Is the Cambrian Explosion the End of Phyla Evolution?

[talus]

Until the mid-1980s, the understanding of the development of animal life was that it had followed the logical path of a gradual evolution with more simple phyla over eons leading into more complex phyla.

With the rediscovery of fossils held quietly in the dusty drawers of the Smithsonian Institution since 1909, this concept underwent a drastic revision. These fossils in conjunction with other discoveries indicate that all animal phyla appeared almost simultaneously 530 million years ago in the Cambrian period.

All further development was confined to variations within each phylum. One of the great mysteries of animal evolution is WHY no new phyla have evolved or appeared since that Cambrian explosion of life as now documented by all fossil evidence in the world libraries and museums?

What happened to any NEW PHYLA EVOLUTION since that Cambrian period some half billion years ago? How long are we to wait for some new phyla to evolve?

 

[Zero]

There's no great mystery...where would a new phylum go?

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

There's no great mystery...where would a new phylum go?

Right into the proof column of the theory of evolution.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero

There's no great mystery...where would a new phylum go?

Right into the proof column of the theory of evolution.

Ummm, no, I meant physically, where would you put an entire new phylum of creatures, geographically?

 

[selfAdjoint]

My theory is that the Burgess shale explosion of phyla coincided with the evolution of the "homeobox" genes. These enabled a complex body plan to be developed. And all the niches available to various combinations of homeo genes were quickly explored. Many turned out to be not viable in the long run and the rest lived on to give us our modern phyla. Any new body plan that might arise by mutation would have to compete with established phyla already on the scene. So the laws of probability would say that it's extremely unlikely that a new body plan would be anything but a relative failure.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

Ummm, no, I meant physically, where would you put an entire new phylum of creatures, geographically?

If the phylum had lungs and limbs, it would appear on the land and if gills and scales, in the sea.

Your meaning is unclear to me as any brand new phyla appearing anywhere on planet Earth would create a world-wide riot in the scientific community similar to the report in the New York Times on April 23, 1991 titled "Spectacular Fossils Record Early Riot of Creation" referencing the dramatic conclusion that a burst of multicellular life was found during the Cambrian era, more than one-half billion years ago.

Not one new phyla found since that Cambrian Era.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint

My theory is that the Burgess shale explosion of phyla coincided with the evolution of the "homeobox" genes. These enabled a complex body plan to be developed. And all the niches available to various combinations of homeo genes were quickly explored. Many turned out to be not viable in the long run and the rest lived on to give us our modern phyla. Any new body plan that might arise by mutation would have to compete with established phyla already on the scene. So the laws of probability would say that it's extremely unlikely that a new body plan would be anything but a relative failure.

I like your theory about the Burgess shale explosion of phyla coinciding with the mysterious presence of 'homeobox' genes.

Some evolutionists hailed homeobox or hox genes as the saviour of evolution soon after they were discovered. They seemed to fit into the Gouldian mode of evolution (punctuated equilibrium) because a small mutation in a hox gene could have profound effects on an organism. However, further research has not born out many people's evolutionists’ hopes. Dr Christian Schwabe, the non-creationist sceptic of Darwinian evolution from the Medical University of South Carolina (Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology), wrote:

What is the REAL message of the patterns of life? The Biotic Message

His book scientifically fights your theory on the factual terms, on their issues, using their testimony, and their ground rules. This non-cretionist dismantles many evolutionary illusions, and offers a new creation theory of biology.

He says that ‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’

(Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167–177).

Research in the six years since Schwabe wrote this has only born out his statement. Changes to homeotic genes cause monstrosities (two heads, a leg where an eye should be, etc.); they do not change an amphibian into a reptile, for example. And the mutations do not add any information, they just cause existing information to be mis-directed to produce a fruit-fly leg on the fruit-fly head instead of on the correct body segment.

Of course, you are using the ubiquity of hox genes in your argument for common ancestry (‘Look, all these creatures share these genes, so all creatures must have had a common ancestor’). However, commonality of such features is to be expected with their origin from the same source. All such homology arguments are only arguments for evolution when one excludes, a priori, origins by design. Indeed many of the patterns seen do not fit common ancestry. For example, the discontinuity of distribution of hemoglobin-like proteins, which are found in a few bacteria, molluscs, insects, and vertebrates. One could also note features such as vivipary, thermoregulation (some fish and mammals), eye designs, etc.

You will simply have to give more proof of your theory of homeobox genes sudden appearance as the origin of early DNA pattern for phyla.

 

[Zero]

You might want to watch your quotations from other sources...make sure it is clear what you are quoting, and what your own ideas are.


BTW, are YOU a creationist, ID proponent, or otherwise deficient in the understanding of science? (I'm kidding)

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero

Ummm, no, I meant physically, where would you put an entire new phylum of creatures, geographically?

If the phylum had lungs and limbs, it would appear on the land and if gills and scales, in the sea.

Your meaning is unclear to me as any brand new phyla appearing anywhere on planet Earth would create a world-wide riot in the scientific community similar to the report in the New York Times on April 23, 1991 titled "Spectacular Fossils Record Early Riot of Creation" referencing the dramatic conclusion that a burst of multicellular life was found during the Cambrian era, more than one-half billion years ago.

Not one new phyla found since that Cambrian Era.

