Groundbreaking Paper Shows Thousands of New Genes Needed for the Origin of Animals

[pitabread]

No Darwin makes clear he was arguing againt the miraculous as a cause for life. I didn't define it but unlike you I read Darwin along with the requisite scientific literature.

Since you read the "requisite scientific literature" can you point to any usage of the term Darwinism in scientific literature that matches your own interpretation of the term? And obviously not including On the Origin of Species of course, since Darwin never actually defines the term 'Darwinism'. (But since you read it, you'd know this already )

 

[mark kennedy]

Since you read the "requisite scientific literature" can you point to any usage of the term Darwinism in scientific literature that matches your own interpretation of the term? And obviously not including On the Origin of Species of course, since Darwin never actually defines the term 'Darwinism'. (But since you read it, you'd know this already )

It's in plenty of the papers and articles, the Chimpazee genome paper starts right off with Darwin and Huxley. What's more Darwin does define his premise in the preface of On the Origins, as natural law rather then miracles citing Larmark as the originator. I just think if your going to be so devoutly Darwinian you should at least honestly admit it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thats where your wrong, theism is a postive arrgumet. We koow for instance that you know there is a God and what he is like.
I know this because you never ask. You want to defend a Darwinian view then own it, who cares what you call it.

Hey dude, did a 12 year old from Kentucky hack into your account?

 

[pitabread]

It's in plenty of the papers and articles, the Chimpazee genome paper starts right off with Darwin and Huxley.

Hoo boy.

I'm well aware that plenty of biologists reference famous scientists from days of yore like Darwin and Huxley. However, that wasn't the question.

The question is regarding your private definition of "Darwinism" and whether or not your particular definition based on your reading of Darwin's work is also being used in the same fashion by other scientists in the scientific literature.

You're the one who keeps complaining about equivocation, so I'm sure you'd love to avoid that yourself, right?

I just think if your going to be so devoutly Darwinian you should at least honestly admit it.

I have no idea what "devoutly Darwinian" is supposed to mean.

 

[tas8831]

Someday we may get tired of being vindicated.

LOL!

But not yet! Günter Bechly recently discussed a new paper that confirmed Stephen Meyer’s claims in Darwin’s Doubt that arthropods appeared abruptly in the Cambrian explosion, without evolutionary precursors in the Precambrian. Another recent groundbreaking paper in Nature Communications has also provided massive confirmation of Meyer’s arguments in the book that new genes were required at the origin of animals.

This is standard creationist/Id hyperbole, especially from the DI (as usual).

Instead of relying on the rants of propagandists, how about YOU take the paper in question:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04136-5.pdf
and provide and explain the parts that you think vindicate Meyer. No links to essays, no quotes from the Discovery Institute propagandists - explain your claim.

 

[tas8831]

And he never did...

LOL!

This is standard creationist/Id hyperbole, especially from the DI (as usual).

Instead of relying on the rants of propagandists, how about YOU take the paper in question:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04136-5.pdf
and provide and explain the parts that you think vindicate Meyer. No links to essays, no quotes from the Discovery Institute propagandists - explain your claim.

Strange way this one has of "debating" things - he starts a thread by copy-pasting parts of an essay by some DI creationist hack, then scampers off to do it all over in a new thread, rarely if ever following up on anything.

That is not "debate", that is spam-trolling.

 

[HitchSlap]

Thats where your wrong, theism is a postive arrgumet. We koow for instance that you know there is a God and what he is like. I know this because you never ask.

Lol...

We know for instance, that you’re like, wrong.

Get a grip kid.

 

[Job 33:6]

Both of those cover how genes are designed to diversify and create a variety of functions and fail to explain the reason for the cambrian explosion.

What wasn't mentioned in the original post is that the Cambrian explosion actually occurred over tens of millions of years, as per the fossil succession. Add indeed, trace fossils such as arthropod tracks actually predate the cambrian explosion by some 10 million years, as the explosion is more well defined by hard shelled organisms than soft bodied.

Aside biological explanations related to evolutionary arms races, there are geologic considerations as well. Such as the ending of snowball earth, the rifting of rodinia and changes in oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere.
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-scientists-earth-youngest-banded-iron.html

So what you have is a changing of the global environment from an ice age, to a warm, rifted, well temperate environment with shallow seas, simultaneously aligning with the evolution of hard shells during an evolutionary arms race which promoted fossilization (shells fossilize more readily than soft bodied arthropods). But this in total still took millions of years to unfold.

