A Revolution in Evolution Is Underway

Thomas More Lawcenter ^ | Tue, Jan 18, 2005

[Doctor Stochastic]

Abiogenesis and evolution were considered separate when I was in high school; that was much more than 10 years ago. Chemistry and physics were considered separate too.

[betty boop]

Truly, I cannot see myself as a Nominalist. Or were you speaking of others in the debate here on the forum?

No way could you be "classified" as a nominalist, A-G! I don't think the term applies to me, either. FWIW.

[DannyTN]

"There were no plant, fungus, or microbe groups for starters "

Are you saying these didn't exist in the Cambrian or that they developed pre-cambrian?

"the answer is not if the evidence doesn't present the case."

That sounds like blind faith. So whatever happened, happened and must be the result of evolution even if it's not what we would expect.

"There is no line of reasoning which says that more should have appeared"

I think there is a line of reasoning that says that diversity would continue to develop new phyla. I don't understand what would limit it. Are you suggesting there is a natural limit and what would that be?

Pray tell, what vertebrate are you talking about? I hope you don't mean Spriggina

I believe the name is "Charnia". Below is the ABC article. AIG reports that since that article, the fossil has been confirmed as the oldest vertebrate.

ABC article

Follow up article

Pope says..."..." One only sees conflict between Evolution and the Bible if you insist that the spiritual and material histories of man have the same beginning.

I respectfully disagree with the Pope. I believe the Bible makes a very strong case for a literal 7 day creation. And while I admit that evolutionists have built an elaborate case for old ages, I believe that much of that case can be tied to faulty radiometric dating, especially potassium Argon dating, and biased interpretations of the evidence.

6 Days
How long were the days

[Alamo-Girl]

Ahhh, great catch PatrickHenry! You might want to include that link as well.

[PatrickHenry]

You might want to include that link as well.

Already done.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your assurance! I was concerned that perhaps I didn't understand the term.

[StJacques]

On Nominalism . . .

I am not calling Alamo-Girl a Nominalist. I am saying, and I repeat it forcefully here, that Intelligent Design relies upon a Nominalist construct which presents a [flawed] mathematical argument based upon probability that higher levels of biological complexity could not have arisen by natural processes. In Intelligent Design theory it is argued that because science has not solved the all biochemical problems of Abiogenesis, even though it has solved some of them, nor has it provided a significant quantity of fossil evidence of the transition from the Pre-Cambrian to the Cambrian, even though it has provided some and what has been provided is consistent with evolutionary theory, that the problems of the development of higher levels of biological complexity cannot be solved. This is "truth from definition" and nothing more because it discounts advances in theories of Abiogenesis and belies the nature of most Pre-Cambrian life forms (which are invertebrate), which are difficult to preserve in fossils and at a distance in time far enough removed from the present to destroy most fossil evidence through processes of sedimentary overlay, which metamorphoses the rock, and plate subduction, which destroys it altogether.

So long as the Intelligent Design argument is because science has not solved the problems it cannot solve them, it is "truth by definition" and Nominalist in form.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if you don’t mind, I have a few “cents” for y'alls discussion of the Cambrian Explosion and phyla.

I realize that most evolution Freepers aren’t startled by the virtual absence of new phyla after the Cambrian explosion. But the concern is real – and not just to Intelligent Design supporters or Young Earth Creationists.

Virtually all of the body plans originated in the Cambrian explosion – a hiccup of time in the geologic record. Imaginative Sci-Fi writers propose a host of body plans in their fiction. So if man can think up novel body plans, why didn’t nature - if evolution is random, given all the time passing, some 500 million years?

The question is amplified by a number of intervening mass extinctions which would have provided ample environmental opportunity for new body plans to emerge and survive.

Notably, the “no new body plans” mystery is a concern among scientists as well. The best theorizing I’ve seen so far comes from this NASA website.

StJacques, you and I began our verbal debate over the mutability of regulatory control genes. I claimed they were highly immutable, you disagreed. I pointed to an article on eyeness evolving concurrently between vertebrates and invertebrates, i.e. between phyla. You objected that they weren’t using the words, ergo concepts, that I was using. It wasn’t worth carrying the argument any further – we had just met.

However, I’d like to bring the point forward at this time.

Back then, I argued that the meaning is clear, evolution is not random. The lowest life forms have no eyes and the eye gene with many sites has exponential possible combinations of amino acids. And yet the same combination of amino acids are selected for vision in all animals – vertebrates and invertebrates – across phyla.