I don't think you understand what phyla are. It may be noted that practically all macroscopic animal life, from fish to us are listed under one single phyla - the chordates. Phyla represent a collossal difference, something fundamental that gets added on during relative simplicity and much more other stuff are built on top of. The current state of things are too full of competition, and so on, for there to be a niche for a new phyla to appear.

A list of phyla:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by FZ+
I don't think you understand what phyla are. It may be noted that practically all macroscopic animal life, from fish to us are listed under one single phyla - the chordates. Phyla represent a collossal difference, something fundamental that gets added on during relative simplicity and much more other stuff are built on top of. The current state of things are too full of competition, and so on, for there to be a niche for a new phyla to appear.

A list of phyla:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/

Oops, I forgot to get back to that...that was my point exactly. Nearly every life-sustaining niche has been filled by some form of life. Where there is little life, evolutionary forces will shape existing species to fill each niche. But, once the niche is filled, it becomes nearly impossible for another species to compete with it. How then would we expect an entirely new phylum to come into existence, when it is hard enough for a new species to get a foothold?

 

[Zero]

Oh, and here is an interesting critique of Christian Schwabe: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm

 

[selfAdjoint]

He says that ‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’

Well that doesn't contradict my theory since I did point out that after the first radiation, the mutation of the hox genes would be very unlikely to produce a valid competitor phylum. For example I would expect mutations in the hox genes of vertibrates to produce nonviable fetuses.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by FZ+

I don't think you understand what phyla are. It may be noted that practically all macroscopic animal life, from fish to us are listed under one single phyla - the chordates. Phyla represent a collossal difference, something fundamental that gets added on during relative simplicity and much more other stuff are built on top of. The current state of things are too full of competition, and so on, for there to be a niche for a new phyla to appear. A list of phyla:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/

FZ+ as I understand it phyla are morphologically based branches of the tree of life on planet earth.

The different three morphological phyla types on Earth being Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya.

The following graph demonstrates darwinian theory vs. the fossil record to this point in time. And you are correct in my confusion and error with phyla progression changes in the tree classifications of specie and class.

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGJ.html

The next graph demonstrates the "vast majority of phyla appear abruptly with low species diversity. The disparity of the higher taxa precedes the diversity of the lower taxa."

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGH.html

The last graph demonstrates evidence of sudden appearnce and stasis.

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGI.html

Darwin wrote, (*note Darwin's referral to the Silurian period is now known as the Cambrian era)

'I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age...Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian strata was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian to the present day...The case must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained'

The Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 313 - 314

Derek E.G. Briggs, Douglas H. Erwin, & Frederick J. Collier
"The Fossils of the Burgess Shale," 1994, Smithsonian Institution, p.39.

 

[Zero]

Ummm...talus, you do realize that when Darwin said "at present", it was 1859?

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...talus, you do realize that when Darwin said "at present", it was 1859?

I enjoyed your critical site of biochemist Schwabe but the article actually admits that both Darwin and Schwabe are both the extremes and that there must be a central ground. The following quote from your article appears to make Schwabe's one-time lucky event and the chance-oriented Darwin construct appear to be one and the same.

Schwabe wants to make the origin of life research "a hard science based upon chemistry, thermodynamics, kinetics and the laws of mass action". Who would object? The origin of life is not a one-time lucky event "in contrast to the chance-oriented Darwinian paradigm"...

Yes Darwin did say 'at present' in the admission of his possible error statement in the year 1859. What has bascially changed since that 1859 time which alters Darwin's basic evolutionary premise in 2004's scientific community?

 

[talus]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint

He says that ‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’

Well that doesn't contradict my theory since I did point out that after the first radiation, the mutation of the hox genes would be very unlikely to produce a valid competitor phylum. For example I would expect mutations in the hox genes of vertibrates to produce nonviable fetuses.

Are you saying that the first radiation of various combinations of homeotic genes were "quickly" explored for an initially complex aberrant construct which was somehow successful. Then "quickly" disappeared because any further use of this gene would result in mutations producing nonviable fetuses? Or that everything originated from one phylum as contradicted by the fossil record as shown in previous thread graphs.

What are the chances of such a one time event occurring once in even 2X the full span of time speculated for the beginning of the universe until now?

 

[Zero]

*rolls eyes*

Do you think anyone today is a strict Darwinist? Old Charles would hardly recognise today's evolutionary science, so attacking Darwin is attacking a strawman.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

*rolls eyes*

Do you think anyone today is a strict Darwinist? Old Charles would hardly recognise today's evolutionary science, so attacking Darwin is attacking a strawman.

*amazement*

Before I can avoid that Darwin 'strawman' again I need to understand your personal construct of 'currently recognized', 'accepted', 'fixed' evolutionary science as apposed to various evolution theorists, biologists and scientists with differing perspectives of Darwin's 1859 original theory.

 

[FZ+]

You must additionally recognise that the so-called cambrian explosion may be only due to the start of fossilisation - pre-cambrian types may well have existed, but were undetectable because they did not secrete minerals etc to leave a genuine trace.

What has bascially changed since that 1859 time which alters Darwin's basic evolutionary premise in 2004's scientific community?

