US scientists may have resolved 'Darwin's dilemma'

Fox News ^ | 11/15/2014 | By Matt Cantor

[SeekAndFind]

Charles Darwin worried about a possible hole in his theory of evolution, but some American scientists may just have plugged it. For about a billion years after the dawn of life on Earth, organisms didn't evolve all that much.

Then about 600 million years ago came the "Cambrian explosion." Everything changed relatively quickly, with all kinds of plants and animals emerging—which doesn't quite seem to fit with Darwin's theory of slow change, hence "Darwin's dilemma." Now, within a few days of each other, two new studies have appeared that could explain the shift, ABC News reports.

One, by scientists at Yale and the Georgia Institute of Technology, suggests that oxygen levels may have been far less plentiful in the atmosphere prior to the Cambrian explosion than experts had thought.

The air may only have been .1% oxygen, which couldn't sustain today's complex organisms, indicating a shift had to happen before the "explosion" could take place.

In a separate study, a University of Texas professor explains where that oxygen burst may have come from: a major tectonic shift. Based on geological evidence, Ian Dalziel believes what is now North America remained attached to the supercontinent Gondwanaland until the early Cambrian period, in contrast with current belief, which has the separation occurring earlier.

[Olog-hai]

Saying that the subsequent animals in the fossil record “competed more effectively” is an unobserved statement.

Who is to say that the Neanderthals are not antediluvian humans? More conjecture by exclusion.

Uniformitarianism is one big problem with modern “science”. It is pure dogma.

[redleghunter]

Wow what ‘faith’ in chance+a whole lot of time.

No matter how many holes are plugged with suppositions, the original or genesis of something from nothing remains unanswered from the lofty towers of Dawkins’s flat.

Yet recently we hear, “no problem” the universe always existed! Problem solved!

[SkyDancer]

Liberal public school teachers ... fortunately I was home schooled.

[SkyDancer]

I did - that’s why I said it formed into ears.

[BroJoeK]

Olog-hai: "Funny how hiding behind the Supreme Court (of all bodies) and avoiding the definition of the word science makes one still think one can deny being anti-science.
Once the government starts to define for itself (and for all of us) what science is, we are back to the dark days of Galileo..."

You may not like it, but the word "science" today has a legal definition, and that is in short, "natural-science" or the longer definition of "methodological naturalism" meaning: natural explanations for natural processes.
It is specifically intended to be non-religious, and to exclude any religious component.

That's why courts have resisted all efforts to impose a spiritual element on science, such as Creationism.
My opinion is, there's nothing particularly wrong with Creationism, but it's not natural-science, and really should be taught in special classes on religion -- or better yet, in church.

I put it this way: we don't teach math in English class, we don't teach German in Spanish class and we don't teach religion in science class.
Indeed, you really don't want atheistic government teachers telling your children about God's creative actions in the Universe.

Olog-hai: "The Greek word gnosis is not limited to spiritual matters; it is not a word peculiar to them, any more than its Latin cognate scientia is."

But secret spriritual matters, Gnosis, are precisely what the Apostle Paul was talking about to Timothy, not the science of building ships or celestial motions.
You simply cannot translate Paul's words into today's evolution debate.

Olog-hai: "The Bible is absolutely not anti-science. It is those who rail against it who are..."

Natural-science is certainly not anti-Bible, but it certainly is determined to stay out of any religious connections.
That's why science insists that it will only deal with natural explanations for natural processes.
All other matters must be handled by some other branch of learning -- not by science.

[Olog-hai]

That’s like saying “you may not like it, but the church/state upholds Aristotle over Galileo and that is the way it is”. Government getting into science destroys both its credibility and its impartiality. I prefer science, myself.

[redleghunter]

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”-—Robert Jastro (NASA scientist, populist author and futurist.)

[BroJoeK]

Olog-hai: "Saying that the subsequent animals in the fossil record “competed more effectively” is an unobserved statement."

The scientific question would be: can we say anything about why Neanderthals disappeared?

The answer is: "nothing direct", but we can say that it only happened after modern humans appeared nearby.
We might note that modern humans appeared more fleet of foot, handier with tools, maybe better with language, and with a passion for art work.
So something gave them a critical advantage, and Neanderthals disappeared while human populations expanded far beyond Neanderthal numbers and range.

And there are only a few broad choices for why Neanderthals died -- 1) hunted down and exterminated by humans, 2) died of human carried diseases 3) habitat destruction by humans, meaning the large animals Neanderthals hunted. 4) Humans ingenuity allowed their populations to grow to the point there was just no place left for Neanderthals to live.