Gehrig uses the term master control genes. I still prefer the term, regulatory control genes (but can’t recall where I first read it).

IMHO, if such control genes were largely immutable (since the Cambrian) it would explain not only concurrent evolution of eyeness across phyla but also the absence of new phyla (body plans) – though it would strike fatally at the notion of happenstance.

In the above NASA article, which also doesn’t use my lingo (no surprise there), the author suggests that microevolution cannot account for the fossil record and discusses the models of macroevolution (genetic drift, etc.) - but strongly suggests that environmentally linked hormonal induced changes in the control genes can create the observed effect of quickly emerging and successful phyla.

That would make sense to me also provided that a stability – or immutability – of control genes sets in after the Cambrian, otherwise body plans would be cropping up and dying off in the intervening 500 million years – especially so during the periods of mass extinctions.

In the alternative, if one presumes that regulatory control genes have remained every bit as mutable as ever in the intervening 500 million years (business as usual) then there is a big problem. As far as I know (and I have been watching) - there is no solar system or geologic evidence for a one time only, body-plan inducing environmental circumstance which has not since recurred. For me “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence”.

At any rate, the lack of new body plans – as with the eyeness across phyla – point to control, regulation, design, direction or whatever term you wish to use, but not happenstance.

So long as the Intelligent Design argument is because science has not solved the problems it cannot solve them, it is "truth by definition" and Nominalist in form.

The “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” thinking comes from mathematics – and applied to evolution or abiogenesis, it might seem prejudicial. However, without predictions supported by evidence any theory is merely a “just so” story.

[cornelis]

On Nominalism . . .

How about the next installment, On Positivism . . . ? (The ghost of Socrates is starting to glow)

[PatrickHenry]

Notably, the “no new body plans” mystery is a concern among scientists as well.

I agree that this is interesting, but I don't know if it "rises to the level" (Clintonian expression) of a serious concern. To put the issue a different way, we might well ask why no new hominid has emerged in the last 5 million years. There were a few, very few, and now there are no new ones to be found. Is this a problem for evolution? I don't think so. It's just an observation of what's developed. The domain of what hasn't developed is infinite, but I don't see the need to worry about why each possible development hasn't appeared.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Virtually all of the body plans originated in the Cambrian explosion – a hiccup of time in the geologic record. Imaginative Sci-Fi writers propose a host of body plans in their fiction. So if man can think up novel body plans, why didn’t nature - if evolution is random, given all the time passing, some 500 million years? The question is amplified by a number of intervening mass extinctions which would have provided ample environmental opportunity for new body plans to emerge and survive. Notably, the “no new body plans” mystery is a concern among scientists as well.

"No new body plans" may be overstating things. The phylum of vertebrates existed in the Cambrian, but the only vertebrates in the Cambrian were fish. Since then, fish have evolved into amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. That's not exactly "no new body plans" unless you think we all look like fish.

[Alamo-Girl]

That's not exactly "no new body plans" unless you think we all look like fish.

LOLOLOL! Actually, the term "body plans" is just common speak for "phyla". There have been virtually no new phyla since the Cambrian explosion.

Thank you for your reply!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

The domain of what hasn't developed is infinite, but I don't see the need to worry about why each possible development hasn't appeared.

I'm not getting concerned over every little missing thing - just pointing out that there have been virtually no new phyla since the Cambrian explosion and that fact may be related to eyeness developing across phyla concurrently. IOW, the regulatory control genes may control the freedom of movement after the Cambrian explosion.

[Lurking Libertarian]

LOLOLOL! Actually, the term "body plans" is just common speak for "phyla". There have been virtually no new phyla since the Cambrian explosion.

I'm aware of that, but my point is that, since the definition of "phylum" is so broad, the fact that there have been no new ones since the Cambrian isn't as weird as it sounds.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your explanation! However, are you proposing turning the "tree of life" for common descent into a different structure?

[PatrickHenry]

the "tree of life"

With that phrase, you may have suggested the answer to the "no new phyla" problem (or perhaps it should be called an observation rather than a problem). If all species are related by common descent, we should expect to see a gradual branching from common ancestors. And we do see this. It forms the tree of life. But you are objecting (if that's the word) that there is no new trunk forming, or at least no new major branch being developed.