For a start, we actually have a theory of genetics, by which we observe that morphology is often hugely misleading - leaves etc are in fact very easy to produce, by the repitition of small parts, and that's why they are common in nature. We also understand a much greater changebility in the rate of evolution, involve in our models more of the inherent feedback between the organism and its environment, involve theories of co-evolution to see how ecosystems appear, view evolution in terms of new mathematical techniques of dynamical systems, and so on and so forth.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by FZ+

I don't think you understand what phyla are. It may be noted that practically all macroscopic animal life, from fish to us are listed under one single phyla - the chordates. Phyla represent a collossal difference, something fundamental that gets added on during relative simplicity and much more other stuff are built on top of. The current state of things are too full of competition, and so on, for there to be a niche for a new phyla to appear. A list of phyla:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/

FZ+ as I understand it phyla are morphologically based branches of the tree of life on planet earth.

The different three morphological phyla types on Earth being Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya.

The following graph demonstrates darwinian theory vs. the fossil record to this point in time. And you are correct in my confusion and error with phyla progression changes in the tree classifications of specie and class.

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGJ.html

The next graph demonstrates the "vast majority of phyla appear abruptly with low species diversity. The disparity of the higher taxa precedes the diversity of the lower taxa."

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGH.html

The last graph demonstrates evidence of sudden appearnce and stasis.

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGI.html

Darwin wrote, (*note Darwin's referral to the Silurian period is now known as the Cambrian era)

IMHO there's an awful lot of stuff here mixed up, resulting in much confusion.

1) The taxonomic hierarchy is:
Kingdom
Phylum (Division for plants)
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

2) Little is known about the evolution of multi-cellular organisms before the Cambrian, for the good reason that there is little in the fossil record on which to base assignment of taxa (there's plenty of evidence of eukaryotes, just not enough to be able to classify them into classes etc)

3) The vertiginous mixing of Darwin's words with echoes of modern evolution theory - Darwin got it wrong, in many respects (he was a scientist, science progresses), Gould is just one of those who've developed the theory of evolution since Darwin

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero

*rolls eyes*

Do you think anyone today is a strict Darwinist? Old Charles would hardly recognise today's evolutionary science, so attacking Darwin is attacking a strawman.

*amazement*

Before I can avoid that Darwin 'strawman' again I need to understand your personal construct of 'currently recognized', 'accepted', 'fixed' evolutionary science as apposed to various evolution theorists, biologists and scientists with differing perspectives of Darwin's 1859 original theory.

There's no such thing as "fixed" science...you don't seem to understand much about science, frankly. Scientists "debunk" Darwin all the time, and after peer review and confirmation, the new info gets integrated into the modern view of evolution. Attacking "Darwinism" is worthless, because no real evolutionist treats Darwin as anything more than a starting point. The accepted view of Darwin is that he had a good general idea, based on what he knew then, but in the 150 years since, we know a lot more.

 

[Nereid]

talus wrote: Are you saying that the first radiation of various combinations of homeotic genes were "quickly" explored for an initially complex aberrant construct which was somehow successful. Then "quickly" disappeared because any further use of this gene would result in mutations producing nonviable fetuses? Or that everything originated from one phylum as contradicted by the fossil record as shown in previous thread graphs.

What are the chances of such a one time event occurring once in even 2X the full span of time speculated for the beginning of the universe until now?

Something much like what you described may have happened - it's not possible to test that idea using what we have in the geological record (and our today's technology) at present. The "disappeared" part need not apply, monstrous alternatives would clearly not have survived, and even potentially 'good' ones may not have been able to compete with what had already become established. It's like: Why can't we find really complex precursors to 'life' here on Earth today? Not because they don't arise naturally (we don't know), but because they'd be eaten by the ubiquitous prokaryotes.

Another confusion that you, IMHO, create (not necessarily consciously) is over time. The solar system has only been around for ~4.5b years, much less time than since the Big Bang (~13.7b years). The oldest rocks we've identified on Earth are ~3.7b years old. The experiments on the hox gene (etc) represent ~1,000 years (maybe) of change in the wild; the gene itself may have been evolving for ~<1b years. And so on.

On a completely different topic: why is this thread in "General Philosophy"? Seems we're discussing the evolution of (multi-cellular) life on Earth, a topic for the Biology (or maybe Earth) sub-forum.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid


On a completely different topic: why is this thread in "General Philosophy"? Seems we're discussing the evolution of (multi-cellular) life on Earth, a topic for the Biology (or maybe Earth) sub-forum.

I was wondering the same thing...while Christian Schwabe is likely to be wrong in his assumptions, and the talk seems to approach pseudoscience, this is generally a scientific-based debate.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero
There's no such thing as "fixed" science...you don't seem to understand much about science, frankly. Scientists "debunk" Darwin all the time, and after peer review and confirmation, the new info gets integrated into the modern view of evolution. Attacking "Darwinism" is worthless, because no real evolutionist treats Darwin as anything more than a starting point. The accepted view of Darwin is that he had a good general idea, based on what he knew then, but in the 150 years since, we know a lot more.

Exactly... There is no such thing as 'fixed' anything. The different theories of life form origin and formation remain continually in a state of 'evolving.' What is modern today is usually discredited tomorrow with new concepts based on 'scientific' findings.

