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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It only seems like magic until you know how the trick is done.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke.

 

[Buzzard3]

It only seems like magic until you know how the trick is done.

I suspect the "know" is delusion.

It seems to me that the theory of evolution is a very simplistic nineteenth-century idea that attempts (in vain) to explain something that is actually inexplicable.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I suspect the "know" is delusion.

It seems to me that the theory of evolution is a very simplistic nineteenth-century idea that attempts (in vain) to explain something that is actually inexplicable.

Except that you've not once shown how it is anything of the sort. If it was delusion, then why it would be expanded on and used for over a century, with actual results?

 

[ottawak]

I suspect the "know" is delusion.

It seems to me that the theory of evolution is a very simplistic nineteenth-century idea that attempts (in vain) to explain something that is actually inexplicable.

What other scientific theories do you feel that way about?

 

[Buzzard3]

Except that you've not once shown how it is anything of the sort. If it was delusion, then why it would be expanded on and used for over a century, with actual results?

What "actual results"?

 

[Buzzard3]

What other scientific theories do you feel that way about?

The theory of the Tooth Fairy.
The theory of Little Green Men on Mars.

 

[Buzzard3]

And that's a problem the Cambrian Explosion gives to the theory of evolution how? You're just saying it's a problem and doing nothing to explain how it is except quoting other people.

According to ToE and common ancestry, disparity (ie, differences in morphology and function) occurs only after much diversification of species.
Imagine beginning with one population of a certain organism ... it will take many many generations and many many speciations before organisms evolve that are significantly different in morphology and function to the original organisms. The time it would take for a different phylum, for example, to evolve from the original phylum would be immense. Therefore the pattern predicted by ToE is diversity first, followed much later by disparity.

But that pattern is not what we see in the Cambrian. We see disparity first - the sudden appearance of multiple phyla - followed by diversity within each phylum. That pattern is the opposite of what ToE predicts!

Therefore the Cambrian explosion represents a contradiction of ToE.

 

[Buzzard3]

I was wondering if he made arguments against fossils beyond the ediacaran-cambrian beginning of life time-frames.

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.

It sounds like he denies evolution to me, given what appears to be a belief that Cambrian species don't have precursors.

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.

 

[ottawak]

The theory of the Tooth Fairy.
The theory of Little Green Men on Mars.

Those are not scientific theories. Scientific theories require confirming evidence.

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

These ideas sound contradictory. Given that a precursor would be identified by cladistic patterns. What do you mean?

 

[Job 33:6]

According to ToE and common ancestry, disparity (ie, differences in morphology and function) occurs only after much diversification of species.
Imagine beginning with one population of a certain organism ... it will take many many generations and many many speciations before organisms evolve that are significantly different in morphology and function to the original organisms. The time it would take for a different phylum, for example, to evolve from the original phylum would be immense. Therefore the pattern predicted by ToE is diversity first, followed much later by disparity.

But that pattern is not what we see in the Cambrian. We see disparity first - the sudden appearance of multiple phyla - followed by diversity within each phylum. That pattern is the opposite of what ToE predicts!

Therefore the Cambrian explosion represents a contradiction of ToE.

This is just called radiation. It's the same thing observed after any other extinction event throughout time. Because niches aren't filled at the time of the Cambrian or aren't filled after any other extinction event, you get disparity followed by diversity. Once niches are filled, then you have the reverse of diversity followed by disparity until the next radiation event.

To understand this concept, we can just ask a question of why evolution of new species or genus or family etc. would occur in an environment in which dominant and effective animals already live? The answer is that it wouldn't. And so these radiation events look different than timespans that follow them. First beginning with radiations or "explosions", followed by a more gradual diversification over time.

