Cambrian Explosion

[laptoppop]

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 can't find a free version of that paper -- but from the abstract, it appears that the research is talking about natural selection NOT the mutations required for the variation for natural selection to work on. Nobody disputes natural selection -- its the first part of the process that is problematic at best. OK, granted natural selection can trim a population quickly. So?

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Not according to one of the leading IDers, William Dembski. If you are going to make pronouncements about ID, Mark, don't you think you should do some reading about what IDers says ID is?

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2001.03.ID_as_nat_theol.htm

"In this essay I'm going to argue that intelligent design is not a form of natural theology. ... I submit that intelligent design isn't doing natural theology. What's more, I submit that whatever intelligent design is doing, its aims are substantially different from those of natural theology. To see this, consider the last major push of natural theology prior to the publication of Darwin's _Origin of Species_. I have in mind here the eight Bridgewater treatises."

"If intelligent design were a form of natural theology, then intelligent design should be looking at certain features of the natural world and therewith drawing conclusions about some reality that extends beyond the natural world. Is intelligent design doing that? I submit it is not. The fundamental idea that animates intelligent design is that events, objects, and structures in the world can exhibit features that reliably signal the effects of intelligence. Disciplines as diverse as animal learning and behavior, forensics, archeology, cryptography, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence thus all fall within intelligent design."

Oh, here Dembski says that Paley would NOT be proud of ID!

"The theory of intelligent design as my colleagues and I envision it is not an atavistic return to the design arguments of William Paley and the Bridgewater Treatises. William Paley was in no position to formulate the conceptual framework for design that is now being developed. "

Mark, before you try arguing against me about ID, you need to argue against IDers! They disagree with you even more than I do!

 

[lucaspa]

I can't find a free version of that paper -- but from the abstract, it appears that the research is talking about natural selection NOT the mutations required for the variation for natural selection to work on.

Stop and think about what you just said! "mutations required for the variation for natural selection to work on"

If the variation isn't there, then natural selection can't work, can it? So, the rate of natural selection -- what is being measured -- is dependent on the rate of presence of variation -- including mutations.

Since the rate is so fast, the rate of variation must be at least as fast.

Nobody disputes natural selection -- its the first part of the process that is problematic at best.

Mutations rates have been measured. They are between 1 and 3 per genome. So every individual represents 1-3 mutations. In this generation alone, there are 6-18 billion mutations among humans.

In the next generation, there will be another 6-18 billion mutations.

Since of those (minimum) 6 billion mutations only 2.6 million are deleterious, that gives a pool of 5 billion, 997 million possible beneficial mutations. That's quite a few! Since we only need one, I'd say odds of 5 billion, 997 million to 1 are pretty good odds. Wouldn't you?

So where is your "problematical" again?