Who are those accepted evolutionist scientists whose 'peer review and confirmations' become the ultimate authorities of anything? Your statement that now science knows 'a lot more' is surely subject to possible further change which may alter the entire Dwarinian starting point as error.

My maxim is 'always keep an open mind' and except nothing as the ultimate answer.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

I was wondering the same thing...while Christian Schwabe is likely to be wrong in his assumptions, and the talk seems to approach pseudoscience, this is generally a scientific-based debate.

This thread is 'general philosophy and not generally a scientific-based debate. Scientific-based anything is based on theory and experimentation. Pseudoscience is based on false or unproven concepts and I would submit that both creationism and evolutionism are both; just that as evidence of fossil history doesn't prove anything. If anyone has evidence that any evolutionary scientist has demonstrated by actual experiment (reviewed by peers) that life formed from a chance-event, I would be willing to entertain this theory.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Nereid

Something much like what you described may have happened - it's not possible to test that idea using what we have in the geological record (and our today's technology) at present. The "disappeared" part need not apply, monstrous alternatives would clearly not have survived, and even potentially 'good' ones may not have been able to compete with what had already become established. It's like: Why can't we find really complex precursors to 'life' here on Earth today? Not because they don't arise naturally (we don't know), but because they'd be eaten by the ubiquitous prokaryotes.

So you are saying that all evidence of early Earth complex life forms disappeared for reasons such as either being eaten or not surviving? That is a very broad allegation.

Another confusion that you, IMHO, create (not necessarily consciously) is over time. The solar system has only been around for ~4.5b years, much less time than since the Big Bang (~13.7b years). The oldest rocks we've identified on Earth are ~3.7b years old. The experiments on the hox gene (etc) represent ~1,000 years (maybe) of change in the wild; the gene itself may have been evolving for ~<1b years. And so on.

Yes you are right in the fact that many assumptions are being made about time spans (from Earth's perspective) and the hox gene, etc which (MAYBE) evolved and so on. These assumptions are of course possible maybes but are based on current concepts with little proof other than current methods of determining relative time or grasping at an aberrant hox gene that may or may not have been responsible for anything.

On a completely different topic: why is this thread in "General Philosophy"? Seems we're discussing the evolution of (multi-cellular) life on Earth, a topic for the Biology (or maybe Earth) sub-forum.

I suspect that at this point this subject is a discussion of general philosophy and not hard science proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Might there be a yet unknown theory of multi-cellular life as yet unknown by science?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero

I was wondering the same thing...while Christian Schwabe is likely to be wrong in his assumptions, and the talk seems to approach pseudoscience, this is generally a scientific-based debate.

This thread is 'general philosophy and not generally a scientific-based debate. Scientific-based anything is based on theory and experimentation. Pseudoscience is based on false or unproven concepts and I would submit that both creationism and evolutionism are both; just that as evidence of fossil history doesn't prove anything. If anyone has evidence that any evolutionary scientist has demonstrated by actual experiment (reviewed by peers) that life formed from a chance-event, I would be willing to entertain this theory.

So you put it in Philosophy since you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You should realize, though, that science should be talking about scientifically, not philisophically. Otherwise, you have facts against "well, I'd feel better if it were some different way", and that leads nowhere.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

So you put it in Philosophy since you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You should realize, though, that science should be talking about scientifically, not philisophically. Otherwise, you have facts against "well, I'd feel better if it were some different way", and that leads nowhere.

Thanks for your kind words. It seems that you are the one whose ideation of evolution is that, well maybe is a real theory and does not belong in a phiolosophical arena.

It might be that those scientists who believed that the Earth was the center of the universe should have been in the solid field of pure science instead of concepualizing philosophically about the possibility that their theory was in error...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus


Exactly... There is no such thing as 'fixed' anything. The different theories of life form origin and formation remain continually in a state of 'evolving.' What is modern today is usually discredited tomorrow with new concepts based on 'scientific' findings.

Who are those accepted evolutionist scientists whose 'peer review and confirmations' become the ultimate authorities of anything? Your statement that now science knows 'a lot more' is surely subject to possible further change which may alter the entire Dwarinian starting point as error.

My maxim is 'always keep an open mind' and except nothing as the ultimate answer. [/B]

So, are you willing to accept Christian Schwabe as being absolutely right? Your posting of late seems to show an anti-science bias , you know. NOTHING in science is absolute, not physics, or biology, or chemistry, or medicine, or any other branch of sciences. However, based on the total accumulation of evidence over the past few centuries, we can feel very confident in the fact of evolution...it is at least as well supported as any other scientific idea, and your desire for an "ultimate authority" misses the point.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus
Thanks for your kind words. It seems that you are the one whose ideation of evolution is that, well maybe is a real theory and does not belong in a phiolosophical arena.

It might be that those scientists who believed that the Earth was the center of the universe should have been in the solid field of pure science instead of concepualizing philosophically about the possibility that their theory was in error... [/B]

See what I mean? How can evolution NOT be a real theory? It is hugely supported by all of the evidence. A new theory to replace evolution would have to encompass all the evidence, and in addition to it answer other questions better than evolution does. Currently, there is no hypothesis which has enough evidence backing it to formulate a theory to compete with evolution. That doesn't at all mean that one of the current unsupported hypotheses will not someday be confirmed by the preponderance of the evidence; I am simply pointing out the fact that no hypothesis has fulfilled that requirement as of the current moment.

