Some random discussion on evolution...

[Jimmy D]

Cambrian explosion is not orders of magnitude larger than human evolution. 13 million years of evolution in early Cambrian divided by 300,000 years of human evolution gives 43. Hence, this in not even one order of magnitude larger, but only 43/1000 = 0.043. If we take into account that human population is larger, maybe even more than 0.0043 orders of magnitude than some Cambrian population that supposedly evolved new anatomical and physiological structures, my comparison is pretty spot on.

You are comparing the evolution of one species over 300,000 years to a worldwide population of many thousands (tens? hundreds? of thousands) of species over 13 million years. Your comparison is spurious.

So, according to the theory, in a time period that is only 10 times longer than human evolution, the process of evolution resulted in multiple anatomical and physiological novelty, which enabeled the occupation of many new(aquatic) niches. Here are just a few examples of novelty:

-Emergence of blowhole, with musculature and nerve control
-Emergence of ball vertebrae
-Modification of the eye for underwater vision
-Ability to drink sea water
-Forelimbs transformed into flippers
-Modification of the teeth
-Reduction of hind limbs
-Reduction of pelvis and sacral vertebrae
-Reorganization of the musculature for the reproductive organs
-Changes to hydrodynamic properties of the skin
-Change in birthing process where fetus is delivered in breech position (for labor underwater)
-Ability to nurse young underwater
-Decoupling of esophagus and trachea
-Origin of tail flukes and musculature
-Origin of blubber for temperature insulation

They are adaptations of existing structures are they not? the clue is in the word "modification", "transformation" "reduction" etc.

It is really funny how you evolutionists have the tendencies to repeat the same nonsense phrases over and over again without critically examining them. "Evolution does not start from scratch, it is modifying what is already there" is one such nonsense phrase.

So you're stating that the modifications you listed above have not been critically examined?

I can only assume that you're profoundly ignorant of scientific research in this area, or are a liar.

Now, tell me something: what natural process doesn't modify what is already there? Thunder, tornadoes, erosion... all these processes modify what is already there. When a stone drops to the ground it modifies what is already there. When a bullet hits a car it modifies what is already there. When one introduces a random change to the text, he modifies what is already there.

Irrelevant waffling.

In the same way, evolution modifies what is already there. What else would be modified if not what is already there?!

That would be correct, well done!

But what that has to do with creating new functional things?

What functional new things? This appears to be a strawman from your fevered imagination. Pick a specific example.

So, these nonsense phrases that you evolutionists repeat like mantra, are just your way to find excuses for keeping your faith in the theory that contradicts every aspect of reality.

That has withstood over a century of rigorous testing, that is confirmed by every discovery from multiple fields of scientific research. That is an applied science.

Dream on. Your amateur musings have no value outside Sunday school.

 

[Kylie]

The theory of evolution holds that the above mentioned process was able to repeatedly produce such novelty in a short period of time. Namely, according to the theory, at the beginning of the Cambrian period, in an interval of 20 million years or less, the process of evolution resulted in the explosion of animal diversity with multiple feats of anatomical and physiological novelty.

Actually, fossils from before this point show that nearly all life forms had soft bodies that would have been unlikely to leave fossils. So what happened is that life forms developed features that were more likely to become fossilised. The ability to develop novel features was always there, but with little chance of becoming fossilised, the evidence was lost.

If this idea is true, then we will see that most fossils from before the Cambrian explosion show generally soft bodied creatures, and after the cambrian explosion, most fossils will be life forms with harder features, like shells. And this is exactly what we find.

 

[Kylie]

- Lung Structure. Terrestrial lungs have a two-directional flow structure. In birds however, air follows just one direction through the lungs. The structure of the lung in birds, and the functioning of the respiratory system are unique.

Are you suggesting that a bird's air intake is in a different place than the air exhaust? Could you please show a diagram that labels these two separate holes? I mean, if the birds get air into their lungs through the nostrils, where does the air come out?

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[Jimmy D]

I am comparing only one species to humans, because it is not "many thousands of species" what was involved in evolving a particular anatomical and physiological structure or body plan, but only one. Many thousands of species were involved in evolving many thousands of distinct structures. So when I refer to Cambrian I'm referring to only one species, no matter which one, that must have evolved from some simple species of Precambrian age.

Which species? Which distinct structures?

Evolution "modifies" and "transforms" existing structures of humans for the last 300,000 years. So what functional adaptations arose that are comparable to adaptations in supposed whale evolution?

What makes you think that different species should evolve at a similar rate?

