles don't change at what rate? Actually, natural selection results in changes in phenotypic traits that can be up to 10,000 times faster than seen in the fossil record. The question is: why is evolution so slow in the fossil record?
Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Reznick, DN, Shaw, FH, Rodd, FH, and Shaw, RG. Science 275:1934-1937, 1997. The lay article is Predatory-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, pg 1880.

I've been giving you the particulars; you've been ignoring them.



Say it loud enough and long enough and people will start to believe it.

You should have read Meyer:

The “Cambrian explosion” refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total (Meyer et al. 2003), made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time (Bowring et al. 1993, 1998a:1, 1998b:40; Kerr 1993; Monastersky 1993; Aris-Brosou & Yang 2003). Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total (Meyer et al. 2003), and classes of animals also arose at this time with representatives of these new higher taxa manifesting significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and disparate organismal forms arose in a geologically brief period of time.​

To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms.​

​

1. I addressed the transitional intermediate forms, giving references to soft-bodied forms that are pre-Cambrian.

2. I also addressed Meyer's contention of "new phyla". They are "new phyla" only because we are getting the beginnings of an adaptive radiation. In reality what we have are new species. In some cases they are classed as "phyla" because they have no descendents. In other cases they are classes within phyla because there are thousands of descendents that continued to diversify by evolution.

3. You notice that Meyer said "geologically sudden". That is not the same as "instantaneous". Even at its most restrictive, the "explosion" covered 15 million years. Meyer also notes that not all phyla appeared at the Cambrian. Instead, they appeared later in evolution. This negates Meyer's underlying argument that we are looking at instantaneous manufacture of body plans.

The illusion is that bacteria and fauna had billions of years to evolve.

No illusion. They did. We have fossils of multicellular animals over 1 billion years before the Cambrian.

Microevolutionary changes don't accumulate in natural history, when you actually look at the time line it happens rapidly and punctuates enormous periods of stasis.

Microevolutionary changes accumulate in isolated populations. You are playing the shell game, Mark. You are mistaking phyletic gradualism for microevolution. Gould himself documented microevolutionary changes that led to a new species in an isolated population of snails:
3. "Unscrambling Time in the Fossil Record" Science vol 274, pg 1842, Dec 13, 1996. The primary article is by GA Goodfriend and SJ Gould "Paleontolgy and Chronolgy of Two evolutionary Transitions by Hybridization in the Bahamian Land Snail Cerion", pgs 1894-1897.

Eldredge documented microevolutionary changes in trilobites that led to macroevolutionary changes. 2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals.

What is seen as "sudden changes" in the fossil record is the migration of the new species into the area. The microevolutionary changes happen in the small populations in limited geographical areas. We have enough examples of this to document this happens:
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981.

Was there even a point to that quote?

Of course. You think quotation of Meyer is 'evidence". By the same logic, quotation by Eldredge (a real biologist, not a philosopher) is also evidence. Sauce for the goose.

The mechanism is a mutation which is absurd.

False witness. The mechanism is natural selection, which is a two-step process. You keep trying to separate the steps, but you can't. At least you can't do so honestly.

Thanks but I'll do my on google searches.

Then do them and stop complaining I don't give you "particulars"! Those other papers and books I listed area few of the particulars.

I see, the Intelligent Design scientist is wrong but the atheistic naturalistic assumptions of Darwin are right.

There are no "naturalistic assumptions" of Darwin. Darwin is applying natural theology. Natural theology is the idea that God uses natural processes.

Newsflash for you there, Intelligent Design is natural theology. Paley would have been proud to see them emerge in this sea of antithesitic philosophies.

No, ID is not "natural theology". It is god-of-the-gaps theology. And since ID is a rehash of Paley, I suspect Paley wold be proud. BUT, Paley is also using god-of-the-gaps and isn't using natural theology. Paley is not finding natural processes used by God, but instead is saying "if there is no natural process, then it must be God directly manufacturing".

Evidences of the existence and attributes of the Deity. Collected from the appearances of nature 12th edition. (William Paley, D.D. Later Archdeacon of Carlisle)

Nice demonstration of god-of-the-gaps by Paley. If you are going to quote Paley, try this one:
"III. Though it be now no longer probable that the individual watch which our observer had found was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. ... This is atheism; for every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature, with the difference on the side of nature of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean, that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the complexity, subtelty, and curiosity of the mechanism; and still more, if possible, do they go beyond them in number and variety; yet, in a multitude of cases, are not less evidently mechanical, not less evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end or suited to their office, than are the most perfect productions of human ingenuity." http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.paley.html

Paley admits he is not arguing science, but theology. But what Paley didn't know was that Darwin would discover an unintelligent process that gives design: natural selection. Natural selection negates Paley's argument of the watch on the heath or designs in plants and animals.

