I don't understand the point of creationism

[Guy Threepwood]

Eh, not really: Integrated records of environmental change and evolution challenge the Cambrian Explosion | Nature Ecology & Evolution

Holistic integration of fossil and geochemical records leads us to challenge the notion that the Ediacaran and Cambrian worlds were markedly distinct, and places biotic and environmental change within a longer-term narrative. We propose that the evolution of metazoans may have been facilitated by a series of dynamic and global changes in redox conditions and nutrient supply, which, potentially together with biotic feedbacks, enabled turnover events that sustained multiple phases of radiation. We argue that early metazoan diversification should be recast as a series of successive, transitional radiations that extended from the late Ediacaran and continued through the early Palaeozoic. We conclude that while the Cambrian Explosion represents a radiation of crown-group bilaterians, it was simply one phase amongst several metazoan radiations, some older and some younger.​

I'd agree with that in general, yes there were a lot more explosions/radiations than the Cambrian- that just happens to be best known. I'd say this just further undermines the Darwinian hypothesis (as argued by some here) that macro evolution is merely an extension of slow gradual natural variation.

This also drastically increases the problem of accounting for vast new volumes of genetic information spontaneously appearing in ever shorter timescales, by sheer chance. Some attempt to account for this by explosive solar/supernova radiation events since the known waiting times for mutations would have had to have been accelerated dramatically. Here again we run into the mathematical hurdles of deleterious mutations vastly outnumbering advantageous ones

 

[pitabread]

I'd say this just further undermines the Darwinian hypothesis (as argued by some here) that macro evolution is merely an extension of slow gradual natural variation.

Darwinian gradualism hasn't been a thing for over a hundred years.

 

[Astrid]

definitely no insult intended! 'dog ate my homework' is not personal, just a reduction for:
even if one has a valid excuse for the lack of evidence- that does not stand in lieu of the evidence itself.



that is why punctuated equilibrium splintered off from the gradualists- it became ever clearer that the gaps such as the Cambrian Explosion (and others) were not mere artifacts of an incomplete record, but actual true reflections of natural history

(we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we did in Darwin's time)

similarly as a skeptic of Darwinism I take the scientific evidence at face value:
biological forms suddenly appear and generally remain without much change
macro evolution v natural variation cannot be replicated, observed or even modelled-
variation appears to be a design feature, not a design mechanism
I have no need to accuse this direct evidence of being misleading



horseshoe crab
when a photocopy remains identical after 100 million copies- you know its being sourced from a 'master' copy, not successive generations of copies with accumulated random errors

Do you consider it an "excuse" that there is no record of Jesus'
early life and conclude he suddenly appeared?
Anyway, there isca big difference between explanation and
excuse. A hand wa e directed at a valid reason that not every
fossil type has been found ism call it another name, dismissive.

Horseshoe crabs did not suddenly appear, all apart from
any related types.
Basic body plans don't suddenly appear any more than
the pyramids did, regardless of homework about who when.

From basic body plans novel forms radiate and develop.

The persistence of basic- plan organisms that appeared early is very
common, be it bacteria, algae, bivalves, moss, segmented worms,
ferns, arthropods, etc
Some primitive generalists often persistent indefinitely.
Its what the fossil record shows.
Evolution is about what works, if it don't broke, ain't fix it.


I think your argument boils down to "how come there are
still monkeys"

You didn't actually answer either question.

On domestic animals, btw...
People were not breeding for optimum characteristics of
a wild animal. They were breeding freaks. Huge udders.
Huge brisket, massive coat of wool, super fast growing,
etc., and of course they ran into problems.

It has less than nothing to do with what accumulated changes
in a wild population can or cannot do over time.

A quick aside, are you familiar with the idea of generalist
and specialist as descriptors for various soecies?

 

[Astrid]

Darwinian gradualism hasn't been a thing for over a hundred years.

I kind of wish people could just drop "Darwinism".
He had a good basic idea, like a long time ago.

Let's attack Henry Ford coz he didn't know about catalytic
converters.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Do you consider it an "excuse" that there is no record of Jesus'
early life and conclude he suddenly appeared?
Anyway, there isca big difference between explanation and
excuse. A hand wa e directed at a valid reason that not every
fossil type has been found ism call it another name, dismissive.

Horseshoe crabs did not suddenly appear, all apart from
any related types.
Basic body plans don't suddenly appear any more than
the pyramids did, regardless of homework about who when.

From basic body plans novel forms radiate and develop.

The persistence of basic- plan organisms that appeared early is very
common, be it bacteria, algae, bivalves, moss, segmented worms,
ferns, arthropods, etc
Some primitive generalists often persistent indefinitely.
Its what the fossil record shows.
Evolution is about what works, if it don't broke, ain't fix it.