In the Cambrian period, living creatures were quite small. I suppose the array of what existed may be analogous to life at the bottom of the oceans today. New forms actually may pop up from time to time. The variety of tiny creatures is amazing, and no one has catalogued them all. Some may be relatively new.

In any event, it's difficult to see how a new body form, if such shows up, is going to start developing enough descendants of various types to get recognized as a whole new phylum. The precursors would probably get gobbled up before the process developed very far. The existing "tree of life" may be hogging the show. So be glad our ancestors appeared when they did.

[StJacques]

"'"There were no plant, fungus, or microbe groups for starters'

Are you saying these didn't exist in the Cambrian or that they developed pre-cambrian?"

Neither. They developed either late Cambrian or post-Cambrian. One good example is that there were no flowering plants.

"'the answer is not if the evidence doesn't present the case.'

That sounds like blind faith. So whatever happened, happened and must be the result of evolution even if it's not what we would expect."

I would like you to explain how insisting that an argument be presented from evidence is "blind faith." Please! Explain this to me. I repeat, "how is insisting that an argument be presented from evidence an instance of blind faith"? The foolishness of that accusation seems to leap out at me.

"'There is no line of reasoning which says that more should have appeared'

I think there is a line of reasoning that says that diversity would continue to develop new phyla. I don't understand what would limit it. Are you suggesting there is a natural limit and what would that be?

Perhaps I should have clarified my statement and written there is only a mathematical line of reasoning which argues from probability that more should have appeared. This is another way of saying that you cannot develop the history of life as presented in the fossil record by deduction from premises. You must approach it by an examination of the evidence it reveals. If the evidence showed that all phyla developed suddenly in the Cambrian, which it does not as you have suggested, then that would be a problem. But since the evidence shows that diversity in phyla developed at least as early as the Vendian Period and continued after the Cambrian, I see no difficulty in explaining the process. And this is a conclusion drawn from observation of evidence, not "blind faith."

"Pray tell, what vertebrate are you talking about? I hope you don't mean Spriggina

I believe the name is "Charnia". Below is the ABC article. AIG reports that since that article, the fossil has been confirmed as the oldest vertebrate.

First of all, the "confirmation" you speak of, and it is described as "confirmed" in the followup article you linked, is still in doubt with many paleontologists, but I suspect it may indeed be the oldest vertebrate. That is just a layman's opinion.

But I am in no way troubled by the possibility that it could be the oldest vertebrate fossil. Please read the following quote from the article on the abc.net Australia site for which you provided a link:

". . . If the claims are true, it would mean that the date of the earliest vertebrate would have been pushed back by 30 million years. The earliest generally agreed vertebrate is a 530 million year old fish fossil found in China. . . ."

Now, do the arithmetic. 530 million years plus 30 million years equals 560 million years for the date of the oldest vertebrate fossil. Does this present a problem in the evolutionary record? Absolutely not! If we describe the characteristics of the Cambrian Period as typified by the rise of vertebrate life we would have to recognize that there must have been some point at which it begins. If the find is a vertebrate life form, as many paleontologists believe it is, this would push back the emergence of vertebrate life to just before the beginning of the Cambrian. That makes perfect sense to me, and to paleontologists, since it is difficult to believe that complex life forms like vertebrates just suddenly appeared in the Cambrian as if by magic. In fact, if you think about it, you should realize that the information you have posted, and I am grateful for your doing so, establishes a more gradual timeline for the emergence of complex life than that which many Intelligent Design theorists believe occurred in the "Cambrian Explosion." No; the explosion had origins in time that were more gradual in nature. Instead of compressing the emergence of vertebrate life into a time period of 50 million years we can now add 30 million more years to the process and see the argument for a more gradual evolution of complex life strengthened significantly.

". . . I respectfully disagree with the Pope. I believe the Bible makes a very strong case for a literal 7 day creation. And while I admit that evolutionists have built an elaborate case for old ages, I believe that much of that case can be tied to faulty radiometric dating, especially potassium Argon dating, and biased interpretations of the evidence. . . ."

I will not comment on your religious views since I respect anyone and everyone's right to their own faith. My comments are addressed to the application of biblical text to scientific reasoning. I believe the history of man that is revealed in the Bible is a history of the spiritual evolution of humanity, not the material origins of the human form. As for what you describe as "faulty radiometric dating" I can only say that Creationist arguments against it have been exploded so completely as to make it a non-issue with anyone who is willing to examine the science in good faith. What is at stake in radiometric dating is nuclear physics and you can no more discount the viability of radiometric dating, which looks at radioactive decay of isotopes, than you can discount the rest of nuclear science. Atomic bombs actually do work.