Now you could look for evidence of each explanation, and select the one(s) evidence seems to support.

That's science.

[Olog-hai]

Agreed about that being the scientific question about Neanderthals, but the answering has to stop at the evidence and not build on dogma. Otherwise, the Old World strawman effect of arguing catastrophism versus uniformitarianism sets in and muddies the waters—which is sad in the USA’s case since the government formed by its Founding Fathers was supposed to prevent such government-influenced anti-Baconism.

[redleghunter]

>>Even IF Darwin was absolutely correct about evolution, then what, or WHO created the conditions for the whole evolutionary process to fall into place like it did, and supposedly still doing?<<

Yes the inconvenient truth that something does not come from nothing. The things we make and use have designers.

[redleghunter]

>>LOL! They just jumped out of the water and waited for lungs to magically appear. Same as if we stayed under water long enough, we would evolve gills. These “professors” should demonstrate. LOL<<

Don’t you know chance plus billions of years solves this problem.

As if they personify “chance” and “loads of time”. As if they are deities!

And they do. They use terms such as “nature tells us” “mother nature” and today some are bold to show their true beliefs and use Gaia.

[redleghunter]

This can easily be observed when a human develops in the womb. It doesn’t take millions of years. Just a few weeks.

And we can explain how it all got started. Perhaps a candle lit dinner:)

[redleghunter]

>>The explosion occurred when nearly all life forms became morphologically symmetric.<<

Amazing how that happened and how we know. It is almost like someone wanted it to be so.

[redleghunter]

The diagram is missing quite a few transitional forms.

[redleghunter]

>>Assuming that eyeballs occurred in random placement all over<<

That’s quite an assumption. Vegas would love those odds:)

[Salvavida]

Listen friend. I've actually studied in this field, and have talked to a renown scientist that looks at this every day. I'm not using word-definition games, I'm using the verbiage those who study this field, use.

You obviously do not belong to that group. You are ignorant. Let's leave it at that.

When you have spoken with a scientist in the field, and have read up on where the community stands on the issue, then you can get back with me, and we can chat on the same level.

But if you want to believe in macro evolution....rock on. Personally....I don't give Shiite.

[alexander_busek]

It is impossible for me to imagine God creating the Universe without having us in mind as His end-product [...]

Nothing to be ashamed about... A lot of people suffer from imagination-deficiency... Just don't then assume that your regrettable lack of imagination tells us anything objectively useful about the Universe.

Regards,

[redleghunter]

>>In fact, the DNA of every recognizably living thing on earth is amazingly similar, and that’s one suggestion of common ancestry (or if you prefer: a single Creator).<<

Yes this is one of the premises of Intelligent design. Thanks for keeping an open mind.

[redleghunter]

>>Anybody who takes the time and effort to seriously study scientific subjects will learn where the limits of our knowledge are, which questions we can answer, which we can’t, and which have at times past been answered incorrectly.
None of those are secrets, but do require some effort to study & learn.<<

Yet we have rabid atheists beating the drum this is all settled science. Arrogance has no place in any profession. This includes theology.

[BroJoeK]

Texas Songwriter: "Goodness gracious. What got your stinger out?"

Sorry about that... but I used the word "guess", and suddenly I'm being accused of "the religion of science".
No, I just want to be clear: a guess is not a religion.
OK?

Texas Songwriter: "Panspermia….really….panspermia?
…..Even Fred Hoyle disavowed the theory as hokum…..but you can give it consideration….we are just talking.
You are correct….none of your proposed hypotheses to consider have been confirmed….or even have any scientific evidence to support such nonsense."

Actually, the panspermia hypothesis has enjoyed something of a comeback in recent years, so I understand, for two basic reasons:

1. There has been evidence of somewhat more complex organic compounds found or suspected not only on comets, but also in interstellar dust clouds, also those supposed "Martians" on meteorites in Antarctica -- and that's got some people asking, "what if...."

2. Panspermia for a scientist is a little like saying "God did it", or "aliens planted their seeds here".
   Now you can just wipe your hands and walk away from the problem.
   It's a way for a scientist to say, "I give up, don't know, can't figure it out, too tough for me, so I'll call it 'panspermia'.

So, "panspermia" is a legitimate hypothesis, but with no serious confirming evidence found, yet.

Texas Songwriter: "Miller-Urey had false assumptions and as you must know the assumptions in primordial atmospheric conditions have been discarded."

