Total Posts:129|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does the Cambrian Explosion undermine Darwin?

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 9:23:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
drafterman and I have been discussing the relevance of the Cambrian explosion with respect to the efficacy of Darwinism - aka natural selection - see this thread for more: http://www.debate.org...

Let me just state by way of an introduction that I never harboured any doubts about this up until my late 20s and prior to then had read extensively about and argued vehemently for evolution whenever the subject came up for discussion.

The Cambrian fossils reveal that a very diverse fauna lived approx 530 MYA, the breadth of morphological diversity is considerable with some 50+ phyla present - a phylum incidenatlly is the highest level of taxonomy in a taxonomic tree below kingdom; all organisms living today represent some 43 phyla.

In order for these disparate phyla to exist they must have descended from various common ancestors and such morphological disparty requires a preceding genetic diversity, this in turn requires that a considerable length of time must have elapsed between the era of the bacteria and simple life and the appearance of the Cambrian beasts.

Unfortunately what we observe is entirely contrary to what we expect based on our knowledge of evolution. There are no traces of any ancestral fossils - to all intents and purpose the diverse Cambrian fauan just appear - as already very diverse - in the fossil record, unanounced and unhinted at by preceding fossils.

When we couple this with the fact that this absence is repeated in every part of the earth that we find Cambrian fossils and that preservation conditions before and during the Cambrian are outstanding we have a dillema.

Personally as I have spent time reading and studying this issue and its history the dillema has only deepened and so I am now of the opinion that we are face to face with something profound - the Cambrian fauna did not arise through natural selection and the dramatic and sudden appearence of them in the fossil record is wholly inconsistent with any naturalistic explanation.

Before replying to this please spend a few minutes perusing these comments made by teachers and writers with expertise of the subject - just to help you see that it really is considered bizarre amongs the academics not just laymen.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org...

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 4:02:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 3:33:48 PM, blameworthy wrote:
Have you read about punctuated equilibrium?

Yes.
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 4:06:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 4:02:46 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/2/2012 3:33:48 PM, blameworthy wrote:
Have you read about punctuated equilibrium?

Yes.

Punctuated equilibrium explains the Cambrian Explosion.
blameworthy
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 4:08:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I honestly know little about this topic. What is your alternative solution? Did the sky daddy snap his fingers and produce the diversity of life during the Cambrian Explosion?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 4:29:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 4:06:47 PM, blameworthy wrote:
At 11/2/2012 4:02:46 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/2/2012 3:33:48 PM, blameworthy wrote:
Have you read about punctuated equilibrium?

Yes.


Punctuated equilibrium explains the Cambrian Explosion.

The development of PE was motivated in part by the recognition that the fossil record is frequently inconsistent with Darwinism.

Specifically though PE does not "explain" the Cambrian fossil record at all. You see even if a form of PE can and did operate it still requires genetic material to "play with".

The genetic "pool" necessary for PE to operate simply did not exist, there is almost no genetic complexity or diversity in the fossil record prior to the Cambrian, like with the trilobite.

The morphological disparity revealed by the Cambrian fossils is very large, and morphological disparity arises from genetic diversity it is the genetic diversity that allows such a large disparity to arise.

Yet there is no evidence for such a preceding diversity and no explanation for this absence.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 1:19:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 4:08:17 PM, blameworthy wrote:
I honestly know little about this topic. What is your alternative solution? Did the sky daddy snap his fingers and produce the diversity of life during the Cambrian Explosion?

I'm open minded.

Harry.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 12:36:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Cambrian Explosion is expected. It's what's known as a "singularity". The Cambrian Explosion, the invention of language, the Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution are all examples of singularities. It follows from chaos theory, which plays a huge part in understanding evolutionary biology, that small changing factors can result in enormous sudden changes.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 8:33:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 12:36:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion is expected. It's what's known as a "singularity". The Cambrian Explosion, the invention of language, the Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution are all examples of singularities. It follows from chaos theory, which plays a huge part in understanding evolutionary biology, that small changing factors can result in enormous sudden changes.

So what exactly is the mechanism that enables a community of Ediacaran organisms (which may not even have been animals at all) to "suddenly" begin to give birth to fish or molluscs or trilobytes?

If you are proposing that this did occur in a single step then you are alone, no bioloogist or evolutionist suggests that nature is capable of this. If you are proposing it occured as a succesion of steps then where is the evidence of these intermediate steps and if there is none then how can you insist they ever took place?

Harry.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 12:36:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 8:33:26 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/4/2012 12:36:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion is expected. It's what's known as a "singularity". The Cambrian Explosion, the invention of language, the Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution are all examples of singularities. It follows from chaos theory, which plays a huge part in understanding evolutionary biology, that small changing factors can result in enormous sudden changes.

So what exactly is the mechanism that enables a community of Ediacaran organisms (which may not even have been animals at all) to "suddenly" begin to give birth to fish or molluscs or trilobytes?

If you are proposing that this did occur in a single step then you are alone, no bioloogist or evolutionist suggests that nature is capable of this. If you are proposing it occured as a succesion of steps then where is the evidence of these intermediate steps and if there is none then how can you insist they ever took place?

Harry.

First, you need to understand how rare fossilization actually is. I like to point to the T-Rex as the example but it can really apply to anything. The T-Rex lived for about 1.5 million years, and over that time likely saw over a billion live (not at the same time, but over the entire 1.5 million years), yet we've only found a little over 30 fossils, none of them complete. When only 1 in 30,000,000 get fossilized, it is understandable that we will not have a complete record and that there will be gaps.

What's the saying, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," or something like that.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 8:37:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 12:36:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/4/2012 8:33:26 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/4/2012 12:36:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion is expected. It's what's known as a "singularity". The Cambrian Explosion, the invention of language, the Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution are all examples of singularities. It follows from chaos theory, which plays a huge part in understanding evolutionary biology, that small changing factors can result in enormous sudden changes.

So what exactly is the mechanism that enables a community of Ediacaran organisms (which may not even have been animals at all) to "suddenly" begin to give birth to fish or molluscs or trilobytes?

If you are proposing that this did occur in a single step then you are alone, no bioloogist or evolutionist suggests that nature is capable of this. If you are proposing it occured as a succesion of steps then where is the evidence of these intermediate steps and if there is none then how can you insist they ever took place?

Harry.

First, you need to understand how rare fossilization actually is. I like to point to the T-Rex as the example but it can really apply to anything. The T-Rex lived for about 1.5 million years, and over that time likely saw over a billion live (not at the same time, but over the entire 1.5 million years), yet we've only found a little over 30 fossils, none of them complete. When only 1 in 30,000,000 get fossilized, it is understandable that we will not have a complete record and that there will be gaps.

