Evolution: Looking for falsification?

[Loudmouth]

Ok so non living matter has how many genes?

The theory of evolution does not involve non-living matter. The theory of evolution explains how life changes over time.

 

[samaus12345]

Ah k thanks for correcting me on that one.

 

[benelchi]

How is it a problem for evolution that the ancestors of today's species were found in older rock?

The problem is that there is no common single root phylum. The evolutionary tree shown in most college text books does not exist in the fossil record. During the Cambrian period there were over 70 phyla (some of which are now extinct). Where did these 70 phyla come from? How did they differentiate from each other? Why is their no fossil record of a common ancestor? etc...

Most scientists put the length of the period from 30 to 100 million years.

First, even the most stanch adherents to evolution recognize this is still too short of a period of time to account for the number of phyla found in the Cambrian layer; this is why theories about the mass distruction of earlier fossil layers persist i.e. the fossils that should have been there have all been completely destroyed.

Second, you are looking at older material, world wide most scientists have shortened that period considerably because all phyla appear to present during the very beginning of the Cambrian period.

Please explain why we should see the production of new phyla if ToE is true? That doesn't make any sense. First of all, phyla are somewhat arbitrary. Also, you never leave the phyla that your ancestors were a part of. No matter how much cephalochordates evolved, they are still cephalochordates (and we are still cephalochordates as were our ancestors in the Cambrian). Finding the ancestors of modern species in the Cambrian is hardly a refutation of the theory of evolution. In fact, it is exactly what we should observe.

There are over 70 known phyla in the Cambrian period, IF the ToE is true they all originated from one source. If new phyla evolved in the past, why would they completely stop evolving during the last 500 plus million years. Remember, Even the most liberal scientists recognize that there was no more than 100 million years for the development of 70+ phyla during the Cambrian period, kind of strange that there hasn't been the development of even one phylum in the 500 million years since, isn't it?

Yes, how dare they explain evolution using population genetics and darwinian mechanisms. That's just crazy.

If you believe that punctuated equilibrium has anything to do with Darwinian mechanisms that you are grossly misinformed. Punctuated equilibrium does not look for natural selection through random mutation over a long periods of time. It suggests that some extremely localized (unknown) force cause rapid speciation where nearly every generation had a beneficially positive mutation for about 10,000 years. The mechanism that caused this series of positive mutations is currently unknown. The reason that these speciation events do not show evidence in the fossil record, according to Gould, is that the speciation took place so rapidly in such small geographic locations that we have not yet been able to locate these speciation events in the fossil record. The greatest evidence for this theory is the lack of fossil records in the strata because this theory was developed as an explanation for the lack of speciation predicted by Darwinian mechanisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is that there is no common single root phylum.

You never heard of a taxonomic Kingdom for all eukaroyotic phyla?

The evolutionary tree shown in most college text books does not exist in the fossil record.

Then why are you using something that doesn't exist to argue against evolution? At first you say that evolution is false because we can find phyla in the cambrian, and now you are saying that phyla don't exist. Which is it?

During the Cambrian period there were over 70 phyla (some of which are now extinct). Where did these 70 phyla come from?

They came from taxonomists organizing species according to similarities.

How did they differentiate from each other?

Through mutation and selection.

Why is their no fossil record of a common ancestor? etc...

How did you determine that there isn't? I am not aware of anyone who has searched the entire fossil record. I am also not aware of a single reason that every species that has lived would be represented in the modern fossil record given that sediments are destroyed through erosion and subduction.

First, even the most stanch adherents to evolution recognize this is still too short of a period of time to account for the number of phyla found in the Cambrian layer; this is why theories about the mass distruction of earlier fossil layers persist i.e. the fossils that should have been there have all been completely destroyed.

Do you deny that erosion and subduction occurs? Do you deny that we have only searched the tiniest fraction of the fossil record?

Second, you are looking at older material, world wide most scientists have shortened that period considerably because all phyla appear to present during the very beginning of the Cambrian period.

Why is this a problem? Why shouldn't the ancestors of modern life be found in the Cambrian? Are you forgetting that phyla are human contructs?

There are over 70 known phyla in the Cambrian period, IF the ToE is true they all originated from one source. If new phyla evolved in the past, why would they completely stop evolving during the last 500 plus million years.

Because you can not evolve out of your phyla. That is not how evolution works.

Why don't we see any mammals, amphibians, fish, birds, dinosaurs, lizards, or insects in the Cambrian?

Remember, Even the most liberal scientists recognize that there was no more than 100 million years for the development of 70+ phyla during the Cambrian period, kind of strange that there hasn't been the development of even one phylum in the 500 million years since, isn't it?

It isn't strange at all since you can not evolve out of your ancestry.