But natural selection just negates the Argument from Design. Darwin made it clear that he viewed natural selection as how God works:

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

Go check with Meyer what "secondary causes" are. Meyer knows and has written about them.

You can't even call the requisite naturalistic assumptions theistic if you shun any theistic inference, unless of course you have redefined theistic.

Please define what you mean by "naturalistic assumptions". I think you have redefined these and have something that is neither Christian nor science.

 

[lucaspa]

The amino acid sequence has to be altered in such a way as to make major innovations in highly conserved organs, brains, lungs, hearts and a long list of others.

And that can be done in Hox genes. Small changes in the amino acid sequence of the proteins of Hox genes can result in large phenotypic changes.

1a. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature716_fs.html
4. Zou H, Niswander L , Requirement for BMP signaling in interdigital apoptosisand scale formation. Science 1996 May 3;272(5262):738-41 "Expressionof dnBMPR in chicken embryonic hind limbs greatly reduced interdigital apoptosis and resulted in webbed feet. In addition, scales were transformed into feathers."

Not on a macroevolutionary level it doesn't.

Yes, it does. There are fossil records fine enough to watch microevolutionary changes in individuals go from species to species across genera, family, order, and even class:

Transitional individuals from one class to another
1. Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes. (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2. HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida" and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964
2. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.

Transitionals across genera:
1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.

Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm

Speciation in the fossil record
1. McNamara KJ, Heterochrony and the evolution of echinoids. In CRC Paul and AB Smith (eds) Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology, pp149-163, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988 pg 140 of Futuyma.
2. Kellogg DE and Hays JD Microevolutionary patterns in Late Cenozoic Radiolara. Paleobiology 1: 150-160, 1975.

When we go to transitional species then there are many more examples.

With 4 nucleotides you have 4^4 (64) possible combinations but there are only 20 amino acids. This is one common outcome of a random mutation, it's called a frameshift.

Actually, frameshift mutations are not that common. Instead, substitution mutations are much more common. Frameshifts result from insertion or deletion of nucleotides.

Basically the process is cyclical not linear. You imagine an upwardly mobile accumulation of increased complexity and favorable traits. While that happens on a micro scale in vast array macroevolutionary adaptations are far less common.

"Macroevolutionary adaptations" happen in a sequential fashion. In the macroevolution of birds, for example, the traits that we associate with birds: feathers, toothless beaks, backward pointing toes, etc, are added one at a time to the lineage. IOW, the species already has feathers before the backward pointing toes are added.

What is more most adaptive changes in the amino acid sequence that results in adaptive traits are simple repeats, no new information is being added to the genome.

Documentation, please? Document where "simple repeats" are "most adaptive changes".

Information is added by 2 mechanisms:
1. Addition of DNA. This is accomplished by the addition of repeats -- such as the ALU repeat in the human genome -- or such mutations as gene duplication, translocation, or chromosome duplication.
2. Selection. William Dembski (yes, the IDer) has demonstrated that selection adds information.

Mutations for the most part do nothing at all and the vast majority of those with an effect are deleterious.

You want specifics. Well, specific tests to determine the deleterious mutation rate has shown that deleterious mutations are only 2.6 per 1,000. That means 997.4 mutations out of 1,000 either "do nothing at all" or are beneficial.

Now, that "do nothing at all" only applies to a particular environment. It may do something great in another environment. For instance, the mutation that yielded nylonase does nothing in most environments. But in an environment with nylon, it provides access to a new food source.

What happens as a result of the failed attempts?

The individual is screwed, but the population is unaffected. As others have reminded you, evololution happens to populations. Since more individuals are born than the environment can support, the "failed attempts" simply die and are removed from the population.

The reptile is subject to sever deleterious effects while the natural roulette wheel spins at random.

Documentation? "Reptile" is an entire Class of thousands of species. So there is no "the" reptile.

What is more most adaptations are due to recombinations, genes being turned on and off and changes regulated at a molecular level.

Most variation is due to recombination in sexually reproducing species. Now, what happens in "recombination"? Alleles are combined in novel combinations. What this means is that some alleles are eliminated from the population because the combination doesn't work well. Other alleles are fixed in the population because the combination works very well. Once again the genetic composition of the population changes.

Now, since you admit here that those genetic combinations are "adaptations" and beneficial, now you have found a mechanism of evolution! Congratulations! You just defeated your own position.

I'm well aware of the basics, it's the innovation of increased complexity and novel genetic adaptations that are at issue in the Cambrian Explosion.

Not really. We see "novel genetic adaptations" in every adaptive radiation. The issue in the Cambrian Explosion is that this radiation happens at the beginning of evolution before many of the so-called body plans become "entrenched" and cannot change.