True but why then would fossils of Cambrian ancestors alone be completely absent (zero examples) while the preceding bacteria and ediacaran fossils are abundant in the same places as the descended Cambrian animals?

Why would this one "layer" spanning the transformation of very simple life to the 35+ Cambrian phyla be absent in every place on earth where we find such fossils?

I do not deny that fossils are indeed rare but wherever we find Cambrian fossils we find that their abundance - within these areas - is very high yet the presumed intermediates are never there.

Remember - and I don't think many people really appreciate this bit - the Cambrian fauna is very rich and diverse. It is in these fossil beds that we find the EARLIEST examples known of chordates, molluscs, arthropods and some 30 odd others ALL JUST APPEAR during the Cambrian - within a span of perhaps 15 or so million years.

These animals have hard parts, some are quite large like trilobites, anomalocaris, opabinia - so if they arose through common descent MUST have had significant ancestry, let me stress a phylum is not just a species it is a much higher classification - different phyla are very different indeed.

Some of these animals appear to have had very sophisticated eyes - in fact these Cambrian beasts are the FIRST examples of compound eyes a feature that MUST have an ancestral history if natural selection where the cause.

In the strata below this we never ever find any examples whatsoever of anything that could be an ancestor, instead as we go down (and this seems to be true wherever we find Cambrian fossils) we find fossils of bacteria, tiny sponges, ediacaran animals, all soft bodied and these too are abundant.

Dismissing this absence on the basis of overall statistical global fossil rarity is unsound.


What's the saying, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," or something like that.

Logically this is true - in which case you must surely be equally open to the reality of interstellar aliens, fairies and flying spaghetti monsters - are you?

Harry.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 8:10:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 12:36:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion is expected. It's what's known as a "singularity". The Cambrian Explosion, the invention of language, the Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution are all examples of singularities. It follows from chaos theory, which plays a huge part in understanding evolutionary biology, that small changing factors can result in enormous sudden changes.

So my question would be what were all these small changes, and what is the evidence for it? I personally am open-minded to an evolutionary explanation for the Cambrian explosion although a creationist. (Quite simply, I"ve not found a valid one, so I"m still looking)

Could you explain "chaos theory"? Never heard of it before and it might explain the CE.

Ore_Ele. What about fossilization being a rare process? I"ve seen evidence for jellyfish fossilization (Which Darwin predicted shouldn"t happen), http://www.geotimes.org.... It is hard to explain either. And look at the ripple marks besides.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 11:28:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 8:10:07 PM, Muted wrote:
At 11/4/2012 12:36:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion is expected. It's what's known as a "singularity". The Cambrian Explosion, the invention of language, the Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution are all examples of singularities. It follows from chaos theory, which plays a huge part in understanding evolutionary biology, that small changing factors can result in enormous sudden changes.

So my question would be what were all these small changes, and what is the evidence for it? I personally am open-minded to an evolutionary explanation for the Cambrian explosion although a creationist. (Quite simply, I"ve not found a valid one, so I"m still looking)

Could you explain "chaos theory"? Never heard of it before and it might explain the CE.



Ore_Ele. What about fossilization being a rare process? I"ve seen evidence for jellyfish fossilization (Which Darwin predicted shouldn"t happen), http://www.geotimes.org.... It is hard to explain either. And look at the ripple marks besides.

May I respond? I've said elsewhere that I once accepted evolution and considered it true without any serious doubts with respect to the overall claims.

However I began to probe a little once - actually defending it from an attack by a Bible basher - and sought to address some pointed criticisms. At that time my main scientific interests were physics and mathematics and electronics - so I was used to a "harder" kind of science than what we typically see with evolution.

It was during this period that I began admit to myself that there was a large degree of extrapolation and one needed to be willing to marginalize things that were at odds with evolution and build arguments only upon those observations that were already consistent with the theory.

This degree of selectivity with observations was not something I'd seen in physics be it cosmology, astronomy, mechanics, electricity etc - and it was quite natural for me to approach evolution as I did physics already and thus expect the overall reasoning to be as sound.

So I formed the impression - which has never left me - that evolution advocates seek primarily to preserve the theory rather than seek out he truth about life on earth.

I have nothing against such people because I've also learned that evolution is actually taught in such a way that preservation of it is an inherent aspect of that teaching - for example by ridiculing any attempt to refute it or ostracize those who emphasize serious evidential weaknesses, so the fact that most evolutionists strive to preserve it is a consequence of how it is taught to them.

So I think the core problem with evolution is not the theory itself (despite its serious problems it is quite an accomplishment and I have immense respect for Darwin) but the dogmatic manner in which its defenders respond to criticisms - if it becomes a dogma (as I think it has) then it shows our education system to be failing - science should never be dogmatic and dissent should not be discouraged as if we were living in the dark ages.

Harry.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 4:29:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 11:28:42 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/5/2012 8:10:07 PM, Muted wrote:
At 11/4/2012 12:36:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion is expected. It's what's known as a "singularity". The Cambrian Explosion, the invention of language, the Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution are all examples of singularities. It follows from chaos theory, which plays a huge part in understanding evolutionary biology, that small changing factors can result in enormous sudden changes.

So my question would be what were all these small changes, and what is the evidence for it? I personally am open-minded to an evolutionary explanation for the Cambrian explosion although a creationist. (Quite simply, I"ve not found a valid one, so I"m still looking)

Could you explain "chaos theory"? Never heard of it before and it might explain the CE.



Ore_Ele. What about fossilization being a rare process? I"ve seen evidence for jellyfish fossilization (Which Darwin predicted shouldn"t happen), http://www.geotimes.org.... It is hard to explain either. And look at the ripple marks besides.

May I respond? I've said elsewhere that I once accepted evolution and considered it true without any serious doubts with respect to the overall claims.

However I began to probe a little once - actually defending it from an attack by a Bible basher - and sought to address some pointed criticisms. At that time my main scientific interests were physics and mathematics and electronics - so I was used to a "harder" kind of science than what we typically see with evolution.

It was during this period that I began admit to myself that there was a large degree of extrapolation and one needed to be willing to marginalize things that were at odds with evolution and build arguments only upon those observations that were already consistent with the theory.

This degree of selectivity with observations was not something I'd seen in physics be it cosmology, astronomy, mechanics, electricity etc - and it was quite natural for me to approach evolution as I did physics already and thus expect the overall reasoning to be as sound.

So I formed the impression - which has never left me - that evolution advocates seek primarily to preserve the theory rather than seek out he truth about life on earth.

I have nothing against such people because I've also learned that evolution is actually taught in such a way that preservation of it is an inherent aspect of that teaching - for example by ridiculing any attempt to refute it or ostracize those who emphasize serious evidential weaknesses, so the fact that most evolutionists strive to preserve it is a consequence of how it is taught to them.