If you believe that punctuated equilibrium has anything to do with Darwinian mechanisms that you are grossly misinformed. Punctuated equilibrium does not look for natural selection through random mutation over a long periods of time. It suggests that some extremely localized (unknown) force cause rapid speciation where nearly every generation had a beneficially positive mutation for about 10,000 years.

That is not it at all. It uses smaller populations to fix mutations at a faster rate through selection and drift. The smaller population then replaces the larger population. It is mutation and selection throughout. It is all darwinian mechanisms.

The reason that these speciation events do not show evidence in the fossil record, according to Gould, is that the speciation took place so rapidly in such small geographic locations that we have not yet been able to locate these speciation events in the fossil record. The greatest evidence for this theory is the lack of fossil records in the strata because this theory was developed as an explanation for the lack of speciation predicted by Darwinian mechanisms.

This is also false. Gould and Eldredge used several gastropod lineages to demonstrate the mechanism in action. The paper can be found here:

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

They presented positive evidence of punk eek in action in the fossil record.

 

[benelchi]

You never heard of a taxonomic Kingdom for all eukaroyotic phyla?

We all understand that evolutionists have proposed this common root, we don't all believe it actually existed. The point was that while this common root has been proposed in science, it is non-existant in the known fossil record.

Then why are you using something that doesn't exist to argue against evolution? At first you say that evolution is false because we can find phyla in the cambrian, and now you are saying that phyla don't exist. Which is it?

I didn't ever argue that phyla do not exist. I argued that a common ancestor of all phyla doesn't exist.

How did you determine that there isn't? I am not aware of anyone who has searched the entire fossil record. I am also not aware of a single reason that every species that has lived would be represented in the modern fossil record given that sediments are destroyed through erosion and subduction.

There is absolutely no evidence of any in the fossil record and the destruction of fossils proposed by evolutionists doesn't resemble a random destruction of fossil evidence. IF evolution truly occurred through the mechanism of natural selection and random mutations then stasis should be the exception in the fossil record but it is the rule not the exception.

Do you deny that erosion and subduction occurs? Do you deny that we have only searched the tiniest fraction of the fossil record?

No, I don't deny these events but I do reject as statistical impossible the idea that these fossil destroying events were capable of selectively wiping out the exact 99.9% of the fossil record that validated the Darwinian mechanism and left behind only the .1% that made it appear if Darwin's theories were wrong. That is just a little to convenient for me.

Why is this a problem? Why shouldn't the ancestors of modern life be found in the Cambrian? Are you forgetting that phyla are human contructs?

I guess I should have been more specific i.e. you are using older SCIENTIFIC material; current scientific papers suggest the development of life during the Cambrian period took place over period of time much shorter than 100 million years. Again, scientists in Asia now suggest that it may have taken place in a period of only 1,000,000 years or less. Please read new articles!

Because you can not evolve out of your phyla. That is not how evolution works.

The formation of new phyla, as predicted by evolution, requires a new phylum to evolve out of an old phylum. There is absolutely no other theory proposed by evolutionists to explain the development of new phylum. Please go back and read what evolutionists have really said!

It isn't strange at all since you can not evolve out of your ancestry.

Again, according to evolutionary scientists this is absolutely wrong. The ONLY proposition for the development of new phyla requires that evolutionary mechanisms produces organisms that evolve into new phyla. If they did not, where did the 70+ phyla come from originally (according to the evolutionary model)?

That is not it at all. It uses smaller populations to fix mutations at a faster rate through selection and drift. The smaller population then replaces the larger population. It is mutation and selection throughout. It is all darwinian mechanisms.

How does that negate the need for a beneficial change in nearly every generation for a period of time no longer that about 10,000 years? What is the mechanism that causes a beneficial change in nearly every generation?

This is also false. Gould and Eldredge used several gastropod lineages to demonstrate the mechanism in action. The paper can be found here:

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

They presented positive evidence of punk eek in action in the fossil record.

This paper proposes a theory it does not provide proof of that theory and it requires huge leaps of faith to accept its conclusions. Again there is ZERO evidence of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record, which is what I said. I understand what they have proposed and what they have suggested is evidence for the proposition but I also understand the issues with that proposal.

By the way, if you had actually read this paper you would know that it describes exactly what I described in my earlier post i.e. very rapid speciation in small localized areas. The evidence is the breaks in the fossil record i.e. the absence of fossils predicted by Darwinian mechanisms. Here is a direct quote from the paper itself:

"The theory of allopatric (or geographic) speciation suggests a different interpretation of the paleontological data. If new species arise very rapidly in small, peripherally isolated local populations, then the great expectaton of insensibly graded fossil sequences isa chimera. A new species does not evolve in the area of its ancestors; it does not arise from the slow transformation of all its forbears. Many breaks [observed] in the fossil record are real"

 

[RickG]

There is absolutely no evidence of any in the fossil record and the destruction of fossils proposed by evolutionists doesn't resemble a random destruction of fossil evidence. IF evolution truly occurred through the mechanism of natural selection and random mutations then stasis should be the exception in the fossil record but it is the rule not the exception.