Really, diversification prior to the cambrian explosion was occuring arguably some 30 million years prior to the cambrian explosion itself (maybe by 560 mya) with cloudina and sinotubulites. Then by 535 you get your increased number in trace fossils of arthropods anabarites, and other things too like sponges, molluscs and shelled animals and it wasnt until maybe 10 million years after that by 525 mya that you actually had an extensive appearance of fossils. But really the spike in idversity appeared closer to 515 mya, some 45 million years after early stage shelled fossils mentioned above.

So dont be fooled when people describe the cambrian explosion as something that happened instantaneously, or any short period of time.

To geologists, like myself, 10 million years is a relatively brief time, and i might consider it fast paced. But this is in the grand scheme of an earth that is over 4 and a half billion years old. But with respect to biological change and speciation that occurs naturally within tens or hundreds of thousands of years in todays age, or even 10s of hundreds of years under greater environmental stress....giving life 45 million years to diversify is no real complication.

Life has had an incredible amount of time for life to diversify. Far more time than really is necessary by any biological understanding of rates of evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

Life has had an incredible amount of time for life to diversify. Far more time than really is necessary by any biological understanding of rates of evolution.

If that were true (you are the first to claim it) then we wouldn't need space agents to deliver life here. A good bluff though.

When scientists approach the question of how life began on Earth, or elsewhere, their efforts generally involve attempts to understand how non-biological molecules bonded, became increasingly complex, and eventually reached the point where they could replicate or could use sources of energy to make things happen. Ultimately, of course, life needed both.

Researchers have been working for some time to understand this very long and winding process, and some have sought to make synthetic life out of selected components and energy. Some startling progress has been made in both of these endeavors, but many unexplained mysteries remain at the heart of the processes. And nobody is expecting the origin of life on Earth (or elsewhere) to be fully understood anytime soon.
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/in-search-of-panspermia/


And all I ask is for is a scientific muse on why life would or should develop.
Why is there no property of matter that suggests why life should form?

 

[Job 33:6]

If that were true (you are the first to claim it) then we wouldn't need space agents to deliver life here. A good bluff though.

When scientists approach the question of how life began on Earth, or elsewhere, their efforts generally involve attempts to understand how non-biological molecules bonded, became increasingly complex, and eventually reached the point where they could replicate or could use sources of energy to make things happen. Ultimately, of course, life needed both.

Researchers have been working for some time to understand this very long and winding process, and some have sought to make synthetic life out of selected components and energy. Some startling progress has been made in both of these endeavors, but many unexplained mysteries remain at the heart of the processes. And nobody is expecting the origin of life on Earth (or elsewhere) to be fully understood anytime soon.
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/in-search-of-panspermia/


And all I ask is for is a scientific muse on why life would or should develop.
Why is there no property of matter that suggests why life should form?

I think you're mistaking evolution and rates of it for abiogenesis.

The cambrian explosion post dates the first appearance of life on Earth by over a billion years. And so, my commentary really has nothing to do with the start of life.

Your comment was about the Cambrian explosion and not abiogenesis as well.

They're vastly different topics.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think you're mistaking evolution and rates of it for abiogenesis.
They're vastly different topics.

You are welcome to be the first to explain why they are different rather than just repeating other forum posters.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are welcome to be the first to explain why they are different rather than just repeating other forum posters.

Bcause one involves complex multicellular eukaryotes and the other involves Precambrian proto cells.



One involves the evolution of species in the Cambrian and the other involves abiogenesis of the archean/hadean. They're vastly different scientific areas of study.

Many scientists study things like Cambrian invertebrates and species of the Cambrian explosion. But paleontologists and geologists who work with and study life of the early paleozoic do not likewise study hadean microbiology.

The difference is as vast as thinking that a structural engineer might study particle physics because bridges are ultimately made of subatomic particles.

If you would like more details on these different fields of study, feel free to let me know.

The colored geologic timescale chart in the link below is a rough generalization, but it might help.

http://clarkscience8.weebly.com/geologic-time-scale.html

 

[Job 33:6]