So I think the core problem with evolution is not the theory itself (despite its serious problems it is quite an accomplishment and I have immense respect for Darwin) but the dogmatic manner in which its defenders respond to criticisms - if it becomes a dogma (as I think it has) then it shows our education system to be failing - science should never be dogmatic and dissent should not be discouraged as if we were living in the dark ages.


Harry.

We then have exactly the same problem to evolution. :D
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 5:10:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/4/2012 8:33:26 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/4/2012 12:36:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion is expected. It's what's known as a "singularity". The Cambrian Explosion, the invention of language, the Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution are all examples of singularities. It follows from chaos theory, which plays a huge part in understanding evolutionary biology, that small changing factors can result in enormous sudden changes.

So what exactly is the mechanism that enables a community of Ediacaran organisms (which may not even have been animals at all) to "suddenly" begin to give birth to fish or molluscs or trilobytes?

If you are proposing that this did occur in a single step then you are alone, no bioloogist or evolutionist suggests that nature is capable of this. If you are proposing it occured as a succesion of steps then where is the evidence of these intermediate steps and if there is none then how can you insist they ever took place?

Harry.

By the fact that you have quotations around suddenly I'm hoping you understand that the Cambrian Explosion happend over a course of 70-80 million years.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 8:42:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 5:10:20 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/4/2012 8:33:26 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/4/2012 12:36:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion is expected. It's what's known as a "singularity". The Cambrian Explosion, the invention of language, the Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution are all examples of singularities. It follows from chaos theory, which plays a huge part in understanding evolutionary biology, that small changing factors can result in enormous sudden changes.

So what exactly is the mechanism that enables a community of Ediacaran organisms (which may not even have been animals at all) to "suddenly" begin to give birth to fish or molluscs or trilobytes?

If you are proposing that this did occur in a single step then you are alone, no bioloogist or evolutionist suggests that nature is capable of this. If you are proposing it occured as a succesion of steps then where is the evidence of these intermediate steps and if there is none then how can you insist they ever took place?

Harry.

By the fact that you have quotations around suddenly I'm hoping you understand that the Cambrian Explosion happend over a course of 70-80 million years.

Actually the duration of the explosion is uncertain and the figures you cite are in no way undisputed even amongst evolutionists. Having said that even if it were 80 million years that does not make the problem go away. You see for the preceding 4 Billion years that life existed all that existed were bacteria, plankton and algae.

So life existed and barely changed at all for 4 Billion years, then within a period approx 2% of that time every complex animal Phyla evolved - some 35+ phyla representing thousands of species - yet we see absolutely no trace of any fossil evidence for this mysterious explosion - the animals literally just appear in the record, out of the blue.

Harry.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 10:34:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 8:42:45 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/7/2012 5:10:20 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/4/2012 8:33:26 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/4/2012 12:36:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion is expected. It's what's known as a "singularity". The Cambrian Explosion, the invention of language, the Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution are all examples of singularities. It follows from chaos theory, which plays a huge part in understanding evolutionary biology, that small changing factors can result in enormous sudden changes.

So what exactly is the mechanism that enables a community of Ediacaran organisms (which may not even have been animals at all) to "suddenly" begin to give birth to fish or molluscs or trilobytes?

If you are proposing that this did occur in a single step then you are alone, no bioloogist or evolutionist suggests that nature is capable of this. If you are proposing it occured as a succesion of steps then where is the evidence of these intermediate steps and if there is none then how can you insist they ever took place?

Harry.

By the fact that you have quotations around suddenly I'm hoping you understand that the Cambrian Explosion happend over a course of 70-80 million years.


I, being by no means an expert in evolutionary biology and history, will do my best to answer you.

Actually the duration of the explosion is uncertain and the figures you cite are in no way undisputed even amongst evolutionists.

I do apologize as a hasty look at wikipedia is what gave me that range.

Having said that even if it were 80 million years that does not make the problem :go away. You see for the preceding 4 Billion years that life existed all that existed :were bacteria, plankton and algae.

Actually is was close to 3 billion years.


So life existed and barely changed at all for 4 Billion years,

That is not correct. Life changed.

then within a period approx 2%

The source I'm currently using is http://www.talkorigins.org..., which says the Cambrian explosion took place over 10 million years. This comes out to .333333333 percent of 3 billion.

of that time every complex animal Phyla evolved - some 35+ phyla representing :thousands of species - yet we see absolutely no trace of any fossil evidence for :this mysterious explosion

Either I'm misunderstanding or you said that incorrectly. It looks to me as though your saying have no fossil evidence of evolution occurring during the Cambrian explosion. If that is what you're trying to say, then here is an exert from two sites on the Cambrian explosion.

"There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998)." - http://www.talkorigins.org...

"Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see, much less preserve." - http://www.fossilmuseum.net...

- the animals literally just appear in the record, out of the blue.

Addressed above.


Harry.

If you want a great source for information on things like this then I highly suggest you check out talkorigins.com as it is an amazing resource.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 12:41:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What a fascinating aspect of evolution. I was just reading up on the Cambrian Explosion after going through this thread, realizing that I know little about it and I didn't understand what the OP was talking about.

Now, I think I understand. I'm not just trying to blow off your inquiry with an easy explanation, but this is one potential theory that came to mind:

Say that there were, for billions of years, very simplistic animals that never achieved a certain state that would serve as a catalyst for dramatic change, given the infinitesimal odds that this state would ever occur on its own. But, finally, after so long, the state was finally achieved.

I think that's what FREEDO was saying -- rather than equivocating social advancement with evolutionary phenomena, I think he was saying is that there are given catalysts -- keys, if you will -- that will unlock another amazing possibility within this physical arrangement. Apparently, they're all but impossible to predict, but once it happens, the change is eternal, immense, and memorable.

We're sort of in the throes of such a time now. We are within one of the most intense and groundbreaking times of human history. We're witnessing the emergence of new technology and social transitions all the time -- that isn't typical, you know. Much more used to stay the same for very much longer. In 50 to 100 years, our generations will be regarded with awe. In 500 years, people of our time will be talked about like the Founding Fathers. The inventor of the personal computer. The inventor of the mainframe. The inventor of the Internet. The inventor of Myspace and Facebook. The emergence of touchscreen phones and cybernetic body parts and biological control over somatic cells and and social movements against the upper class and a 17 year old girl who cures cancer and genome libraries.

So, if you could just imagine single-celled organisms all dancing in the ocean, with barren lands throughout the world, not one blade of grass, not one tree (trees didn't come for a while), and suddenly, the organisms just so happen to end up in this given state, which suddenly caused them to change relatively rapidly. Over the next few dozen million years, they become much more complex, until they resemble what we know as the flora and fauna of today.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 1:07:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 10:34:58 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/7/2012 8:42:45 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/7/2012 5:10:20 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/4/2012 8:33:26 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/4/2012 12:36:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion is expected. It's what's known as a "singularity". The Cambrian Explosion, the invention of language, the Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution are all examples of singularities. It follows from chaos theory, which plays a huge part in understanding evolutionary biology, that small changing factors can result in enormous sudden changes.

