Symmetry in Evolution

International Society for Complexity, Information and Design ^ | 11-30-02 | Philip L. Engle

[CalConservative]

---

Symmetry in Evolution

by Phillip L. Engle


ABSTRACT#8212;In this paper, evidence is presented that multicelled plants and animals are organized in accordance with a strict typological hierarchy consisting of a nested structure of monophyletic taxons (i.e., clades). It is further shown that, if this strict monophyletic hierarchy is to be regarded to be the result of an evolutionary process, then it must be the case that (in general) evolution has proceeded in such a way that each more-generic taxon has split symmetrically into two more-specific taxons: By symmetrically I mean that each moregeneric taxon has ceased to exist as an independent entity after the split, instead continuing to exist only in the generic features of the two more-specific taxons into which it has become divided..

It is next demonstrated that there is no formulation of the evolutionary theory of neo-Darwinism that can account for this fact of symmetry in evolution, but that Robert F. DeHaan’s theory of macrodevelopment (suitably expanded using concepts from nonlinear science) can explain evolutionary symmetry.

Finally the Stewart/Cohen formulation of the principle of evolutionary symmetry is presented and is then expanded to include cases of “temporary” imbalance in nested evolutionary bifurcations. The resulting law of macrodevelopmental symmetry is shown to provide for a far-more-elegant explanation of protein molecular-sequencing data than neo- Darwinism’s clumsy and intricate “molecular clocks” hypothesis.

(Portions of this paper have been adapted from my book Far From Equilibrium, which can be found at www.laurelhighlandsmedia.com, as well as from portions of the paper “Teleology and Information in Biology”, which I presented at the first e-symposium of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) on October 3, 2002)

To read the entire paper, please click here

[CalConservative]

Neo-Darwinism’s clumsy and intricate “molecular clocks” hypothesis? Ouch!

[Burkeman1]

I am no biologist or scientific expert. But I have a hard time believing that all the myriad life forms on earth "evolved" from some primordial goo. But make no mistake. I am not a creationist. The Earth aint 8000 years old and man is not descended from Adam and Eve. I just have problems with evolution as it is currently explained. Are there "giant leaps" in evolution that are so fast that we will never find an "intermediate" specie fossil? Or is it gradual and thus have been unlucky so far as to not find what came before the Elephant for example?

I make no bones. I am nearly ignorant on this topic. I welcome a tutorial.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[DaGman]

Here we go again.

[LiteKeeper]

Try starting here, and then explore other parts of this web site. Suspend any bias you might have for the moment, and check it out.

Creation: Where's the proof?

Holler if you want more, please.

[Alamo-Girl]

For a summary of the different views on Free Republic, you might want to check out this link

[Burkeman1]

Thanks. But even in my childhood Catholic teaching the Church had conceded that the Earth is not 8000 years old and had said we could study and believe in "evolution" as long as we understood it was just a theory. I am not sure what that link meant. The Catholic Church has long held that the ancient stories of the old testament, while holy and have meaning for us as Christians, are not to be held in absolute truth as to science.

[CalConservative]

I make no bones. I am nearly ignorant on this topic. I welcome a tutorial.

I think there is a growing body of scientific thought that feels there is a strong element of design in living organisms - in spite of what you will most likely read as this thread develops.

Neo-Darwinism is having hard time holding its own as we see increasing evidence for design and structure in nature. What we often end up with instead of a good discussion on the science is ridicule and derision by those with closed minds. If you are interested, I can direct you to some good references that you can use to make up your own mind.

[CalConservative]

Try starting here, and then explore other parts of this web site. Suspend any bias you might have for the moment, and check it out.

Creation: Where's the proof?

Holler if you want more, please.

Excellent resource, LiteKeeper - I wish I had brought it up myself!

[LiteKeeper]

And that is the point: I fear your early Catholic teaching was wrong. There is strong evidence for a young earth. I simply ask you to read this article...it discusses the issues of presuppositions, and very interesting evidence for the authority of the Scriptures.

[Sabertooth]

((((((growl)))))

[cyborg]

Whether a person believes young earth or old earth.. it's whether God created humans, and put the word of science above the word of GOD is wrong. I'm a Roman Catholic, but I have a severe disagreement with this point. It brings the authenticity of scripture into question.

[LiteKeeper]

Sorry, you have used several pronouns, and I am not sure the antecedants. Can you please clarify? Thanks very much.

[Burkeman1]

Be merciful! LOL.

[cyborg]

Either someone believes God created PEOPLE or they don't and believe we come from a chimp.

[LiteKeeper]

I have had a chance to meet him, and even volunteered at one of his conferences. There is so much meat at his site, one could hardly exhaust it. He posts a new article every day, and the illustrations (accessed by clicking on the icon in the lower right quadrant of his home page) are worth the price of admission!

[Burkeman1]

Well- that is the thing in my mind. Homo Eructus, Homo Hablis, Human? Where are the cross species? Shouldn't there be an intermediate specie between Human and whatever the evolutionists say was our last ancestor? Shouldn't there be dozens if not thousands? Or did it all happen so fast there is no fossil record?

[LiteKeeper]

Your question presupposes evolution. There is another viable explanation. Mentioned above.

[Burkeman1]

And that is a young Earth? Never mind that Carbon dating and literally thousands of tests that measure millions of years of geological time are used commericially every day for mining, drilling, surveying? Do you honestly believe in a young Earth- an Earth that can't be older than say 10,000 years?

Make no mistake- I am not trying to belittle you. Who knows what tests God puts in our path to test our faith?

[cyborg]

Evolution is just an excuse for people to run wild with their mostly sexual deviancy, or other sorts of bad behavior. DJ Kennedy of "Truths that Transform" had an excellent radio series on this issue. I think evolution is a lot of pseudo-scientific bullchips.