 

[Nereid]

talus wrote: So you are saying that all evidence of early Earth complex life forms disappeared for reasons such as either being eaten or not surviving? That is a very broad allegation.

There's an awful lot of evidence of life on Earth, from ~3.4b onwards. However, there's little that can be said about the taxanomic classification - down to the species level - of multi-cellular life, before the Cambrian. One notable exception is the Ediacara Biota, whose significance and relationship with the Cambrian phyla is still being worked out.

Also, note that, despite the apparent certainty of the charts talus posted earlier, the number of animalia phyla which appeared first in the fossil record in the early Cambrian is not certain, nor whether some of today's phyla in fact first appeared later.

talus wrote: Yes you are right in the fact that many assumptions are being made about time spans (from Earth's perspective) and the hox gene, etc which (MAYBE) evolved and so on. These assumptions are of course possible maybes but are based on current concepts with little proof other than current methods of determining relative time or grasping at an aberrant hox gene that may or may not have been responsible for anything.

Not a bad summary, except that a little more precision in the use of terms such as 'assumption', 'concept', 'proof', 'methods' would be nice. Also, the timespans I was referring to weren't just re the hox gene - there isn't all that much uncertainty in the age of well-studied rock formations, and many 'genetic clocks' are now fairly well calibrated.

talus wrote: I suspect that at this point this subject is a discussion of general philosophy and not hard science proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Might there be a yet unknown theory of multi-cellular life as yet unknown by science?

With the possible exception of the role of the hox gene in the formation of phyla, this *is* an area of 'hard science', in the sense that there are hypotheses, predictions, tests and observations, falsification, theory formation etc - just the same as in cosmology, high-energy particle physics, etc. New theories about multi-cellular life will surely be proposed! And, being science, they will have to encompass ALL the data and observations amassed to date.

 

[Nereid]

talus wrote: *SNIP
The different theories of life form origin and formation remain continually in a state of 'evolving.'

Such theories are not within the domain of evolution; they are in the field of abiogenesis.

talus wrote: *SNIP
Pseudoscience is based on false or unproven concepts and I would submit that both creationism and evolutionism are both; just that as evidence of fossil history doesn't prove anything. If anyone has evidence that any evolutionary scientist has demonstrated by actual experiment (reviewed by peers) that life formed from a chance-event, I would be willing to entertain this theory.

Again, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis - as Zero said in another post, there's no doubt about the fact of evolution, and we now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms; the same cannot be said of 'creationism'. There's an extensive thread elsewhere in PF on this very topic - I'll find it for you if you'd like.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
Such theories are not within the domain of evolution; they are in the field of abiogenesis. Again, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis - as Zero said in another post, there's no doubt about the fact of evolution, and we now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms; the same cannot be said of 'creationism'. There's an extensive thread elsewhere in PF on this very topic - I'll find it for you if you'd like. [/B]

This confusion between abiogenesis and evolution is a hallmark of the pseudoscientific worldview. It goes right along with sticking "-ism" on the end of "Darwin", "science", and "evolution", to give the impression that they are pseudo-religious beliefs.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

So, are you willing to accept Christian Schwabe as being absolutely right? Your posting of late seems to show an anti-science bias , you know. NOTHING in science is absolute, not physics, or biology, or chemistry, or medicine, or any other branch of sciences. However, based on the total accumulation of evidence over the past few centuries, we can feel very confident in the fact of evolution...it is at least as well supported as any other scientific idea, and your desire for an "ultimate authority" misses the point.

No I do not concede that I accept Christian Scwabe, Charles Darwin, scientists or theorists who feels that there is now a finite accumulation of empirical evidence.

There is of course no ultimate authority on any side of the two sided evolution vs creation paradigm.

It is my belief that intelligent humans have accumulated evidence which is nothing more than a perception of solid evidence.

Each person's cognitive abilities consist of human senses and the brain's inquisitve ability to provide a reality based on what appears to be our existence. A universe with immutable concrete laws of nature (and science) which must be explained as surely as any current concepts of evolution.

 

[Zero]

What? Huh? What are you talking about?

Creationism is a religious belief with no evidentiary support. Evolution is a firmly supported theory with the same level of acceptance as geology, physics, chemistry, etc.

Do you doubt physics, chemistry, or geology with the same fervor that you doubt evolution? Do you doubt evidence as a whole, do you doubt all perception?

And, let me ask again, are you a creationist? Seriously, this time.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

See what I mean? How can evolution NOT be a real theory? It is hugely supported by all of the evidence. A new theory to replace evolution would have to encompass all the evidence, and in addition to it answer other questions better than evolution does. Currently, there is no hypothesis which has enough evidence backing it to formulate a theory to compete with evolution. That doesn't at all mean that one of the current unsupported hypotheses will not someday be confirmed by the preponderance of the evidence; I am simply pointing out the fact that no hypothesis has fulfilled that requirement as of the current moment.

Zero you appear to be a very intelligent fellow. Yet you make the categorical statement "how can evolution NOT be a real theory".