I think your argument boils down to "how come there are
still monkeys"

You didn't actually answer either question.

On domestic animals, btw...
People were not breeding for optimum characteristics of
a wild animal. They were breeding freaks. Huge udders.
Huge brisket, massive coat of wool, super fast growing,
etc., and of course they ran into problems.

It has less than nothing to do with what accumulated changes
in a wild population can or cannot do over time.

A quick aside, are you familiar with the idea of generalist
and specialist as descriptors for various soecies?

I think we agree on the lack of fossil evidence then, as does Dawkins

"The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"

Again, one can come up with any number of excuses for the lack of evidence for gradual micro to macro evolution (again- nothing personal whatsoever) but you have to ask yourself at some point, are those excuses really demanded by the evidence, or just by the theory?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I kind of wish people could just drop "Darwinism".
He had a good basic idea, like a long time ago.

Let's attack Henry Ford coz he didn't know about catalytic
converters.

I agree, it's nothing personal against Darwin, his theory was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics in the Victorian age, but science has moved on

 

[Speedwell]

I agree, it's nothing personal against Darwin, his theory was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics in the Victorian age, but science has moved on

And the theory of evolution along with it. Which is why, I suppose, creationists still like to brand the theory "Darwinism."

 

[Astrid]

" Excuses" is just editorializing.
You concentrate on a time hundreds of
millions of years ago, why?
Evidence of absence and all that rot.
But never mind that.
As one who goes with the evidence,
can you identify any fossil sequences that
do not fit the presumed "sudden appearance
of body plan" rule?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And the theory of evolution along with it. Which is why, I suppose, creationists still like to brand the theory "Darwinism."

I can't speak for creationists but like most people I am a skeptic of Darwinian evolution, not evolution in the broader sense of change over time- so that distinction needs to be made.

The modern synthesis of Darwinism remains natural selection acting on random variation- so little has changed in the basic theory in this regard

 

[pitabread]

The modern synthesis of Darwinism remains natural selection acting on random variation- so little has changed in the basic theory in this regard

Darwin (and Wallace)'s contribution of natural selection is still a central component of the ToE. It's just there has been a lot added to it since then.

And FWIW, even the modern synthesis is out of date at this point. There even more mechanisms and areas of biology being integrated into contemporary evolutionary theory.

 

[Astrid]

Darwin (and Wallace)'s contribution of natural selection is still a central component of the ToE. It's just there has been a lot added to it since then.

And FWIW, even the modern synthesis is out of date at this point. There even more mechanisms and areas of biology being integrated into contemporary evolutionary theory.

Is it time to be tiresome and point out that a theory is disproved by
contrary evidence, not by finding areas where there is no complete data set?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

" Excuses" is just editorializing.
You concentrate on a time hundreds of
millions of years ago, why?
Evidence of absence and all that rot.
But never mind that.
As one who goes with the evidence,
can you identify any fossil sequences that
do not fit the presumed "sudden appearance
of body plan" rule?

Because the Cambrian explosion represents the abrupt appearance (in geological terms) of most of the major phyla.

It was hoped by Darwin and supporters that this would turn out to be an artifact of an incomplete record.
It has long been recognized by many now that the explosion was real- the appearances were abrupt.

How did this happen? it's an interesting question, is there any more fascinating question than life itself?
As a former atheist I am fairly dispassionate re. the ultimate truth, I'd like to know either way- but the Darwinian theory is looking increasingly problematic to me and many. It seems to be heading for a similar fate as classical physics- a very attractive, logical, intuitive, simple model- i.e. not how the universe works!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Is it time to be tiresome and point out that a theory is disproved by
contrary evidence, not by finding areas where there is no complete data set?

Agreed.

The question of life is a question of DNA, how it was created and made able to function

we DO know how such instructive digital information systems can be developed, we are using one right now.

We just don't know of any proven examples of unguided natural forces being able to achieve the same.

 

[pitabread]

We just don't know of any proven examples of unguided natural forces being able to achieve the same, that's looking increasing problematic in the information age.

Insofar as abiogenesis by way of natural chemistry, that's looking increasingly probable given what we know and what has been discovered over the decades.

Even biochemical pathways for the natural generation of things like DNA nucleotides are becoming known.

 

[Astrid]

Because the Cambrian explosion represents the abrupt appearance (in geological terms) of most of the major phyla.

It was hoped by Darwin and supporters that this would turn out to be an artifact of an incomplete record.
It has long been recognized by many now that the explosion was real- the appearances were abrupt.

How did this happen? it's an interesting question, is there any more fascinating question than life itself?
As a former atheist I am fairly dispassionate re. the ultimate truth, I'd like to know either way- but the Darwinian theory is looking increasingly problematic to me and many. It seems to be heading for a similar fate as classical physics- a very attractive, logical, intuitive, simple model- i.e. not how the universe works!