So what exactly is the mechanism that enables a community of Ediacaran organisms (which may not even have been animals at all) to "suddenly" begin to give birth to fish or molluscs or trilobytes?

If you are proposing that this did occur in a single step then you are alone, no bioloogist or evolutionist suggests that nature is capable of this. If you are proposing it occured as a succesion of steps then where is the evidence of these intermediate steps and if there is none then how can you insist they ever took place?

Harry.

By the fact that you have quotations around suddenly I'm hoping you understand that the Cambrian Explosion happend over a course of 70-80 million years.



I, being by no means an expert in evolutionary biology and history, will do my best to answer you.

Actually the duration of the explosion is uncertain and the figures you cite are in no way undisputed even amongst evolutionists.

I do apologize as a hasty look at wikipedia is what gave me that range.

Having said that even if it were 80 million years that does not make the problem :go away. You see for the preceding 4 Billion years that life existed all that existed :were bacteria, plankton and algae.

Actually is was close to 3 billion years.


So life existed and barely changed at all for 4 Billion years,

That is not correct. Life changed.

then within a period approx 2%

The source I'm currently using is http://www.talkorigins.org..., which says the Cambrian explosion took place over 10 million years. This comes out to .333333333 percent of 3 billion.

of that time every complex animal Phyla evolved - some 35+ phyla representing :thousands of species - yet we see absolutely no trace of any fossil evidence for :this mysterious explosion

Either I'm misunderstanding or you said that incorrectly. It looks to me as though your saying have no fossil evidence of evolution occurring during the Cambrian explosion. If that is what you're trying to say, then here is an exert from two sites on the Cambrian explosion.

"There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998)." - http://www.talkorigins.org...

"Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see, much less preserve." - http://www.fossilmuseum.net...

During the period we term the "explosion" all modern animal Phyla appeared. Phylum is the highest level in the taxonomic tree below Kingdom, there are six kingdoms - animals being one (plants, fungi, bacteria etc). Therefore the "body plans" for ALL animals alive today FIRST appeared during this explosion and NO new phyla have since arisen.

This means that ALL Chordates alive today are descended from these first Chordates and the same goes for Molluscs, Crustaceans, Arthropods, Echinoderms, Annelids etc - each of these made their FIRST appearance during the explosion - there is great morphological disparity between these phyla - which is why they are designated as distinct phyla, Lobopods are considered very close to Arthropods - and arose also during the Cambrian explosion.

These phyla are highly advanced when compared to bacteria or algae or plankton. This degree of morphological disparity according to natural selection MUST have arisen from a state of great genetic diversity - but we find no evidence whatsoever of such diversity before the Cambrian explosion - this undermines the claim that they arose via natural selection.

Conditions for preservation before and during the Cambrian were superb - in Cheng Jiang we find amoebas, jellyfish even embryos beautifully preserved in the strata just below where we find Cambrian fossils - this is the case also in other parts of the world where we find Cambrian fossils. This is how we know about the bacteria, algae etc that existed for the preceding billions of years.

The hard reality is that fantastically advanced animals (compared to bacteria etc) like trilobites, aomalocaris, opabinia and many many others just literally appear - we know of NO ancestor for any of these - what evidence is there that ANY of the animals or phyla ever did have any common ancestry? None.

- the animals literally just appear in the record, out of the blue.

Addressed above.

You mean dismissed above.


Harry.

If you want a great source for information on things like this then I highly suggest you check out talkorigins.com as it is an amazing resource.

I've been a student of this whole subject for decades - but thanks for the tip.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 1:13:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 12:41:44 PM, Ren wrote:
What a fascinating aspect of evolution. I was just reading up on the Cambrian Explosion after going through this thread, realizing that I know little about it and I didn't understand what the OP was talking about.

Now, I think I understand. I'm not just trying to blow off your inquiry with an easy explanation, but this is one potential theory that came to mind:

Say that there were, for billions of years, very simplistic animals that never achieved a certain state that would serve as a catalyst for dramatic change, given the infinitesimal odds that this state would ever occur on its own. But, finally, after so long, the state was finally achieved.

I think that's what FREEDO was saying -- rather than equivocating social advancement with evolutionary phenomena, I think he was saying is that there are given catalysts -- keys, if you will -- that will unlock another amazing possibility within this physical arrangement. Apparently, they're all but impossible to predict, but once it happens, the change is eternal, immense, and memorable.

We're sort of in the throes of such a time now. We are within one of the most intense and groundbreaking times of human history. We're witnessing the emergence of new technology and social transitions all the time -- that isn't typical, you know. Much more used to stay the same for very much longer. In 50 to 100 years, our generations will be regarded with awe. In 500 years, people of our time will be talked about like the Founding Fathers. The inventor of the personal computer. The inventor of the mainframe. The inventor of the Internet. The inventor of Myspace and Facebook. The emergence of touchscreen phones and cybernetic body parts and biological control over somatic cells and and social movements against the upper class and a 17 year old girl who cures cancer and genome libraries.

So, if you could just imagine single-celled organisms all dancing in the ocean, with barren lands throughout the world, not one blade of grass, not one tree (trees didn't come for a while), and suddenly, the organisms just so happen to end up in this given state, which suddenly caused them to change relatively rapidly. Over the next few dozen million years, they become much more complex, until they resemble what we know as the flora and fauna of today.

I understand where your going and such ideas are frequently proposed but very few actually seriously consider these ideas plausible. Its very easy to propose a fantastical hypothesis that just does what is needed but quite another to ascertain whether such a hypothesis is credible.

What you are proposing is not natural selection but some super-evolution - if you can provide a sound case for it do so - recall my position is confined to critiquing Darwinian natural selection at this stage not some new hypothesis.

Harry.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2012 8:14:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 1:13:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/7/2012 12:41:44 PM, Ren wrote:
What a fascinating aspect of evolution. I was just reading up on the Cambrian Explosion after going through this thread, realizing that I know little about it and I didn't understand what the OP was talking about.

Now, I think I understand. I'm not just trying to blow off your inquiry with an easy explanation, but this is one potential theory that came to mind:

Say that there were, for billions of years, very simplistic animals that never achieved a certain state that would serve as a catalyst for dramatic change, given the infinitesimal odds that this state would ever occur on its own. But, finally, after so long, the state was finally achieved.

I think that's what FREEDO was saying -- rather than equivocating social advancement with evolutionary phenomena, I think he was saying is that there are given catalysts -- keys, if you will -- that will unlock another amazing possibility within this physical arrangement. Apparently, they're all but impossible to predict, but once it happens, the change is eternal, immense, and memorable.