Obviously you feel that no other hypothesis currently exists which would explain that which is already proven. Your last statement confirms my premise that no hypothesis (including evolution and all its accumulated preponderance of evidence) has fulfilled that penultimate requirement as of the CURRENT MOMENT.

As scientific knowledge increases exponentially; evolution, creation and other theories are subsequently (in part) discredited or verified.

The fact that the majority of scientists agree on anything such as evolution's origin of life does not discount other possibilities.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero

Zero you appear to be a very intelligent fellow. Yet you make the categorical statement "how can evolution NOT be a real theory".

I make that statement BECAUSE I am not only bright, but also better informed than you seem to be...that's ok though, we're all here to learn something, this is your turn!

Obviously you feel that no other hypothesis currently exists which would explain that which is already proven.

There are a couple of mistakes here. 1) there are plenty of other hypotheses...evolution is a THEORY, however, and there is no theory superior to it thus far. 2) Science never proves anything, and if you are expecting "proof" to be a litmus test, you are going to be disappointed every time.

Your last statement confirms my premise that no hypothesis (including evolution and all its accumulated preponderance of evidence) has fulfilled that penultimate requirement as of the CURRENT MOMENT.

Evolution is both theory and fact...it is not a hypothesis, because it has supporting evidence. Creationism has no supporting evidence, and therefore is still catagorized as a hypothesis. BTW, "penultimate" means "second to last"...is that what you meant?

As scientific knowledge increases exponentially; evolution, creation and other theories are subsequently (in part) discredited or verified.

Creationism has never been a theory. Evolution is a fact, it happens. Evolutionary theories explain how it works.

The fact that the majority of scientists agree on anything such as evolution's origin of life does not discount other possibilities.

You have been repeatedly informed that evolution has nothing to do with origins. Do you think repeating your mistaken idea will somehow make it not a mistake?

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

What? Huh? What are you talking about?

Sorry for confusing you...

Creationism is a religious belief with no evidentiary support. Evolution is a firmly supported theory with the same level of acceptance as geology, physics, chemistry, etc.

Actually you are partially correct. Regligious beliefs are formed on tenets and dogmas based on a firm faith. Evolution also has its own dogmatic tenets or beliefs that geology, physics, chemisty, etc which also require faith in their realities.

Do you doubt physics, chemistry, or geology with the same fervor that you doubt evolution? Do you doubt evidence as a whole, do you doubt all perception?

In a way yes I believe in a sort of virtual reality in which each person or scientist bases his own so-called reality of physics, chemistry, geology, etc. You are firm in that which you sense to be real and in accumulated evidence that may or may not exist in a real universe. Instead we all may exist in a dimension in which we assume that all these things exist. This is my philosopy and that is why we are debating under this heading. Actually there is empirical evidence supporting this premise. Quantum mechanics and the fuzzy nature of particles appear to give credence to this alternative.

And, let me ask again, are you a creationist? Seriously, this time.

Seriously, I consider myself equivocal on the origin of things.

 

[Zero]

*yawn*

You aren't interested in debating anything. You have a rather confused understanding of science and have shown no interest in correcting your mistaken views on science in general.


This is a waste of time, and I'm starting to think you are a troll. You began by citing evidence, and now you claim that evidence doesn't mean anything.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

I make that statement BECAUSE I am not only bright, but also better informed than you seem to be...that's ok though, we're all here to learn something, this is your turn!

At least you don't think too highly of your own superior intellect and penultimate knowledge. The old axiom, the truly intelligent know that they know nothing, seems to apply here.

There are a couple of mistakes here. 1) there are plenty of other hypotheses...evolution is a THEORY, however, and there is no theory superior to it thus far. 2) Science never proves anything, and if you are expecting "proof" to be a litmus test, you are going to be disappointed every time.

So there is no THEORY superior to evolution so far. Is that an example of your superior knowledge of all things already known? Actually I believe that ultimately a more complete knowledge of things will have more than 'empirical proof' as validation.

Evolution is both theory and fact...it is not a hypothesis, because it has supporting evidence. Creationism has no supporting evidence, and therefore is still catagorized as a hypothesis. BTW, "penultimate" means "second to last"...is that what you meant?

Actually creationism has an equivalent amount of supporting evidence as does evolution. You have attempted to discredit ireducible complexity but even a cursory understanding of Dr. Behe's premise belies your statements.

So evolution is both theory and fact but not a hypothesis. For your edification:

Roget's International Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases:

Theory

NOUN: supposition, assumption, supposal, supposableness [rare], suppositality [obs.], postulation [rare], condition, presupposition, hypothesis, postulate, postulatum, theory, data; proposition, position; thesis, theorem; proposal (plan) [See Plan]; assumed position.

Yes I meant penultimate to be as stated.

Roget's International Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases :

Penultimate

NOUN: END, closed, termination; desinence, conclusion, finis, finale, period, term, terminus, last, omega; extreme, extremity; gable end, butt end, fag-end; tip, nib, point; tail (rear) [See Rear]; verge (edge) [See Edge]; tag, peroration, appendix, epilogue; bottom dollar [colloq.], bitter end, tail end [colloq.], terminal, apodosis.

Please explain the word penultimate as meaning 'second to last.'


Creationism has never been a theory. Evolution is a fact, it happens. Evolutionary theories explain how it works.

You are entitled to your learned opinion. I remain ambivalent.