My point in mentioning the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment is to say that science is today over 60 years beyond that, much more work has been done, and some interesting things have been learned.
Of course, scientists have not created "life" in a lab from scratch, but they now know much more about it than the old Miller-Urey experiment suggested.

Texas Songwriter: "Do you not see that such an assertion is a statement of faith.
You do not knows your statement is warranted, true belief.
You simply assert this as your belief….you have faith that this is how it happened.
Get it, Pal?"

Now look who's getting snippy! ;-)

My saying that it "must have" is certainly not a "statement of faith", nor "true belief" nor "faith" -- none of that.
It is simply a logical conclusion, based on the presumption of abiogenesis.
Let me spell that out: logically speaking, if life evolved from chemistry entirely on Planet Earth, with no outside help from panspermia, or space-aliens or from divine miracles, then it must have grown slowly, slowly, step by step over many millions and billions of years.
That's not a "statement of faith", it's a logical conclusion, based on clearly stated premises.
That's why I strongly object to your accusing me of "the religion of science."

Texas Songwriter: "If your purported hypothesis of panspermia were to be warranted, then billions of years would not be necessary, would it, PaL?"

To repeat my point, panspermia is just one of a dozen or so Origin of Life hypotheses out there today.
It would mean, basically, seeds planted on earth -- accidentally-naturally, or by Someone's Intent -- and by itself solves the question, so far as we can learn here.
Other alternative hypotheses are all some form of evolutionary abiogenesis, and that, I'm saying, the fossil record shows as taking not just millions but billions of years to slowly, slowly develop.

Texas Songwriter: "How do you know this statement is true?
You make the assertion, but what is the epistemic explanation for your making such a statement?"

Thanks for that question!
It's not every day I get asked to explain my epistemic understandings... ;-)

First, you understand, hopefully, that my belief and position here is in defense of what is called "theistic evolutionism", and to the degree that I can accurately express those ideas, I stand by everything I've posted.
If I ever get off-track somehow, then would need to go back and make corrections later, understood?

Second, the view of theistic evolutionism is very simple and consistent: whatever we see in the natural-Universe, is what God created, it's there because that's the way He planned it, and it's there for His divine purposes -- and that most certainly includes us!
So, we never argue with science -- but, for example, we don't defend evolution on grounds that it is necessarily "absolute truth", that would be ridiculous, but rather that it seems like a pretty good explanation for what the data shows.
If new data supports some new explanation, then that's fine too -- we're not trying to force God into some specific theory, only hoping to learn which theory best describes His actions.

In this specific case, assuming evolution is God's plan, then whether we describe it as "random chance" or "divine miracle", the operations and results are the same.
Does that answer your question?

Texas Songwriter: "Who was the engineer?
Dawkin's mindless, pitiless, pointless universe?
Are we anthropomorphizing matter and energy?"

I don't know why the idea seems to hard to get across, but if you believe, as I do, that God created the Universe, based on His plan and purposes, then literally nothing can possibly be "mindless, pitiless, pointless" in the Universe.
Instead, there is reason for everything, including seemingly "random" mutations and "natural" selection.
The very fact that we are here proves the point to me that there was nothing "random" or "arbitrary" about any of it!

Texas Songwriter: "Current literature in comparative embryology has made crystal clear that Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent."

Yes, I understand that's an article of faith for you, however: mistaken, yes he was, but deliberately fraudulent, no, I don't think so.
More important, there is some truth in his findings -- he failed to see it clearly, but the fact is that all fetuses of closely related creatures resemble each other a lot, and even more distantly related fetuses resemble each other to a surprising degree.

The example cited here was alleged "gill slits" on human fetuses.
No, they are not gills, but they do look like gills, are informally called "gills", and in fish those same features do become gills.
In humans they never become gills, but are instead absorbed into surrounding tissue as part of the pharynx.

So Haeckel was certainly wrong, but he was also onto something important, which, when expressed correctly shows us more about how evolution operates -- or, if you prefer: how God operates through evolution.

Texas Songwriter: "It sounds like a statement which would be made by Dan Rather….."false, but accurate"."

Nothing, let me repeat: nothing, in science is like the ancient goddess athena, who supposedly sprang full grown from the head of zeus.
Everything: hypotheses, theories, even complex facts are developed iteratively -- trial and error, see what's wrong then go back and adjust for it, etc., etc., repeat and repeat until the results can be fully confirmed.
That is also the case with Haeckel.

Texas Songwriter: "So, Pal, we are just talking. Chatting. Discussing.
I am not angry. Relax a little, it's not your style."

And good morning dear, to you too! ;-)