Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

New research keeps making the simultaneous Cambrian Explosion appearance of many complex new body plans harder and harder for Darwinian explanations. Now it appears that complicated exoskeletons, nervous systems, brains, eyes, other body systems, etc. including the vertebrate plan all appeared in less than half a million years. Good luck to the evolutionary biologists in trying to explain all this by RM + NS.

At https://phys.org/news/2018-12-uranium-le...unger.html:

"The international research team dated suitable minerals from several volcanic ash layers in Southern Namibia by means of the uranium-lead method. This uses the radioactive decay chain of uranium in the mineral zircon to determine the exact time of the rock's origin. "We took the samples at the boundary between the Precambrian and Cambrian – the two geological eras can easily be distinguished by their respective fossils," explains Linnemann. "Our highly precise dating shows that the "Cambrian explosion" occurred approximately 2 million years later than we had previously assumed.""

Note the predictable exercise in presumptuous hand-waving: 

"Moreover, the scientists' data series reveal that the development of the fauna took place within a very short period. The transition from the "Ediacara biota" – multi-celled but very simply organisms – to the diverse Cambrian life forms occurred over less than 410,000 years. "From a geological point of view, this represents a veritable sprint," according to the research team. Based on the current study, this rapid faunal change may be best explained as a kind of "biological arms race": New fundamental traits accelerated the subsequent evolution and fueled the next "adaptive breakthrough." "For example, if an organisms became increasingly mobile and fed on prey, previously even less mobile animals had to come up with new ways to protect themselves – which may have led to the rapid development of shells or skeletons. One achievement thus engendered the next – and, by necessity, within a shortened period of time," says Linnemann in summary."

Note the predictable exercise in presumptuous hand-waving: 

Lol. Because Goddidit isn't at all presumptuous hand-waving.

Linda

Lol. Because Goddidit isn't at all presumptuous hand-waving.

Linda

Is that the best you can do? Instead of addressing the research news item you bring up the old "God Did It" myth about ID. Instead of addressing the evidence that Darwinian evolution is incapable of explaining the Cambrian event, how all the new genetic information came about that was required for the almost 20 new body plans that appeared suddenly in Cambrian layers, you bring out the old "God Did It" canard. 

To claim that ID is an appeal to "God Did It" thinking is deliberately misguided. For most ID advocates, God has little to do with the field of Intelligent Design. ID merely observes that mindless, materialistic processes simply fail to explain or adequately describe many aspects of living things, in particular their origin. It is recognizing the clear design inference based on the data. Meyer describes the foundation of ID quite clearly, “the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause — that is, by the conscious choice of a rational agent — rather than by an undirected process”.

This is merely an attempt to distract from the scientific debate that the Darwinists can't win on the merits.

Is that the best you can do? ...

To claim that ID is an appeal to "God Did It" thinking is deliberately misguided. 

Anyone who took the trouble to look through this thread would know that nobody here is pushing the biblical view. It is the old tactic of lumping together ID and Biblical Creationism to make an easier target and a quick dismissal. Even a quick scan of the article in the very first post should make that clear. Here's a quote from that article (such a pity this needs repeating over and over)...

Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to Creationist ideas. Nobody does—except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions—overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism.

Is that the best you can do? Instead of addressing the research news item you bring up the old "God Did It" myth about ID. Instead of addressing the evidence that Darwinian evolution is incapable of explaining the Cambrian event, how all the new genetic information came about that was required for the almost 20 new body plans that appeared suddenly in Cambrian layers, you bring out the old "God Did It" canard. 

To claim that ID is an appeal to "God Did It" thinking is deliberately misguided. For most ID advocates, God has little to do with the field of Intelligent Design. ID merely observes that mindless, materialistic processes simply fail to explain or adequately describe many aspects of living things, in particular their origin. It is recognizing the clear design inference based on the data. Meyer describes the foundation of ID quite clearly, “the theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause — that is, by the conscious choice of a rational agent — rather than by an undirected process”.

This is merely an attempt to distract from the scientific debate that the Darwinists can't win on the merits.

I’m not sure what you think there is to address in the news article. There is substantial ongoing research in the field of evolution, and so new and sometimes surprising discoveries are to be expected. I’m also not sure why you concluded that Evolution is incapable of explaining the Cambrian event. Those people with knowledge and experience in the field don’t seem to have drawn that conclusion. The authors suggested some possibilities to explore:

“The extremely short duration of the faunal transition from Ediacaran to Cambrian biota within less than 410 ka supports models of ecological cascades that followed the evolutionary breakthrough of increased mobility at the beginning of the Phanerozoic.”

It matters not whether the rational agent with the ability to create/direct life is named God or Harvey.

Linda

I’m not sure what you think there is to address in the news article. There is substantial ongoing research in the field of evolution, and so new and sometimes surprising discoveries are to be expected. I’m also not sure why you concluded that Evolution is incapable of explaining the Cambrian event. Those people with knowledge and experience in the field don’t seem to have drawn that conclusion. The authors suggested some possibilities to explore:

“The extremely short duration of the faunal transition from Ediacaran to Cambrian biota within less than 410 ka supports models of ecological cascades that followed the evolutionary breakthrough of increased mobility at the beginning of the Phanerozoic.”

It matters not whether the rational agent with the ability to create/direct life is named God or Harvey.