By that reasoning we should find rabbits and dinosaurs in the same layers of strata. Why is it we don't find elephants in Cambrian strata or dinosaurs in Pleistocene strata?

 

[benelchi]

By that reasoning we should find rabbits and dinosaurs in the same layers of strata. Why is it we don't find elephants in Cambrian strata or dinosaurs in Pleistocene strata?

Can you show any post where I indicated that we should find these fossils in that strata?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Ok so non living matter has how many genes?

42

 

[samaus12345]

oh ok then thanks for that, ummm ohhh ok then just can i please ask umm? is there any sources at all to back that up please?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

We all understand that evolutionists have proposed this common root, we don't all believe it actually existed.

Do you not believe for any reason other than religious?

 

[Loudmouth]

We all understand that evolutionists have proposed this common root, we don't all believe it actually existed. The point was that while this common root has been proposed in science, it is non-existant in the known fossil record.

Phyla are also non-existent in the fossil record. They are human constructs. Genera are human constructs as well.

I didn't ever argue that phyla do not exist. I argued that a common ancestor of all phyla doesn't exist.

How did you determine this?

There is absolutely no evidence of any in the fossil record and the destruction of fossils proposed by evolutionists doesn't resemble a random destruction of fossil evidence.

How so?

IF evolution truly occurred through the mechanism of natural selection and random mutations then stasis should be the exception in the fossil record but it is the rule not the exception.

Why?

No, I don't deny these events but I do reject as statistical impossible the idea that these fossil destroying events were capable of selectively wiping out the exact 99.9% of the fossil record that validated the Darwinian mechanism and left behind only the .1% that made it appear if Darwin's theories were wrong. That is just a little to convenient for me.

How much of the fossil record have we searched? What percentage would you put on that? What percentage of the fossil record is even available to be searched, do you think?

How can you say after searching such a miniscule portion of the fossil record that we do not have fossils in the Cambrian that can be ancestors of modern species?

I guess I should have been more specific i.e. you are using older SCIENTIFIC material; current scientific papers suggest the development of life during the Cambrian period took place over period of time much shorter than 100 million years. Again, scientists in Asia now suggest that it may have taken place in a period of only 1,000,000 years or less. Please read new articles!

Reference?

"The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively rapid appearance (over a period of many millions of years), around 530 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record,[1][2] accompanied by major diversification of organisms including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.[3] Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today.[5]"
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The formation of new phyla, as predicted by evolution, requires a new phylum to evolve out of an old phylum.

No, it doesn't. You don't evolve out of your ancestry. We are part of the chordate phylum. We are chordates just like the chordates found in the Cambrian. Every descendant of a chordate will stay in the chordate phylum. Evolution is a branching process. It is not a "break off of the tree and start a new tree" process.

Also, no phyla existed until very recently when Linnaeus invented taxonomy. Phyla are a human invention. No fossil has a tag on it that says, "I belong to XXX phylum".

Again, according to evolutionary scientists this is absolutely wrong. The ONLY proposition for the development of new phyla requires that evolutionary mechanisms produces organisms that evolve into new phyla. If they did not, where did the 70+ phyla come from originally (according to the evolutionary model)?

You don't evolve into new phyla. You don't evolve out of your own ancestry. Your ancestors never change. If your ancestors are in a given phylum, then you are too.

How does that negate the need for a beneficial change in nearly every generation for a period of time no longer that about 10,000 years?

Why does it require 10,000 years? Gould and Eldredge are on record putting these transitions on the scale of 100,000 years. Also, you don't need that large of a population to get a mutation at every position in the genome, so multiple beneficial mutations are occuring in every generation, especially in very large populations. Let's use humans as the example. With 100 mutations per individual per generation and a 6 billion base diploid genome it only takes 60 million people to cover those 6 billion bases.

The difference is how quickly those mutations reach fixation in a small or large population, and the increase in selection at the edge of a species range. In a small population, mutations can reach fixation much more quickly. Also, individuals will experience harsher selection at the edge of the effective range (think of pine trees at the edge of the tree line). These two effects combined will increase the rate of evolution even with a mutation rate that is the same as that in the larger population.

What is the mechanism that causes a beneficial change in nearly every generation?

Mutation.

This paper proposes a theory it does not provide proof of that theory and it requires huge leaps of faith to accept its conclusions. Again there is ZERO evidence of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record, which is what I said. I understand what they have proposed and what they have suggested is evidence for the proposition but I also understand the issues with that proposal.

I guess you completely ignored their discussions on the gastropod fossil record? Read the section entitled "Application of allopatric concepts to paleontological examples". They discuss how PE works with positive evidence from the fossil record both in gastropods and in trilobites.