We're sort of in the throes of such a time now. We are within one of the most intense and groundbreaking times of human history. We're witnessing the emergence of new technology and social transitions all the time -- that isn't typical, you know. Much more used to stay the same for very much longer. In 50 to 100 years, our generations will be regarded with awe. In 500 years, people of our time will be talked about like the Founding Fathers. The inventor of the personal computer. The inventor of the mainframe. The inventor of the Internet. The inventor of Myspace and Facebook. The emergence of touchscreen phones and cybernetic body parts and biological control over somatic cells and and social movements against the upper class and a 17 year old girl who cures cancer and genome libraries.

So, if you could just imagine single-celled organisms all dancing in the ocean, with barren lands throughout the world, not one blade of grass, not one tree (trees didn't come for a while), and suddenly, the organisms just so happen to end up in this given state, which suddenly caused them to change relatively rapidly. Over the next few dozen million years, they become much more complex, until they resemble what we know as the flora and fauna of today.

I understand where your going and such ideas are frequently proposed but very few actually seriously consider these ideas plausible. Its very easy to propose a fantastical hypothesis that just does what is needed but quite another to ascertain whether such a hypothesis is credible.

What you are proposing is not natural selection but some super-evolution - if you can provide a sound case for it do so - recall my position is confined to critiquing Darwinian natural selection at this stage not some new hypothesis.

Harry.

Well, evolution isn't quite that cut-and-dry, so your suggestion that evolution abides by some given pace doesn't necessarily follow.

Moreover, natural selection, as I understand it, isn't indelible; just as important as gene mutation selection and adherence, is cooperation between organisms and perceptive, conscious interpretation of characteristics on a level irrelevant to survival.

Rapid mutations, even ubiquitously, are not inconceivable. There are conditions that result from a natural inclination for mutations.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 1:05:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 8:14:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/7/2012 1:13:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/7/2012 12:41:44 PM, Ren wrote:
What a fascinating aspect of evolution. I was just reading up on the Cambrian Explosion after going through this thread, realizing that I know little about it and I didn't understand what the OP was talking about.

Now, I think I understand. I'm not just trying to blow off your inquiry with an easy explanation, but this is one potential theory that came to mind:

Say that there were, for billions of years, very simplistic animals that never achieved a certain state that would serve as a catalyst for dramatic change, given the infinitesimal odds that this state would ever occur on its own. But, finally, after so long, the state was finally achieved.

I think that's what FREEDO was saying -- rather than equivocating social advancement with evolutionary phenomena, I think he was saying is that there are given catalysts -- keys, if you will -- that will unlock another amazing possibility within this physical arrangement. Apparently, they're all but impossible to predict, but once it happens, the change is eternal, immense, and memorable.

We're sort of in the throes of such a time now. We are within one of the most intense and groundbreaking times of human history. We're witnessing the emergence of new technology and social transitions all the time -- that isn't typical, you know. Much more used to stay the same for very much longer. In 50 to 100 years, our generations will be regarded with awe. In 500 years, people of our time will be talked about like the Founding Fathers. The inventor of the personal computer. The inventor of the mainframe. The inventor of the Internet. The inventor of Myspace and Facebook. The emergence of touchscreen phones and cybernetic body parts and biological control over somatic cells and and social movements against the upper class and a 17 year old girl who cures cancer and genome libraries.

So, if you could just imagine single-celled organisms all dancing in the ocean, with barren lands throughout the world, not one blade of grass, not one tree (trees didn't come for a while), and suddenly, the organisms just so happen to end up in this given state, which suddenly caused them to change relatively rapidly. Over the next few dozen million years, they become much more complex, until they resemble what we know as the flora and fauna of today.

I understand where your going and such ideas are frequently proposed but very few actually seriously consider these ideas plausible. Its very easy to propose a fantastical hypothesis that just does what is needed but quite another to ascertain whether such a hypothesis is credible.

What you are proposing is not natural selection but some super-evolution - if you can provide a sound case for it do so - recall my position is confined to critiquing Darwinian natural selection at this stage not some new hypothesis.

Harry.

Well, evolution isn't quite that cut-and-dry, so your suggestion that evolution abides by some given pace doesn't necessarily follow.

Moreover, natural selection, as I understand it, isn't indelible; just as important as gene mutation selection and adherence, is cooperation between organisms and perceptive, conscious interpretation of characteristics on a level irrelevant to survival.

Rapid mutations, even ubiquitously, are not inconceivable. There are conditions that result from a natural inclination for mutations.

Continuing off what Ren said (and some of Freedo), once a new "state" is achieved through natural random mutation, that can give an incredible advantage that allows the species to take off, basically putting it on another plane, where there is significant room to grow and diversify very quickly.

While, it is hard to see this with evolution, because of the slow pace and lack of records, we can see the basics of natural selection and competition with the market place. From phones to vehicles.

For thousands of years, we rode horse back. Then we invented motors and it took no time at all to make cars, trains, planes, and rockets. From the first domesticated horses to internal combustion engines took almost 6,000 years, from them to rockets took only 150 years.

Once new plateaus are reached, there can be explosions, and there is nothing out of place about it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 5:54:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/8/2012 1:05:05 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/7/2012 8:14:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/7/2012 1:13:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/7/2012 12:41:44 PM, Ren wrote:
What a fascinating aspect of evolution. I was just reading up on the Cambrian Explosion after going through this thread, realizing that I know little about it and I didn't understand what the OP was talking about.

Now, I think I understand. I'm not just trying to blow off your inquiry with an easy explanation, but this is one potential theory that came to mind:

Say that there were, for billions of years, very simplistic animals that never achieved a certain state that would serve as a catalyst for dramatic change, given the infinitesimal odds that this state would ever occur on its own. But, finally, after so long, the state was finally achieved.

I think that's what FREEDO was saying -- rather than equivocating social advancement with evolutionary phenomena, I think he was saying is that there are given catalysts -- keys, if you will -- that will unlock another amazing possibility within this physical arrangement. Apparently, they're all but impossible to predict, but once it happens, the change is eternal, immense, and memorable.

We're sort of in the throes of such a time now. We are within one of the most intense and groundbreaking times of human history. We're witnessing the emergence of new technology and social transitions all the time -- that isn't typical, you know. Much more used to stay the same for very much longer. In 50 to 100 years, our generations will be regarded with awe. In 500 years, people of our time will be talked about like the Founding Fathers. The inventor of the personal computer. The inventor of the mainframe. The inventor of the Internet. The inventor of Myspace and Facebook. The emergence of touchscreen phones and cybernetic body parts and biological control over somatic cells and and social movements against the upper class and a 17 year old girl who cures cancer and genome libraries.