Do humans have the ability to drink sea water? Are they able to give birth under water? Did they develop dorsal fin? What humans have testicles inside the body with cooling systems to keep sperm from dying? What humans evolved underwater acoustic system, sonar, filter feeder mechanism, blowhole with musculature and nerve control, ...?

Well, not a single one. Your beloved evolution is creatively as impotent as wind, rain or fog. Hence, these appeals to "modification", "transformation" "reduction" are just semantics.

You posted the list of modifications, not me.

Besides you are attempting to compare, what, 20 million years worth of whale evolution with 300,000 years worth of human evolution.

Starting with the first self-replicating organism,

LOL, back to abiogenesis? Running out of ideas?

which lacked structures like eyes, ears, lungs, gills, joints, heart, brain, RNA splicing machine,... all of these structures are new functional things.

Why didn't you just start the thread with this, instead of all that nonsense comparing evolution in modern humans with the Cambrian explosion?

 

[xianghua]

yeah, but dinosaurs that birds evolved from DO have feathers, infact many of the features you listed above they already have or those that evolved into birds have.

fine. wings (and other birds features) is still a new trait that suppose to evolve.

 

[pitabread]

wings (and other birds features) is still a new trait that suppose to evolve.

Wings are not a "new" trait. They are simply modified vertebrate forelimbs. They use the same underlying bone and tissue structures that other vertebrates have including humans.

 

[xianghua]

Wings are not a "new" trait. They are simply modified vertebrate forelimbs. They use the same underlying bone and tissue structures that other vertebrates have including humans.

so you can fly with your forelimbs since they are basically wings? oh, no?

 

[pitabread]

so you can fly with your forelimbs since they are basically wings? oh, no?

*sigh*

You're arguing a strawman, kiddo. This is again where you need to try to argue less and learn more. You'll get more out of these discussions if you try that.

The point is that bird wings are not completely new or novel structures. As mentioned, the same underlying bones that are found in bird wings are found in other vertebrate as well. Just like you have carpal and metacarpal bones in your hands, birds have carpal and metacarpal bones in their wings.

While the size and shapes may be different, the fundamental bone structure is not.

Here are examples of the bones of human forelimbs compared with the wings of birds and bats:

 

[xianghua]

*sigh*

You're arguing a strawman, kiddo. This is again where you need to try to argue less and learn more. You'll get more out of these discussions if you try that.

The point is that bird wings are not completely new or novel structures. As mentioned, the same underlying bones that are found in bird wings are found in other vertebrate as well. Just like you have carpal and metacarpal bones in your hands, birds have carpal and metacarpal bones in their wings.

While the size and shapes may be different, the fundamental bone structure is not.

Here are examples of the bones of human forelimbs compared with the wings of birds and bats:

so what? there is still a different. so you only believe that they can evolve from each other. you dont know how many mutations we need to such a transition and even if we know the number its still doesnt mean that one can evolve into other.

 

[pitabread]

so what? there is still a different.

Nobody is saying they aren't different. What I'm saying is that bird wings are not "new". They are simply a variation of vertebrate forelimbs.

so you only believe that they can evolve from each other. you dont know how many mutations we need to such a transition and even if we know the number its still doesnt mean that one can evolve into other.

Your incredulity is noted.

 

[pitabread]

My OP equates nothing, it just compares empirical and theoretical creation powers of evolution.

You're right, in your previous post you actually tried to suggest that evolutionary changes in humans or the E.Coli experiment should exceed that of the Cambrian period.

Cambrian explosion is not orders of magnitude larger than human evolution. 13 million years of evolution in early Cambrian divided by 300,000 years of human evolution gives 43. Hence, this in not even one order of magnitude larger, but only 43/1000 = 0.043.

First some clarification on what an order of magnitude means. Typically an order of magnitude refers to multiples of ten. So something ten times larger than something else would be one order of magnitude larger. Something one hundred times larger would be two orders of magnitude.

So by your own math, something 43 times larger (4.3 x 10^1) is more than one order of magnitude larger.

If we take into account that human population is larger, maybe even more than 0.0043 orders of magnitude than some Cambrian population that supposedly evolved new anatomical and physiological structures, my comparison is pretty spot on.

No it's not "spot on" since it ignores a whole host of factors. Probably the most glaring is completely ignoring mean generation time for different organisms.

Modern humans have a generation time in excess of 20 years. For simplicity sake, I'm going to use 20 years and apply that historically. Over 300,000 years with a generation time of 20 years, we would expect there to be 15,000 generations of humans.

Most organisms have much shorter generation times. For comparison to the Cambrian explosion (assuming a minimum of 13 million years), I'm going to use a few examples.

A cephalopod organism with a generation time of 16 months.
A sea slug organism with a generation time of 20 weeks.
A nematode with a generation time of 4 days.