I hold that the "abrupt" appearance is the result of a lack of fossils being found.

There are numerous species of much larger, more recent and more
readily preserved species known from as little as one bone fragment.

It is not reasonable to make from that a theory that only one
specimen of the creature ever existed, no ancestors, just that one,
fragment, ala Lucretius.

Agreed.

The question of life is a question of DNA, how it was created and made able to function

we DO know how such instructive digital information systems can be developed, we are using one right now.

We just don't know of any proven examples of unguided natural forces being able to achieve the same.

Computer analogies are awful sketchy.
You do know there is no such thing as proof in science?

Too many topics. Backtrack a little.
Do you see why your domestic animal breeding does not
demonstrate anything other than that deliberately breeding
plants or animals to be less fit will inevitably lead to some non viable dead ends?

Its not a point that disproves your idea, its
just not a valid demonstration of it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Insofar as abiogenesis by way of natural chemistry, that's looking increasingly probable given what we know and what has been discovered over the decades.

Even biochemical pathways for the natural generation of things like DNA nucleotides are becoming known.

sure, you can play with how some basic chemical building blocks might be generated (using intelligent design in labs of course)- assembling the entire self replicator spontaneously in 'the wild' is another matter entirely.

must run again but just food for thought:

Think of a computer virus, as complex as they may be, like biological ones they can only replicate using a provided external pre-existing replicating system like your computer. Now think about programming a virus that contains it's own self replicating system in it's entirely- (including that very replicating system). That's just the software, now imagine creating one that builds and utilizes it's own hardware, it now needs more software to build that hardware using resources around it...

It's like the chimps at the typewriters, they are never going to type War and Peace in 14 billion years, & DNA/RNA just aint the sort of thing to fall out of a muddy puddle being struck by lightning, or whatever natural circumstance you can imagine.

None of this was a concern for Darwin, the cell was a blob of protoplasm that just divided itself by some presumably simple mechanism

 

[Astrid]

Because the Cambrian explosion represents the abrupt appearance (in geological terms) of most of the major phyla.

It was hoped by Darwin and supporters that this would turn out to be an artifact of an incomplete record.
It has long been recognized by many now that the explosion was real- the appearances were abrupt.

How did this happen? it's an interesting question, is there any more fascinating question than life itself?
As a former atheist I am fairly dispassionate re. the ultimate truth, I'd like to know either way- but the Darwinian theory is looking increasingly problematic to me and many. It seems to be heading for a similar fate as classical physics- a very attractive, logical, intuitive, simple model- i.e. not how the universe works!

The dispassionate usually do not editorialize so much

Q- the Coelacanth famously disappeared from
the fossil record (still missing there) but appeared
in a fish market...

What is a reasonable explanation? Its a big animal,
should be easy to find fossils.

Went extinct then abruptly reappesred?

 

[pitabread]

(using intelligent design in labs of course)

Ah yes, the "if it's in a lab, it's intelligent design" claim that creationists use as their failsafe when it comes to abiogenesis experiments.

I guess I should not be surprised.

Think of a computer virus

You should know my position on analogies by now. Not interested, especially if it's just for the purpose of making an argument from incredulity.

 

[Speedwell]

I can't speak for creationists but like most people I am a skeptic of Darwinian evolution, not evolution in the broader sense of change over time- so that distinction needs to be made.

The modern synthesis of Darwinism remains natural selection acting on random variation- so little has changed in the basic theory in this regard

If you like. But Darwin didn't know anything about how it actually worked at the genetic level. He observed the randomly distributed variation, but he didn't understand how it was produced. Know we now more about it, and understand that there are 2nd order feedback loops at work as well. Classical Darwinism is long gone; why rail against it? Are you skeptical of Newtonian Physics, too?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah yes, the "if it's in a lab, it's intelligent design" claim that creationists use as their failsafe when it comes to abiogenesis experiments.

I guess I should not be surprised.

Of course you shouldn't, these experiments show how certain basic chemical building blocks of DNA can be manufactured through intelligent design, not natural processes- that's a fair observation

You should know my position on analogies by now. Not interested.

is that your failsafe against logic in it's purest form?

Because the most objective measure we have for anything is math, logical algorithms, and that's what we are talking about with computers

Forget the syntax or language or medium, when you are programming you are looking for the minimal logical steps to achieve an outcome- they can only be boiled down so far.

A bucket of sand is not going to develop sentience and start contemplating its own existence just because you give it long enough.

There has to be a minimum amount of instruction, information, which in this case is vast, as seen in even the simplest single celled organisms.

'I assume they'll figure out how it can be done one day'

and that's exactly what we are doing, by our intelligent design- that's the only way it ever could be done