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

[Burkeman1]

It has it's problems in my mind as well. But there is no way on Earth that anyone is going to convince me that the Earth is only 8000 years old.

[Burkeman1]

It has it's problems in my mind as well. But there is no way on Earth that anyone is going to convince me that the Earth is only 8000 years old.

[LiteKeeper]

Have you ever studied about carbon dating? Do you that it's half life is only 5700 years...and that anything more than 50,000 years would be impossible to date using that method?

How accurate is Carbon-14 dating?

Did you know that 90% of the dating methods point to a young earth, not an old one? Why do you suppose evolutionists only cite the 10%? Because the 90% don't support their presuppositions.

In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was "dated" by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was "dated" by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old! How does 45,000 year old wood grow inside 45 million year old basalt...which, by the way, is known to have originated in a volcanic eruption about 150 years ago.

The Mount St Helen's (1980)lava flow was dated at somewhere between 25,000 and 2.5 million years old...depending on the dating method used.

Comment: there is some room for improvement in the methods, and there is "wiggle" room given the inconsistencies.

[Burkeman1]

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.

There is no doubt about it. Darwinism was instremental in the development of Nihilism which lead to both Fascism and Communism. God was said to "dead". But have we not learned from our own evil of the 20th century that God is more than alive in the defeat of both evils?

[Burkeman1]

I am not familiar with the examples you cite. I just know that my Uncle helped drill wells in Saudi Arabia and used a myriad of geological dating methods that told him the Earth was much older than 8 thousand years old to find it. Sorry. But not only that. The scientific evidence is so overwhelming as to not even make me take you seriously any longer. You may as well say the Earth is flat.

[cyborg]

Yes I would say that God is instrumental in bringing down these evils. As much as I may not like it (cuz I'm human) God is in charge of everything, even the things I can't stand.

I believe this Earth is very old, but I don't believe people are old. There's a lot of discussion about this in christian circles though.

[LiteKeeper]

But you see, that is the point, the evidence is not overwhelming. Point to one thing you know for sure is a proven fact about evolution. The evolutionists would have you believe so, but it just is not there.

[LiteKeeper]

BTW - how did your uncle date the core samples that he drilled?

[txzman]

1. The Earth aint 8000 years old and man is not descended from Adam and Eve.

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


My, my - but you are an expert. You already have one side of the argument firmly locked down. I am glad that you know all your facts on evolution, fossils, dating and geology so well - just don't read too much - you might be very surprised how weak the bridge your current train of thought is on :)

[Burkeman1]

I don't disagree with you on evolution. I don't think the theory has been proved at all! But at the same time I don't believe in a young Earth. Look to my first post.

I don't believe in UFO's or ET's either. And science is prooving this. Life on Earth is unique. There are no aliens coming to save us as is popular in our culture now. God is alive- now more than ever.

[Burkeman1]

No Idea to be honest.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

IMO, the argument is not really about evolution versus creation but is at heart a debate about the existence of God. Once God is accepted, the method becomes moot. Once God is denied, creation becomes moot.

This argument, and all like it, usually ends in a cul-de-sac where you meet yourself coming back. By that I mean that the debate over God's existence cannot end in proof but only in choice. Proof would destroy God, by the traditional definition, so what is the point? That leaves you with choice and faith or choice and emptiness. Either way it is choice.

Debate and consideration is often the only way for many of us to get there. It was for me. Yet, in the end, you find the cul-de-sac and end up right back where you started - personal choice. I chose existence.

[Burkeman1]

And you are very topical? So the tables, charts, graphs, tests, that miners, drillers, and their geographic consultants use to find their payday are wrong? It is all bunk? So tell me genuis- do they use the old testament and wave it over the Earth to tell them where the Oil is or the copper deposits might be? Laughable. Now I know why all skeptics of evolution are lumped together as luddites.

[LiteKeeper]

I don't believe in UFOs either...but I do believe in a God who recorded in the Bible that He did something in the (relatively) not too distant past. I believe the eye-witness testimony of the One Who was there when it all began. The Bible tells us that He is going to create a New Heaven and a New Earth sometime in the future. Why couldn't He do the same thing in the past?