You have been repeatedly informed that evolution has nothing to do with origins. Do you think repeating your mistaken idea will somehow make it not a mistake?

The fact that evolution has anything to do with origins is also your repeating that you have some kind of definitive proof that that is the way it is. Do you think that making such trenchant statements will somehow make evolution the penultimate ANSWER.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

*yawn*

You aren't interested in debating anything. You have a rather confused understanding of science and have shown no interest in correcting your mistaken views on science in general. This is a waste of time, and I'm starting to think you are a troll. You began by citing evidence, and now you claim that evidence doesn't mean anything.

*Ho Hum*

It appears that you are not interested in anything other than that which you have already accepted as fact. If that is the case, why do you even find the need to be on this site which is used for debate and discussion of other possibilities?

Name calling is not the sign of intelligence.

Yes I originally cited evidence but only as a means to open your mind that other proof exists of theories contrary to that you believe to be the ONLY WAY of ORIGINS.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Nereid

Such theories are not within the domain of evolution; they are in the field of abiogenesis. Again, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis - as Zero said in another post, there's no doubt about the fact of evolution, and we now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms; the same cannot be said of 'creationism'. There's an extensive thread elsewhere in PF on this very topic - I'll find it for you if you'd like.

Do you feel that evolution is at variance with abiogensis or ex nihilo?

You say there is no doubt about evolution but 'we' now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms.

There is actually so much evidence for both evolutionism and creationism as to make them basically one in the same.

IOW, evolution was a product of creation or how did that chance-event happen in all of time?

 

[Zero]

Yep...you are a creationist, and intellectually dishonest to boot. Too bad, really...you seemed to almost be interested in reality, and yet you keep stating the same tired creationist idiocy.


And yes, I said IDIOCY. If you say evolution has anything to do with origins, you are guilty of not understanding evolution. If you repeat it 3 more times after being corrected, you are either being intentionally ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Which one is it?

I can see why you wouldn't just admit to being a creationist...lying is the calling card of the creationist.

 

[Zero]

Oops, sorry about the rather heated posts...my heart got ahead of my head on this one.

However, my general position stands. You don't show much knowledge about the workings of science, which is a separate issue from any specific claim you make. You also seem to have fallen into the creationist's dogma and falsehood trap, which is regretable. I am always disturbed when liars like Behe trick impressionable people into buying into their pseudoscientific viewpoint, and it is hard to yank people from their clutches.

I'm sorry you've been lied to, and I would like the chance to steer you in the right direction...but we'll have to go VERY SLOWLY, and take each point one at a time, to make sure we don't jump ahead of ourselves...



Where do we begin?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by talus
: Originally posted by Nereid
Such theories are not within the domain of evolution; they are in the field of abiogenesis. Again, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis - as Zero said in another post, there's no doubt about the fact of evolution, and we now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms; the same cannot be said of 'creationism'. There's an extensive thread elsewhere in PF on this very topic - I'll find it for you if you'd like.

Here's the link I promised

Originally posted by talus: Do you feel that evolution is at variance with abiogensis or ex nihilo?

*SNIP

IOW, evolution was a product of creation or how did that chance-event happen in all of time?

Not relevant, in a way similar to saying that the astrophysical theories of 'stellar evolution' have no relevance to theories of evolution of life on Earth, or chemistry is irrelevant to discussing magnetars, or economics irrelevant to understanding nucleosynthesis - they are beyond the stated domain of relevance (or 'scope').

Originally posted by talus:
*SNIP
You say there is no doubt about evolution but 'we' now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms.

There is actually so much evidence for both evolutionism and creationism as to make them basically one in the same.

What is 'evolutionism'?

What are the three (five? ten?) leading ,testable predictions of 'creationism'?

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

Yep...you are a creationist, and intellectually dishonest to boot. Too bad, really...you seemed to almost be interested in reality, and yet you keep stating the same tired creationist idiocy.

It seems that you too are not interested in any conclusions which do not give total acceptance to your preconceived ideas of evolutionary science facts and pigeonhole anyone not in agreement as obviously not intelligent. I am neither a creation(ist) nor a evoluntion(ist). You may be described as one whose beliefs and understandings of evolution are fixed in concrete. Anyone who poses even slight doubt to your 'science' is neither credible and not worthy of your own self described intellect.

It may be said instead that you are the one with the tired evolutionist theory which prevents you from stepping outside of your little box and open your mind. While I have used argument to push your buttons into believing that I am a creationist. Just too easy...

And yes, I said IDIOCY. If you say evolution has anything to do with origins, you are guilty of not understanding evolution. If you repeat it 3 more times after being corrected, you are either being intentionally ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Which one is it?

Got you... You fell into this so easily... Real scientists and theorists never close their mind as reality is never as simple as you have demonstrated. Name calling again diminshes you so much.

I can see why you wouldn't just admit to being a creationist...lying is the calling card of the creationist.

When you have been uncovered as just one more liliputian, you resort to a canard.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Zero
Oops, sorry about the rather heated posts...my heart got ahead of my head on this one.

However, my general position stands. You don't show much knowledge about the workings of science, which is a separate issue from any specific claim you make. You also seem to have fallen into the creationist's dogma and falsehood trap, which is regretable. I am always disturbed when liars like Behe trick impressionable people into buying into their pseudoscientific viewpoint, and it is hard to yank people from their clutches.