But take the issue of the Geologic Column out of nuclear physics for a moment and return to the original challenge I presented with respect to the ways Geologists work in the search for oil. I have a significant understanding of this (for a "layman") because I have been around the oil business all my life -- I live in Lafayette, Louisiana, a major oil town. My late father was a Petroleum Engineer and, as a result of my access to his work, I have witnessed the way in which proposals for oil drilling projects are prepared. I've even sat in on meetings in which Geologists come in and present their findings on the potential viability of this or that project and I have seen the way this evidence is examined. I will skip giving a full narrative of how the process works for the sake of brevity, but I want to mention one key aspect of it, the way external "core sample" analysis is presented.

"Core samples" are cylindrical cuttings of rock that are extracted from subterranean rock formations and taken to laboratories for analysis. The first step in this process is to use radiometric dating to place samples within a particular geologic age. Much more is done after this, including microscopic evaluation of the contents of rocks if they are sedimentary or "metasedimentary" (partially metamorphosed) to identify what biological organisms may be fossilized within the rock, and what they are looking for is fossilized plant life. Core samples are stored in major research universities across the country and many states; such as Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming, and California, maintain records of the analyses of these rocks as well as the record of successes and/or failures of drilling projects that so as to encourage development of their mineral resources. Usually, whenever a drilling project is considered, Geologists will be asked to describe what life was like in the geologic age in which the sediments comprising the rock formation in question were laid down. They will base their answers on the analysis of core samples external to the site in question, but extracted from formations of the same time period elsewhere. And when they present this analysis companies or investment groups considering the drilling project will check what the Geologists are saying by going to the body of knowledge that has been collected from other core samples to see if everything matches up chronologically. They will go to these universities and examine the core samples from the same time period themselves and discuss the analysis presented to them with professors of Geology and Geophysics. They will contact the departments of the various state governments which maintain their records, which are now in database form in some states, like Louisiana, and try to ascertain the record of success when drilling in formations dated to the period in question. And before they decide to do anything they will reexamine all of this taken together as one.

It is based upon such findings as are generated from core samples, which begin with radiometric dating of their age, that decisions are made that will risk tens of millions of dollars for land drilling projects or hundreds of millions of dollars for offshore drilling. Do Creationists really believe that the people who take these risks, which in the case of investment groups are risking their own personal money, do so based upon some "act of blind faith"? GET REAL! These are businessmen and businesswomen who have everything at stake, including their own jobs and the financial viability of the companies with which they work at stake. And what about the fact that, when using the body of knowledge derived from Geology, which in the case of the search for oil begins with the Geologic Column, THEY ACTUALLY FIND OIL! Do Creationists believe this is just blind luck?

It is for reasons such as these that I am astounded to hear that anyone can say with a straight face that the Geologic Column's use of radiometric dating is flawed. There are billions upon billions of dollars wagered every year, and with an increasing record of success, that its dating characteristics are sound.

If anyone wants to argue that the Geologic Column is flawed in terms of its use of radiometric dating, they should explain how the search for oil succeeds in spite of these flaws.

[StJacques]

On your post #608, I will respond, but I have just exhausted my "freeper time" for the afternoon responding to DannyTN. I will try to get to it tonight, or possibly tomorrow. I can't say right now, but I will get back to it. I see some of my answers already, but I want to be careful.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

In any event, it's difficult to see how a new body form, if such shows up, is going to start developing enough descendants of various types to get recognized as a whole new phylum. The precursors would probably get gobbled up before the process developed very far.

That counter-argument is why I mentioned the periods of mass extinctions when there was plenty of opportunity.

At any rate, according to the NASA guy, a sweeping hormonal change in a population could cause an entire new body plan in sufficient numbers to emerge and survive.

If it happened back then, then what would prevent a sweeping hormonal change in the population of humans which would cause enough with 3 eyes, 4 arms and antenna to emerge and survive?

People today would not call "that" a new body plan per se but they might if it happened to worms. Nevertheless, I believe it makes the point that something must be preventing sweeping changes to regulatory control genes after the Cambrian. And because of the eyes developing concurrently in both vertebrates and invertebrates, I suggest it is the control genes themselves resisting change.

[Alamo-Girl]

By all means, please take your time! Your replies are well researched, linked and presented and I look forward to all of them!