So, if you could just imagine single-celled organisms all dancing in the ocean, with barren lands throughout the world, not one blade of grass, not one tree (trees didn't come for a while), and suddenly, the organisms just so happen to end up in this given state, which suddenly caused them to change relatively rapidly. Over the next few dozen million years, they become much more complex, until they resemble what we know as the flora and fauna of today.

I understand where your going and such ideas are frequently proposed but very few actually seriously consider these ideas plausible. Its very easy to propose a fantastical hypothesis that just does what is needed but quite another to ascertain whether such a hypothesis is credible.

What you are proposing is not natural selection but some super-evolution - if you can provide a sound case for it do so - recall my position is confined to critiquing Darwinian natural selection at this stage not some new hypothesis.

Harry.

Well, evolution isn't quite that cut-and-dry, so your suggestion that evolution abides by some given pace doesn't necessarily follow.

Moreover, natural selection, as I understand it, isn't indelible; just as important as gene mutation selection and adherence, is cooperation between organisms and perceptive, conscious interpretation of characteristics on a level irrelevant to survival.

Rapid mutations, even ubiquitously, are not inconceivable. There are conditions that result from a natural inclination for mutations.

Continuing off what Ren said (and some of Freedo), once a new "state" is achieved through natural random mutation, that can give an incredible advantage that allows the species to take off, basically putting it on another plane, where there is significant room to grow and diversify very quickly.

While, it is hard to see this with evolution, because of the slow pace and lack of records, we can see the basics of natural selection and competition with the market place. From phones to vehicles.

For thousands of years, we rode horse back. Then we invented motors and it took no time at all to make cars, trains, planes, and rockets. From the first domesticated horses to internal combustion engines took almost 6,000 years, from them to rockets took only 150 years.

Once new plateaus are reached, there can be explosions, and there is nothing out of place about it.

All of what you have said here has a driving force, human intelligence.

There is only a slight comparison to evolution.

What is the driving force for evolution? Natural selection and mutations alone cannot lead to such great changes. There must be another explanation, right?
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 6:37:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/8/2012 5:54:34 AM, Muted wrote:
At 11/8/2012 1:05:05 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/7/2012 8:14:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/7/2012 1:13:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/7/2012 12:41:44 PM, Ren wrote:
What a fascinating aspect of evolution. I was just reading up on the Cambrian Explosion after going through this thread, realizing that I know little about it and I didn't understand what the OP was talking about.

Now, I think I understand. I'm not just trying to blow off your inquiry with an easy explanation, but this is one potential theory that came to mind:

Say that there were, for billions of years, very simplistic animals that never achieved a certain state that would serve as a catalyst for dramatic change, given the infinitesimal odds that this state would ever occur on its own. But, finally, after so long, the state was finally achieved.

I think that's what FREEDO was saying -- rather than equivocating social advancement with evolutionary phenomena, I think he was saying is that there are given catalysts -- keys, if you will -- that will unlock another amazing possibility within this physical arrangement. Apparently, they're all but impossible to predict, but once it happens, the change is eternal, immense, and memorable.

We're sort of in the throes of such a time now. We are within one of the most intense and groundbreaking times of human history. We're witnessing the emergence of new technology and social transitions all the time -- that isn't typical, you know. Much more used to stay the same for very much longer. In 50 to 100 years, our generations will be regarded with awe. In 500 years, people of our time will be talked about like the Founding Fathers. The inventor of the personal computer. The inventor of the mainframe. The inventor of the Internet. The inventor of Myspace and Facebook. The emergence of touchscreen phones and cybernetic body parts and biological control over somatic cells and and social movements against the upper class and a 17 year old girl who cures cancer and genome libraries.

So, if you could just imagine single-celled organisms all dancing in the ocean, with barren lands throughout the world, not one blade of grass, not one tree (trees didn't come for a while), and suddenly, the organisms just so happen to end up in this given state, which suddenly caused them to change relatively rapidly. Over the next few dozen million years, they become much more complex, until they resemble what we know as the flora and fauna of today.

I understand where your going and such ideas are frequently proposed but very few actually seriously consider these ideas plausible. Its very easy to propose a fantastical hypothesis that just does what is needed but quite another to ascertain whether such a hypothesis is credible.

What you are proposing is not natural selection but some super-evolution - if you can provide a sound case for it do so - recall my position is confined to critiquing Darwinian natural selection at this stage not some new hypothesis.

Harry.

Well, evolution isn't quite that cut-and-dry, so your suggestion that evolution abides by some given pace doesn't necessarily follow.

Moreover, natural selection, as I understand it, isn't indelible; just as important as gene mutation selection and adherence, is cooperation between organisms and perceptive, conscious interpretation of characteristics on a level irrelevant to survival.

Rapid mutations, even ubiquitously, are not inconceivable. There are conditions that result from a natural inclination for mutations.

Continuing off what Ren said (and some of Freedo), once a new "state" is achieved through natural random mutation, that can give an incredible advantage that allows the species to take off, basically putting it on another plane, where there is significant room to grow and diversify very quickly.

While, it is hard to see this with evolution, because of the slow pace and lack of records, we can see the basics of natural selection and competition with the market place. From phones to vehicles.

For thousands of years, we rode horse back. Then we invented motors and it took no time at all to make cars, trains, planes, and rockets. From the first domesticated horses to internal combustion engines took almost 6,000 years, from them to rockets took only 150 years.

Once new plateaus are reached, there can be explosions, and there is nothing out of place about it.

All of what you have said here has a driving force, human intelligence.

There is only a slight comparison to evolution.


The point was to highlight the existence of singularities.

What is the driving force for evolution?

Natural selection and mutations alone cannot lead to such great changes.

Non sequitur. Why can't they?

There must be another explanation, right?

No.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 7:12:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/8/2012 6:37:54 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 11/8/2012 5:54:34 AM, Muted wrote:
At 11/8/2012 1:05:05 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/7/2012 8:14:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/7/2012 1:13:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/7/2012 12:41:44 PM, Ren wrote:
What a fascinating aspect of evolution. I was just reading up on the Cambrian Explosion after going through this thread, realizing that I know little about it and I didn't understand what the OP was talking about.

Now, I think I understand. I'm not just trying to blow off your inquiry with an easy explanation, but this is one potential theory that came to mind:

Say that there were, for billions of years, very simplistic animals that never achieved a certain state that would serve as a catalyst for dramatic change, given the infinitesimal odds that this state would ever occur on its own. But, finally, after so long, the state was finally achieved.

I think that's what FREEDO was saying -- rather than equivocating social advancement with evolutionary phenomena, I think he was saying is that there are given catalysts -- keys, if you will -- that will unlock another amazing possibility within this physical arrangement. Apparently, they're all but impossible to predict, but once it happens, the change is eternal, immense, and memorable.