(Note all these generation times are approximated based on modern organisms.)

For each of these types of organisms we get the following numbers of generations over 13 million years:

Cephalopod organism = 9.75 million generations
Sea slug organism = 33.8 million generations
Nematode organism = ~1.186 billion generations

Compared to 15,000 generations of humans the relative order of magnitude differences are:

Cephalopod organism = 650 times as many generations (6.5 x 10^3)
Sea slug organism = ~2,250 times as many generations (2.25 x 10^4)
Nematode organism = ~79,000 times as many generations (7.9 x 10^5)

All of the above scenarios are in excess of three to five orders of magnitude greater than human generations spanning 300,000 years.

And this is strictly looking at mean generation time and not factoring in anything else to do with evolutionary change including relative population size, selective pressures, and so on.

This is even more obvious in the context of the hypothetical evolution of whales, where in the time span of just 4 million years, a four legged terrestrial mammal the size of a wolf or sheep had to be transformed into a fully aquatic mammal the size of a whale. So, according to the theory, in a time period that is only 10 times longer than human evolution, the process of evolution resulted in multiple anatomical and physiological novelty, which enabeled the occupation of many new(aquatic) niches.

And besides personal incredulity, your objection is...?

If you want an example of rapid morphological variation among modern species, look no further than domesticated dog breeding. That is an example of extremely rapid morphological changes taking mere thousands of years as a result of extreme selective pressure.

It is really funny how you evolutionists have the tendencies to repeat the same nonsense phrases over and over again without critically examining them. "Evolution does not start from scratch, it is modifying what is already there" is one such nonsense phrase.

This is hardly a "nonsense phrase". Rather it's part of a conceptual understanding of how the process of evolution works.

If you want to criticize something, you should at least be starting from a position of conceptual understanding. When you start comparing the process of evolution with throwing random elements together, it suggests that conceptual understanding is lacking.

 

[Larniavc]

by the chance that such an object can evolve naturally.

Say, aren’t you the guy who believes in magical animal cars?

 

[Larniavc]

Evolution can take a hike. It's a source of too much consternation.

Only for certain religious types. Most people don’t let it bother them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only for certain religious types. Most people don’t let it bother them.

That's probably because most people don't think it through.

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[Jimmy D]

What is the point of these rhetorical games if it all boils down to genetic variations. These variations are the driving force of evolution. Both, some Cambrian animal and E.coli have undergone lots of genetic variations.

What do you mean by variations?

Due to the fact that evolutionary experiment with E. coli has large population sizes and short generation time, this compensates for the evolving time period difference between E. coli and Cambrian animal — which had much smaller population sizes and longer generation time.

Which "Cambrian animal"? Are you referring to a particular species, genera, family? What was the population size, generation time, selection pressures?

It seems as if you're just making these things up.

And yet the latter supposedly evolved new body plan with variety of complex systems like muscles, nerves, digestive systems, sensory systems, locomotion, and reproductive systems. On the other hand, the former is structurally identical. This obvious contradiction between the theory and science won't go away just because you ignore it by playing rhetorical games.

You're suggesting that this mysterious (imaginary) Cambrian species(?) evolved all those features? I'd be interested to see your source.

What is your explanation of the sequence of Pre-Cambrian, Cambrian and Ordovivian fossils we see?

You have completely ignored the most important factor, which is population sizes or more importantly, effective population sizes. Generation time in itself is useless. Variations bring change, and they are directly associated with population sizes. I already explained that, but you seem to ignore it.

Please enlighten us on the effective population sizes of these "Cambrian Animals" then.

The point is not in morphological changes that are pre-programed in the genome, but in niche occupying changes (morphological or whatever) that are not pre-programed in the genome of ancestral populations. Appeal to dogs completely misses the point when one must explain the origin of variety of aquatic adaptations necessary to turn a terrestrial mammal to a fully aquatic marine mammal.

Morphological changes are "pre-programed"? This positive claim makes a change from your usual argument from incredulity.

Maybe you can provide evidence of this pre-programming?

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not interested in your troll responses. The points relevant to this topic are as follows:

A) Empirical inability of evolution to create new functions

B) Reason for that inability, i.e. the ratio between genetic changes that result in function and those that result in non-function or in alteration of preexisting function

Details of the Cambrian explosion are irrelevant in that regard. Cambrian was just used to illustrate theoretically given creation powers of the evolution process. You insist on the latter simply because you are unable to rationally respond to the above points.

The ToE is incredibly well-supported and all data and evidence support it.

If you want to challange it then write an article for peer-review. If you cant then your ”points” dont matter.

 

[Contradiction]

.