I'm sorry you've been lied to, and I would like the chance to steer you in the right direction...but we'll have to go VERY SLOWLY, and take each point one at a time, to make sure we don't jump ahead of ourselves...



Where do we begin?

I'm reposting this, just in case you missed it.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

I'm reposting this, just in case you missed it.

No I didn't miss your original post or its message at all.

However, my general position stands. You don't show much knowledge about the workings of science, which is a separate issue from any specific claim you make. You also seem to have fallen into the creationist's dogma and falsehood trap, which is regretable. I am always disturbed when liars like Behe trick impressionable people into buying into their pseudoscientific viewpoint, and it is hard to yank people from their clutches.

I'm sorry you've been lied to, and I would like the chance to steer you in the right direction...but we'll have to go VERY SLOWLY, and take each point one at a time, to make sure we don't jump ahead of ourselves... Where do we begin?

Your subjective statement about my not knowing much about the workings of science is truly very revealing. We are posting on the general philosophy section of PF. The 'workings of true science' are as variable as those who interpret its experimental conclusions. I see that you have taken exception to my statement that a scientist or intellectual understands that lack of knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. I do not question that you have acquired scientific knowledge, albeit rather diminutive.

What is thought to be pseudoscience can eventually prove to create
world shaking realities. This is not always the case but to claim the alternative science construct incorrect, the faults must be demonstrated by experimentation and not merely that it appears to dispute long held scientific beliefs.

Dr. Michael Behe is a respected scientist and theoretical biochemist who does have his detractors much like many who dared question long held accepted facts about the origin of things. Einstein had many detractors himself but that did not make him a 'liar' or 'trickster.' That type of accusation diminishes any credibility you may have had.

If you would like to go slowly, point by point while elucidating the errors by some evidence would be a great starting point. Please refrain from name calling.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Nereid

Here's the link I promised Not relevant, in a way similar to saying that the astrophysical theories of 'stellar evolution' have no relevance to theories of evolution of life on Earth, or chemistry is irrelevant to discussing magnetars, or economics irrelevant to understanding nucleosynthesis - they are beyond the stated domain of relevance (or 'scope'). What is 'evolutionism'?

Thanks for the link Nereid. I suppose you are basing your Earth bound evolution on the following in your PF link:

Mentat:

Yes, evolution is true.

1. It fits very nicely with Mendelian genetics and Darwin came up with it PRIOR to reading Memdel's papers.

2. The fossil record indicates life has changed quite a bit over time, andevolution explains why better than ANYTHING else.

3. Mutations that change phenotype can be induced in lab (I've done it).

4. Speciation events have been observed.

5. Makes predictions about animal behavior that have been confirmed.

I could go on, but by all that God stuff in your post I can already see the level of thinking you operate at.

1)Mendellian genetics fits so nicely with Darwin's theory. Yep one out of four chances that a bean will inherit some of the characteristics of one of parent beans.

2) Fossel records indicate life has changed over time and evolution explains nothing. The fossil records indicate that the three phyla mostly appeared rather suddenly and no new bison has been created from elephants copulating. Humans who clone the nuclear material of cells does not prove evolution or creation.

3) "Evolution explains better than anything else" is not proof or evidence of the reality. Mentat claims to have created mutations by changing phenotypes in his own lab. Quite a feat for a human being. I suspect that Mentat should not only be world famous by now but a Nobel Peace Prize winner if this were true.

4)Speciation has been observed Mentat says. Where?

5) Animal behavior proves evolution he says. WHAT?

phenotype

NOUN: 1a. The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences. b. The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences. 2. An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular phenotype.

What are the three (five? ten?) leading ,testable predictions of 'creationism'?

I neither advocate evolution nor creation. The fact that I asked for any verifiable proof of evolution in an earlier post might be a start.

If any evolutionary model that we choose is such that each of the thousands of steps in a hypothetical mutation must be in sequence and any errorneous or out-of-order mutations is fatal, the number of trials required in the process would be in the magnitude of 4 ¹⁰⁰⁰ or deciminal notation 10 ⁶⁰⁰. But this construct may be too strict. All "erroneous" mutations for example may not be fatal. It is possible to envision a sequence in which the thousands of steps can be be accomplished with far fewer than the random 10 ⁶⁰⁰ trials.

With the statistics of probability, it is not the mathematics that is difficult. The difficulty is choosing the model that reasonably approxiamtes the real world. If we take take the most "optimistic" or forgiving set of assumptions in the thousands of mutations sequence, then the difficulty of achieving say a desired organ fades to triviality.

Evolution must be a miracle at the very least.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Nereid

... calibrated.With the possible exception of the role of the hox gene in the formation of phyla, this *is* an area of 'hard science', in the sense that there are hypotheses, predictions, tests and observations, falsification, theory formation etc - just the same as in cosmology, high-energy particle physics, etc. New theories about multi-cellular life will surely be proposed! And, being science, they will have to encompass ALL the data and observations amassed to date.

Nereid you might just find that the new science theory dealing with multi-cellular life could result in all previous data and observations amassed to date as erroneous and obsolete as abiogenesis in light of new insights into nature.