We're sort of in the throes of such a time now. We are within one of the most intense and groundbreaking times of human history. We're witnessing the emergence of new technology and social transitions all the time -- that isn't typical, you know. Much more used to stay the same for very much longer. In 50 to 100 years, our generations will be regarded with awe. In 500 years, people of our time will be talked about like the Founding Fathers. The inventor of the personal computer. The inventor of the mainframe. The inventor of the Internet. The inventor of Myspace and Facebook. The emergence of touchscreen phones and cybernetic body parts and biological control over somatic cells and and social movements against the upper class and a 17 year old girl who cures cancer and genome libraries.

So, if you could just imagine single-celled organisms all dancing in the ocean, with barren lands throughout the world, not one blade of grass, not one tree (trees didn't come for a while), and suddenly, the organisms just so happen to end up in this given state, which suddenly caused them to change relatively rapidly. Over the next few dozen million years, they become much more complex, until they resemble what we know as the flora and fauna of today.

I understand where your going and such ideas are frequently proposed but very few actually seriously consider these ideas plausible. Its very easy to propose a fantastical hypothesis that just does what is needed but quite another to ascertain whether such a hypothesis is credible.

What you are proposing is not natural selection but some super-evolution - if you can provide a sound case for it do so - recall my position is confined to critiquing Darwinian natural selection at this stage not some new hypothesis.

Harry.

Well, evolution isn't quite that cut-and-dry, so your suggestion that evolution abides by some given pace doesn't necessarily follow.

Moreover, natural selection, as I understand it, isn't indelible; just as important as gene mutation selection and adherence, is cooperation between organisms and perceptive, conscious interpretation of characteristics on a level irrelevant to survival.

Rapid mutations, even ubiquitously, are not inconceivable. There are conditions that result from a natural inclination for mutations.

Continuing off what Ren said (and some of Freedo), once a new "state" is achieved through natural random mutation, that can give an incredible advantage that allows the species to take off, basically putting it on another plane, where there is significant room to grow and diversify very quickly.

While, it is hard to see this with evolution, because of the slow pace and lack of records, we can see the basics of natural selection and competition with the market place. From phones to vehicles.

For thousands of years, we rode horse back. Then we invented motors and it took no time at all to make cars, trains, planes, and rockets. From the first domesticated horses to internal combustion engines took almost 6,000 years, from them to rockets took only 150 years.

Once new plateaus are reached, there can be explosions, and there is nothing out of place about it.

All of what you have said here has a driving force, human intelligence.

There is only a slight comparison to evolution.


The point was to highlight the existence of singularities.

What is the driving force for evolution?

Natural selection and mutations alone cannot lead to such great changes.

Non sequitur. Why can't they?

There must be another explanation, right?

No.

Can you explain how it is a non sequitur?
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 7:23:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/7/2012 8:14:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/7/2012 1:13:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/7/2012 12:41:44 PM, Ren wrote:
What a fascinating aspect of evolution. I was just reading up on the Cambrian Explosion after going through this thread, realizing that I know little about it and I didn't understand what the OP was talking about.

Now, I think I understand. I'm not just trying to blow off your inquiry with an easy explanation, but this is one potential theory that came to mind:

Say that there were, for billions of years, very simplistic animals that never achieved a certain state that would serve as a catalyst for dramatic change, given the infinitesimal odds that this state would ever occur on its own. But, finally, after so long, the state was finally achieved.

I think that's what FREEDO was saying -- rather than equivocating social advancement with evolutionary phenomena, I think he was saying is that there are given catalysts -- keys, if you will -- that will unlock another amazing possibility within this physical arrangement. Apparently, they're all but impossible to predict, but once it happens, the change is eternal, immense, and memorable.

We're sort of in the throes of such a time now. We are within one of the most intense and groundbreaking times of human history. We're witnessing the emergence of new technology and social transitions all the time -- that isn't typical, you know. Much more used to stay the same for very much longer. In 50 to 100 years, our generations will be regarded with awe. In 500 years, people of our time will be talked about like the Founding Fathers. The inventor of the personal computer. The inventor of the mainframe. The inventor of the Internet. The inventor of Myspace and Facebook. The emergence of touchscreen phones and cybernetic body parts and biological control over somatic cells and and social movements against the upper class and a 17 year old girl who cures cancer and genome libraries.

So, if you could just imagine single-celled organisms all dancing in the ocean, with barren lands throughout the world, not one blade of grass, not one tree (trees didn't come for a while), and suddenly, the organisms just so happen to end up in this given state, which suddenly caused them to change relatively rapidly. Over the next few dozen million years, they become much more complex, until they resemble what we know as the flora and fauna of today.

I understand where your going and such ideas are frequently proposed but very few actually seriously consider these ideas plausible. Its very easy to propose a fantastical hypothesis that just does what is needed but quite another to ascertain whether such a hypothesis is credible.

What you are proposing is not natural selection but some super-evolution - if you can provide a sound case for it do so - recall my position is confined to critiquing Darwinian natural selection at this stage not some new hypothesis.

Harry.

Well, evolution isn't quite that cut-and-dry, so your suggestion that evolution abides by some given pace doesn't necessarily follow.

Moreover, natural selection, as I understand it, isn't indelible; just as important as gene mutation selection and adherence, is cooperation between organisms and perceptive, conscious interpretation of characteristics on a level irrelevant to survival.

Rapid mutations, even ubiquitously, are not inconceivable. There are conditions that result from a natural inclination for mutations.

Yest it may be "conceivable" but to is alchemy conceivable. There is NO fossil evidence for ANY transitional between bacteria/algae/plankton to chordates, molluscs and so on.

Are you suggesting that a colony of bacteria or plankton one day just began to give birth to fish or crabs? because that IS the process that you need to conceive because that is what the evidence shows, and the true scale is worse - we need a process in nature that can allow bacteria/algae/plankton to give birth to all 35+ of the distinct and advanced phyla in a single generation - does your desperation to cling to this really extend that far??

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2012 7:41:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/8/2012 1:05:05 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/7/2012 8:14:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/7/2012 1:13:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/7/2012 12:41:44 PM, Ren wrote:
What a fascinating aspect of evolution. I was just reading up on the Cambrian Explosion after going through this thread, realizing that I know little about it and I didn't understand what the OP was talking about.

Now, I think I understand. I'm not just trying to blow off your inquiry with an easy explanation, but this is one potential theory that came to mind:

Say that there were, for billions of years, very simplistic animals that never achieved a certain state that would serve as a catalyst for dramatic change, given the infinitesimal odds that this state would ever occur on its own. But, finally, after so long, the state was finally achieved.