BTW - are you aware of one of the most common means of dating the age of the earth? You can check this out for yourself. Paleontologists will tell you the date they fossils they find by the strata of the rocks that they are found in. Do you know how they date the strata? By the fossils that they find in the strata. In some places, this is called "circular reasoning."

The discoverer of the fossil now known as Lucy was asked by Dick Cavett how he dated the fossil to be several million years old. His response? "As we flew over the area in a helicopter, I just knew that it had to be at least 4+ million years old." Now that is scientific!

[Burkeman1]

Lite- I am not talking about Lucy- which is not even considered the "link" like it used to be (how typical of that field of "science"). I am talking about serious men (often Christian men) who raise their families based on tests which tell them where the oil, gold, copper, uranium might be due to geological movements of millions of years. The left academy in this country will lie about evolution. But when it comes to profit there is no latitude for lies.

[Bonaparte]

Thanks for posting this fascinating paper, CC.

For those who may not have noticed, Engle supplies URLs for many of his citations. Some of these are worth reading as well.

[LiteKeeper]

And yet there is also evidence that the coal and other minerals could have been formed in a relatively short amount of time.

Look at this: Coal Beds and Noah's Flood

Or this, Coal: memorial to the Flood

Or this regarding Mt St Helens: Mt. Saint Helens - Key to Rapid Coal Formation?

Focus Articles from Vol. 6 No. 2, November 1983
Quick Coals

That coal could form in periods ranging from two weeks up to one year has been shown by Randall Winans of the Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois. In work to be described at the International Organic Geochemistry Conference in the Netherlands (September), Winans and his colleagues have made simple coals by heating lignin ? a sort of glue for the cellulose fibres in woody plants ? to about 300 degrees Fahrenheit in the presence of clays. Winans has claimed that the clays appear to serve as catalysts to enable a far more rapid production of coal than many scientists have been prepared to accept.

Three hundred degrees Fahrenheit is a fairly common temperature in geological formation and clays are found naturally in coal deposits. Creationists have long claimed rapid formation for coal and hopefully Winan's work will go some way towards making this more convincing.
Science News, Vol. 124, August 6, 1983.

Focus Articles from 1985
More Quick Oil Discovered
Following the discovery some three years ago that petroleum was forming rapidly in the present-day world along the East Pacific Rise, another team of scientists has discovered recently a similar accumulation of rapidly heated hydro-carbons in Western Antartic. It appears that hot lava is interacting with the organically rich waters in the area to cook the material and produce oil. This petroleum could have commercial value if there were enough of it. But discoverers so far believe there is very little oil in the area, perhaps because lava intrudes only over very small regions at any one time. All this adds to the evidence that vast periods of time are not needed to produce geological deposits such as oil and coal.

Science News-vol 127, page 180, March 23rd, 1985.

[Burkeman1]

I agree. It is about the existence of God. I accepted God and evolution for a long time. But as I read more I can't accept evolution as an explanation for the development of life on Earth. I don't see it. And for every objection of the anti darwinwists all I see is the smear of "creationist".

[CalConservative]

So the tables, charts, graphs, tests, that miners, drillers, and their geographic consultants use to find their payday are wrong? It is all bunk? So tell me genuis- do they use the old testament and wave it over the Earth to tell them where the Oil is or the copper deposits might be? Laughable. Now I know why all skeptics of evolution are lumped together as luddites.

I am a professional geologist making my living quite nicely as a consultant. I did not start off as a creationist and probably had similar views to yours (or at least along the lines of theistic evolution) as I went through college and into my career as a geologist. I've worked in the field all over the U.S. and into Canada and Mexico looking for mineral deposits, oil, etc. and developing geologic models to help me do that. I've done quite well, I would like to think. I've got 25 years experience as a geologist.

The important point is this: I became a creationist because of my geologic field work and studies. There are too many problems with the standard uniformitarian geology that become obvious if you are keeping an open mind out in the field trying to figure out what the heck is going on with the with geology so you can make sense of it and identify likely targets for mineral deposits.

So yes, it is possible. I just asked my wife and she said she doesn't usually think I'm crazy, so I must generally be OK!

[Burkeman1]

Lite- why would serious men waste there time with tests that show the Earth to be millions of years old to get at the various minerals or fuels they after if they were not convinced of them? They have proven to be correct in a million cases. Are these scientific ways given them by God or do they just know where the various ores or oils are?