Is the Cambrian Explosion the End of Phyla Evolution?

[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.

 

[talus]

Convergent Evolution

Now that I have nature's phyla branches down, I ask a fundamental question. Why, when in excess of 90 percent of marine life died some 250 million years ago, did no new phyla emerge? There certainly was a place for a new phyla when so many marine species disappeared. It seems none emerged because none fit the requirements of life. Evolution could not have formed life.

The selection of a miniscule fraction (the one out of 10³⁷⁸) of protein combinations that function for life from the vast number of possible combinations that function cannot have been by random point mutations on the DNA of the genome. It would be as if nature chose by random from a bag containing a billion, billion, billion… (repeated forty times) proteins the one that worked, and then repeated this same trick a trillion times! If proteins generation were a random process, then as with random word generation, the results would also be gibberish, but with life to form it would be fatal gibberish.

Are you familiar with the phenomena of convergent evolution? It seems that nature provides a format for rigorous statistical testing of evolution.

It seems that the emergence of organs similar in shape or function in animals of different species is convergent evolution. Such organs are designated as homologous if they arise by inheritance from common descent. The organs are analogous if the similarities satisfy the same need or function but were formed by independent evolutionary paths, rather than by a common ancestry. It seems from the graphs posted earlier demonstrate that nature's test for evolution failed.

 

[Zero]

Quoting Behe?

*yawn* never mind, this isn't going to go anywhere, and this isn't philosophy at all. It is discredited pseudoscience. Nereid, I wouldn't waste my time if I were you...breaking through creationist dogma is nearly impossible.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

Quoting Behe? *yawn* never mind, this isn't going to go anywhere, and this isn't philosophy at all. It is discredited pseudoscience. Nereid, I wouldn't waste my time if I were you...breaking through creationist dogma is nearly impossible.

Sorry to bore you but I did not quote Dr. Behe. But you are right in one respect, you are wasting both your times as it appears that you cannot discuss things that disprove your truths.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Now that I have nature's phyla branches down, I ask a fundamental question. Why, when in excess of 90 percent of marine life died some 250 million years ago, did no new phyla emerge? There certainly was a place for a new phyla when so many marine species disappeared. It seems none emerged because none fit the requirements of life. Evolution could not have formed life.

Nah, it was just cheaper and easier to fill the empty niches with peripheral modification of the surviving phyla. This whole argument of yours is just built around a belief that your analysis of something in the past is the only cogent one, and frankly, my dear, it isn't.

 

[Nereid]

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. [/color]

talus: 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.

With respect, that's not how I understand 'data and observations'. First, think of Newtonian dynamics and General Relativity (GR). The former does a pretty good job of accounting for observations of the positions solar system objects, and making accurate predictions of their future positions. This applies even to observations of the Moon made with laser ranging (based on retroreflectors left by the Apollo astronauts) - down to ~1 cm. However, over a century ago there were observations that couldn't be accounted for, e.g. perihelion advance of Mercury. GR can account for these; and GR can account for all the Newtonian dynamics can too. The newer theory encompasses *all* data and observations amassed before it came along.

So a new theory of the evolution of multi-cellular life will need to account for the observations and data which the current theory/theories account for. This would include (just a short list) genetic inheritability, extinction of species, the fossil record, ...

[Edit: fixed formating in quote, for clarity]

 

[Nereid]

talus wrote: *SNIP
3) "Evolution explains better than anything else" is not proof or evidence of the reality.
*SNAP

General Philosophy really isn't the best place to have this discussion; firstly, the relationship between science and reality is actively discussed elsewhere in PF (Mentat is quite keen on just such discussions), and I must say that talus would almost surely benefit for a deeper study - this sentence isn't about science at all.

talus wrote: *SNIP
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.

talus too could create mutations which change phenotype in his own lab (note the order of causation in talus' statement is backward), it's not hard to do.

talus wrote: 4)Speciation has been observed Mentat says. Where?

The peppered moth is perhaps the best studied example of multi-cellular organisms in the wild; there are several examples of speciation in the lab. For bacteria, just think of the appearance of anti-biotic resistant strains.

This discussion is beginning to resemble the other thread.

 

[Nereid]

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

Nereid: What is 'evolutionism'? What are the three (five? ten?) leading, testable predictions of 'creationism'?[/color]

talus replied: I neither advocate evolution nor creation.

'Evolutionism' and 'creationism' are your terms talus; I'd appreciate a straight answer to a very simple question about them. Let me ask again:

What is 'evolutionism'?

If 'creationism' is claimed to be science, what are the three (five, ten) leading, testable predictions?[/color]

talus wrote: The fact that I asked for any verifiable proof of evolution in an earlier post might be a start.

The confusion continues:
- 'evolution' is a fact
- there are various scientific theories concerning how it operates
- as they're scientific, the theories cannot 'prove' anything
- a great many falsifiable statements/predictions can be made from evolutionary theories, ranging from the time scale for the rise and spread of myxomatosis resistance in the Australian rabbit population, through the efficacy of influenza vaccinations, to predictions about fossils that will (and won't) be found in rocks of certain ages.

If 'creationism' (whatever it is) claims to be in the same domain as evolution theories, it needs to provide at least a similarly detailed set of falsifiable statements and predictions.

 

[Nereid]

talus wrote: 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 4¹⁰⁰⁰ or deciminal notation 10⁶⁰⁰. 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 10⁶⁰⁰ 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.

I've read this three times, and I still don't understand it; would you be so kind as to take it slowly, step by step, and explain?

 

[Grim]

Originally posted by Zero
Quoting Behe?

*yawn* never mind, this isn't going to go anywhere, and this isn't philosophy at all. It is discredited pseudoscience. Nereid, I wouldn't waste my time if I were you...breaking through creationist dogma is nearly impossible.

and those of use who refuse to be tied to the religion and seek to find the truth about this kinda stuff?.


i.e ME

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grim
and those of use who refuse to be tied to the religion and seek to find the truth about this kinda stuff?.


i.e ME

If you want "truth", you'll have to first agree on terms, definitions, and standards. Otherwise, we aren't even speaking the same language, and rational debate isn't possible.

For instance, evolution is not a theory of the origins of life. If you attack evolution for "origin of life" issues, that is what we call a "strawman" argument; you are attacking a false, weaker version of something that you create, instead of attacking the actual idea.

As another example, if you ask for "absolute proof", you are not speaking the language of science. Science never makes the claim of being able to prove anything 100%, and the term "theory" is used to denote the very best we can ever hope to do. That's why us scientific types get mad when people say evolution is "just a theory"...it shows a lack of understanding of the word "theory", as though something can graduate from "theory" and become a "proven fact".

You also have to understand productive methods, and non-productive methods; you have to be able to determine what ideas are supported, and which are just conjecture. If you want to know which ideas are the "best" ideas, you've got to be able to wade though dogma, ulterior motives, unfounded assertions, and all sorts of messes.