Linda

This reveals a total unwillingness to rationally consider what these research results really mean -  a blind RM + NS mechanism coming up with the massive amount of coherent genetic information corresponding to 20 new animal body plans including all the complex organ systems required and also the developmental programs, in 410,000 years (an eyeblink in the evolutionary time scale). I suspect that the magnitude of such a miracle of unlikelihood doesn't matter - you would still suspend your incredulity at the creation of these multiple complex machines from random events plus selection even if the time period the uranium dating researchers came up with was 40,000 years or even 4,000. Evidently ideology (or perhaps it should truly be called scientistic materialist religion) comes first ahead of any rational discussion.

This reveals a total unwillingness to rationally consider what these research results really mean -  a blind RM + NS mechanism coming up with the massive amount of coherent genetic information corresponding to 20 new animal body plans including all the complex organ systems required and also the developmental programs, in 410,000 years (an eyeblink in the evolutionary time scale). I suspect that the magnitude of such a miracle of unlikelihood doesn't matter - you would still suspend your incredulity at the creation of these multiple complex machines from random events plus selection even if the time period the uranium dating researchers came up with was 40,000 years or even 4,000. Evidently ideology (or perhaps it should truly be called scientistic materialist religion) comes first ahead of any rational discussion.

Huh? I don’t know if the research results mean any of that. I’m not an evolutionary biologist and neither are you. Those people with knowledge and experience in the field don’t seem to have come to those conclusions, even though it would be big news if that’s what these results necessitated.

I do know, as has already come up in this thread, that evolutionary biologists don’t think that RM+NS are the only mechanisms at play, so to continually refer to RM+NS, as though this is the only possible mechanism under consideration, is a straw man.

I’m also not a materialist, so railing against that particular ideology is irrelevant. I haven’t followed you down the path because there’s no reason to think that your perspective is valid, not because I have some sort of loyalty to a particular ideology (unless an interest in validity is an ideology).

Linda

Huh? I don’t know if the research results mean any of that. I’m not an evolutionary biologist and neither are you. Those people with knowledge and experience in the field don’t seem to have come to those conclusions, even though it would be big news if that’s what these results necessitated.

Surely if you apply that criterion, you could close down just about all discussions and leave them to the experts, who may have lots of pressures on them not to reveal the unvarnished truth. 

We can all think, and it seems to me that most evolutionary steps cannot be driven by natural selection. In terms of the paper you quoted, there simply aren't any peaks (or troughs) on the fitness surface until you get close to something useful. 

If you are considering making 50 changes (say) to an existing gene to make a new one with a new function, then there are approx 4^50 ways that can fail. Natural selection (NS) can't possibly 'help' to keep that process on track, because until you get very close to a useful end product, the intermediate changes don't leave a functional gene.

Even if you postulate intermediates that are somehow useful (I guess that is what your linked paper does), unless they are useful in the same way as the end product, I can't see what that buys you. If you tried to evolve a car using 'usefulness' as your fitness criterion, and on the way you got something like a smoothing iron - how would that help you to end up with an evolved car.

The more I think bout it, the mechanism for evolution of life on earth is an unsolved problem. Maybe Darwin could think of traits and genes as fairly simple things, but now we know they require strings of hundreds of bases to define them, how the hell does it happen?

Surely if you apply that criterion, you could close down just about all discussions and leave them to the experts, who may have lots of pressures on them not to reveal the unvarnished truth.

1. I’m not sure where you see value in discussions among people who don’t know what they’re talking about. There are plenty of interesting discussions to be had by referring to useful/valid information.

2. The idea that scientists are under pressure not to reveal the unvarnished truth is incorrect. Whether or not “experts” are, speaks strongly as to whether or not someone can be regarded as an expert.

We can all think, and it seems to me that most evolutionary steps cannot be driven by evolutionary change. In terms of the paper you quoted, there simply aren't any peaks (or troughs) on the fitness surface until you get close to something useful. 

If you are considering making 50 changes (say) to an existing gene to make a new one with a new function, then there are approx 4^50 ways that can fail. Natural selection (NS) can't possibly 'help' to keep that process on track, because until you get very close to a useful end product, the intermediate changes don't leave a functional gene.

Even if you postulate intermediates that are somehow useful (I guess that is what your linked paper does), unless they are useful in the same way as the end product, I can't see what that buys you. If you tried to evolve a car using 'usefulness' as your fitness criterion, and on the way you got something like a smoothing iron - how would that help you to end up with an evolved car.

The more I think bout it, the mechanism for evolution of life on earth is an unsolved problem. Maybe Darwin could think of traits and genes as fairly simple things, but now we know they require strings of hundreds of bases to define them, how the hell does it happen?

It is highly unlikely that someone with knowledge and experience would agree with your characterization of evolution. So where’s the value in discussing what would be considered a caricature of evolution?

Linda

This reveals a total unwillingness to rationally consider what these research results really mean -  a blind RM + NS mechanism coming up with the massive amount of coherent genetic information corresponding to 20 new animal body plans including all the complex organ systems required and also the developmental programs, in 410,000 years (an eyeblink in the evolutionary time scale). I suspect that the magnitude of such a miracle of unlikelihood doesn't matter - you would still suspend your incredulity at the creation of these multiple complex machines from random events plus selection even if the time period the uranium dating researchers came up with was 40,000 years or even 4,000. Evidently ideology (or perhaps it should truly be called scientistic materialist religion) comes first ahead of any rational discussion.

Remember this. This universal force you presume created a universe in an instant.  Why did it take 410000 years? Why not 3000 or 500 years or in an instant of time? The "Cambrian Explosion" occured over several millions of years not 410000 years. About 37,000,000 million years to be rather precise. You may want to check non Christian based sites for accurate information.