The Cambrian was unique in that it was a time of morphological "experimentation", see Gould's "Wonderful Life" for examples. But this is more of a superficial difference with other radiation events, as opposed to some kind of difference in what biologically was unfolding. What animals arise in a radiation is going to depend on what pressures are already present in an environment and what body plans already exist. A trilobite for example isn't going to grow a third eye if it's already efficient with the two that it has. And so later diversifications will look different than the very first.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

According to ToE and common ancestry, disparity (ie, differences in morphology and function) occurs only after much diversification of species.

Show me where that is said, or your just quoting a strawman.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What "actual results"?

Like the study of why pigs can be used for organ transplants with humans, xenotransplantation, which reveals the common ancestry between the two, thus allowing the practice to work.

 

[Buzzard3]

This is just called radiation. It's the same thing observed after any other extinction event throughout time.

It's not the same thing at all. All known phyla (except one) appeared during the Cambrian explosion. How many new phyla were produced by the radiations you mention?
There is a massive difference between the former and latter events.

Because niches aren't filled at the time of the Cambrian or aren't filled after any other extinction event, you get disparity followed by diversity.

According to ToE, disparity can't just magically appear overnight - we're talking different body plans and novel organs (eg, eyes) here, not trivia like different size beaks in finches. Such disparity can only happen very slolwly, after countless generations of diversification.

 

[Buzzard3]

Like the study of why pigs can be used for organ transplants with humans, xenotransplantation, which reveals the common ancestry between the two, thus allowing the practice to work.

Your argument is illogical. What makes such transplants possible are the actual genetic similarities between humans and pigs ... not the explanation for why such genetic similarities exist.
The transplants will work regardless of any such explanations ... attribute the genetic similarities to the activity of pixies, if you like, and the transplants will still work.

 

[Buzzard3]

Show me where that is said, or your just quoting a strawman.

The disparity evident in the Cambrian explosion includes entirely new phyla ... you know, stuff like novel body plans and new organs, such as eyes.

Which part of ToE says such radical changes can happen overnight?

 

[Shemjaza]

The disparity evident in the Cambrian explosion includes entirely new phyla ... you know, stuff like novel body plans and new organs, such as eyes.

Which part of ToE says such radical changes can happen overnight?

It's millions and millions of years. The world was going through changes and many niches didn't exist... also eyes aren't particularly good at leaving remains unless it's in a skull socket or shell cup.

 

[Buzzard3]

Those are not scientific theories. Scientific theories require confirming evidence.

How did the lense of an eye evolve?
How do you test your hypothesis?

How did a spider's silk-producing organ evolve? How do you test your hypothesis?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your argument is illogical. What makes such transplants possible are the actual genetic similarities between humans and pigs ... not the explanation for why such genetic similarities exist.
The transplants will work regardless of any such explanations ... attribute the genetic similarities to the activity of pixies, if you like, and the transplants will still work.

Your own argument is illogical. If those genetic similarities exist, there must be a reason. Humans and pigs being mammals isn't just enough of a reason for them to exist. There has to be something deeper.

The disparity evident in the Cambrian explosion includes entirely new phyla ... you know, stuff like novel body plans and new organs, such as eyes.

Which part of ToE says such radical changes can happen overnight?

I asked you to show me where in the Theory of Evolution where, to quote you, it says: "According to ToE and common ancestry, disparity (ie, differences in morphology and function) occurs only after much diversification of species."

Don't answer my question with another question. It shows that you have nothing to give as an answer. I hope that you do have an answer.

And no, six million years is not 'overnight'. Six million years is SIX MILLION YEARS. 6,000,000 YEARS. How is that a 'short' period of time to you? How can you call that short?

 

[Job 33:6]

It's not the same thing at all. All known phyla (except one) appeared during the Cambrian explosion. How many new phyla were produced by the radiations you mention?
There is a massive difference between the former and latter events.

According to ToE, disparity can't just magically appear overnight - we're talking different body plans and novel organs (eg, eyes) here, not trivia like different size beaks in finches. Such disparity can only happen very slolwly, after countless generations of diversification.

As noted earlier, your initial statement is not true. Most phyla originated before the Cambrian. Meaning that the premise that you're working on is incorrect.