By the way, if you had actually read this paper you would know that it describes exactly what I described in my earlier post i.e. very rapid speciation in small localized areas. The evidence is the breaks in the fossil record i.e. the absence of fossils predicted by Darwinian mechanisms. Here is a direct quote from the paper itself:

The evidence is the observed evolution through allopatric speciation as demosntrated by positive evidence in the fossil record.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

oh ok then thanks for that, ummm ohhh ok then just can i please ask umm? is there any sources at all to back that up please?

Yes, it's on record.

Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[samaus12345]

haah

 

[CaliforniaSun]

haah

There's three types of people in the world; those who believe everything they read, and those who don't.

 

[benelchi]

Do you not believe for any reason other than religious?

As I noted in my previous post:

1) Science indicates the appearance of 70+ phyla in a period of time far to short to be explained by natural selection.

2) Science has not shown any evidence for the existence of a common root.

3) During the last 500+ million years, evolution has not produced one single new phylum!

 

[CaliforniaSun]

As I noted in my previous post:

1) Science indicates the appearance of 70+ phyla in a period of time far to short to be explained by natural selection.

2) Science has not shown any evidence for the existence of a common root.

3) During the last 500+ million years, evolution has not produced one single new phylum!

I'm not sure what to say to this. Either your epically uninformed, or intentionally misleading. I'll keep my opinion to myself, as to which I think.

 

[CabVet]

As I noted in my previous post:

1) Science indicates the appearance of 70+ phyla in a period of time far to short to be explained by natural selection.

2) Science has not shown any evidence for the existence of a common root.

3) During the last 500+ million years, evolution has not produced one single new phylum!

Take a look at my avatar, if you can't see it, check this:

And this:

"Phylum" is an arbitrary taxonomic category invented by men, I can create a new one right now by changing the classification if you want.

 

[benelchi]

Rather than waste time arguing about every point, lets begin with one of the most basic concepts you seem to have misunderstood.

No, it doesn't. You don't evolve out of your ancestry. We are part of the chordate phylum. We are chordates just like the chordates found in the Cambrian. Every descendant of a chordate will stay in the chordate phylum. Evolution is a branching process. It is not a "break off of the tree and start a new tree" process.

First, according to evolutionists phylum do on occasion branch into new phylum. Yes, it is true that evolutionists believe that normally organism stay within their own phylum but if evolution is true, the cumulative effects of natural selection must have occasionally created new phyla. This doesn't mean that the new organism starts back at the base of the tree, it means that the new organism deviates from the previous organism enough to establish a new branch i.e. phylum that all future generations belong. This is why the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion is so difficult for the evolutionary model; the expectation of evolution by a Darwinian mechanism is that new phylum should appear randomly over long periods of time. This is the primary reason for the hypothesis of a destroyed fossil record prior to the Cambrian period i.e. the Evolutionists would like to move the root of the tree backwards by a billion years and see the appearance of the 70+ phyla of the Cambrian period be shown to be much more random i.e. first 1 phylum and then 2 phyla, and then 4 phyla, etc... until we somehow reach the stasis seen in the Cambrian period. The problem is that is not what is found in the fossil record!

 

[benelchi]

"Phylum" is an arbitrary taxonomic category invented by men, I can create a new one right now by changing the classification if you want.

Of coarse you can, but that would mean nothing because it would only be changing the rules. The real question is, given our current classification system, why don't new phyla appear randomly over geological time. Why did the phyla all seem to come into existence at nearly the same time? Why, using our current classification system, have ZERO new phyla come into existence over the last 500 million years? Why were their more phyla in existence in the Cambrian period than there are today?

 

[CabVet]

First, according to evolutionists phylum do on occasion branch into new phylum. Yes, it is true that evolutionists believe that normally organism stay within their own phylum but if evolution is true, the cumulative effects of natural selection must have occasionally created new phyla. This doesn't mean that the new organism starts back at the base of the tree, it means that the new organism deviates from the previous organism enough to establish a new branch i.e. phylum that all future generations belong. This is why the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion is so difficult for the evolutionary model; the expectation of evolution by a Darwinian mechanism is that new phylum should appear randomly over long periods of time. This is the primary reason for the hypothesis of a destroyed fossil record prior to the Cambrian period i.e. the Evolutionists would like to move the root of the tree backwards by a billion years and see the appearance of the 70+ phyla of the Cambrian period be shown to be much more random i.e. first 1 phylum and then 2 phyla, and then 4 phyla, etc... until we somehow reach the stasis seen in the Cambrian period. The problem is that is not what is found in the fossil record!

Ok, lets focus on one issue.

No, phylum do not branch into new phylum. I will say it again, phylum is an arbitrary taxonomic category, just like genera, family, order, class, etc.

I challenge you to provide a single scientific (or creationist) source that says otherwise.