I think that's what FREEDO was saying -- rather than equivocating social advancement with evolutionary phenomena, I think he was saying is that there are given catalysts -- keys, if you will -- that will unlock another amazing possibility within this physical arrangement. Apparently, they're all but impossible to predict, but once it happens, the change is eternal, immense, and memorable.

We're sort of in the throes of such a time now. We are within one of the most intense and groundbreaking times of human history. We're witnessing the emergence of new technology and social transitions all the time -- that isn't typical, you know. Much more used to stay the same for very much longer. In 50 to 100 years, our generations will be regarded with awe. In 500 years, people of our time will be talked about like the Founding Fathers. The inventor of the personal computer. The inventor of the mainframe. The inventor of the Internet. The inventor of Myspace and Facebook. The emergence of touchscreen phones and cybernetic body parts and biological control over somatic cells and and social movements against the upper class and a 17 year old girl who cures cancer and genome libraries.

So, if you could just imagine single-celled organisms all dancing in the ocean, with barren lands throughout the world, not one blade of grass, not one tree (trees didn't come for a while), and suddenly, the organisms just so happen to end up in this given state, which suddenly caused them to change relatively rapidly. Over the next few dozen million years, they become much more complex, until they resemble what we know as the flora and fauna of today.

I understand where your going and such ideas are frequently proposed but very few actually seriously consider these ideas plausible. Its very easy to propose a fantastical hypothesis that just does what is needed but quite another to ascertain whether such a hypothesis is credible.

What you are proposing is not natural selection but some super-evolution - if you can provide a sound case for it do so - recall my position is confined to critiquing Darwinian natural selection at this stage not some new hypothesis.

Harry.

Well, evolution isn't quite that cut-and-dry, so your suggestion that evolution abides by some given pace doesn't necessarily follow.

Moreover, natural selection, as I understand it, isn't indelible; just as important as gene mutation selection and adherence, is cooperation between organisms and perceptive, conscious interpretation of characteristics on a level irrelevant to survival.

Rapid mutations, even ubiquitously, are not inconceivable. There are conditions that result from a natural inclination for mutations.

Continuing off what Ren said (and some of Freedo), once a new "state" is achieved through natural random mutation, that can give an incredible advantage that allows the species to take off, basically putting it on another plane, where there is significant room to grow and diversify very quickly.

How many generations do you think it would take for bacteria/algae/plankton to become a disparate assembly of 35+ animal phyla? one? We can say that ALL 35+ phyla will have arisen from ancestors that were either bacteria, plankton or algae because that is all that existed prior to the Cambrian (with minor exceptions).

While, it is hard to see this with evolution, because of the slow pace and lack of records, we can see the basics of natural selection and competition with the market place. From phones to vehicles.


How do you distinguish between lack of records and non-existence of purported records? There are in fact no records that show ANY kind of ancestors for ANY of the morphologically vey distinct Cambrian phyla - YET the strata does contain beautifully preserved fossils of baceria, algae, early jellyfish and even embryos - yet NOTHING in between and this pattern is the same in EVERY part of the earth that we find Cambrian fossils.

For thousands of years, we rode horse back. Then we invented motors and it took no time at all to make cars, trains, planes, and rockets. From the first domesticated horses to internal combustion engines took almost 6,000 years, from them to rockets took only 150 years.


I'm not discussing the man made world, it's history, societies or technologies - I'm discussing the Cambrian explosion animals and the complete lack of supporting evidence for the claim they evolved.

Once new plateaus are reached, there can be explosions, and there is nothing out of place about it.

Perhaps but science requires evidence not fantastic imaginary schemes - if you want to insist that these beasts did evolve and that you consider it true without a need for evidence then you are not being scientific here only speculative.

Harry.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 11:50:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/8/2012 7:41:13 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/8/2012 1:05:05 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/7/2012 8:14:30 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/7/2012 1:13:04 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 11/7/2012 12:41:44 PM, Ren wrote:
What a fascinating aspect of evolution. I was just reading up on the Cambrian Explosion after going through this thread, realizing that I know little about it and I didn't understand what the OP was talking about.

Now, I think I understand. I'm not just trying to blow off your inquiry with an easy explanation, but this is one potential theory that came to mind:

Say that there were, for billions of years, very simplistic animals that never achieved a certain state that would serve as a catalyst for dramatic change, given the infinitesimal odds that this state would ever occur on its own. But, finally, after so long, the state was finally achieved.

I think that's what FREEDO was saying -- rather than equivocating social advancement with evolutionary phenomena, I think he was saying is that there are given catalysts -- keys, if you will -- that will unlock another amazing possibility within this physical arrangement. Apparently, they're all but impossible to predict, but once it happens, the change is eternal, immense, and memorable.

We're sort of in the throes of such a time now. We are within one of the most intense and groundbreaking times of human history. We're witnessing the emergence of new technology and social transitions all the time -- that isn't typical, you know. Much more used to stay the same for very much longer. In 50 to 100 years, our generations will be regarded with awe. In 500 years, people of our time will be talked about like the Founding Fathers. The inventor of the personal computer. The inventor of the mainframe. The inventor of the Internet. The inventor of Myspace and Facebook. The emergence of touchscreen phones and cybernetic body parts and biological control over somatic cells and and social movements against the upper class and a 17 year old girl who cures cancer and genome libraries.

So, if you could just imagine single-celled organisms all dancing in the ocean, with barren lands throughout the world, not one blade of grass, not one tree (trees didn't come for a while), and suddenly, the organisms just so happen to end up in this given state, which suddenly caused them to change relatively rapidly. Over the next few dozen million years, they become much more complex, until they resemble what we know as the flora and fauna of today.

I understand where your going and such ideas are frequently proposed but very few actually seriously consider these ideas plausible. Its very easy to propose a fantastical hypothesis that just does what is needed but quite another to ascertain whether such a hypothesis is credible.

What you are proposing is not natural selection but some super-evolution - if you can provide a sound case for it do so - recall my position is confined to critiquing Darwinian natural selection at this stage not some new hypothesis.

Harry.

Well, evolution isn't quite that cut-and-dry, so your suggestion that evolution abides by some given pace doesn't necessarily follow.

Moreover, natural selection, as I understand it, isn't indelible; just as important as gene mutation selection and adherence, is cooperation between organisms and perceptive, conscious interpretation of characteristics on a level irrelevant to survival.

Rapid mutations, even ubiquitously, are not inconceivable. There are conditions that result from a natural inclination for mutations.

Continuing off what Ren said (and some of Freedo), once a new "state" is achieved through natural random mutation, that can give an incredible advantage that allows the species to take off, basically putting it on another plane, where there is significant room to grow and diversify very quickly.

How many generations do you think it would take for bacteria/algae/plankton to become a disparate assembly of 35+ animal phyla? one? We can say that ALL 35+ phyla will have arisen from ancestors that were either bacteria, plankton or algae because that is all that existed prior to the Cambrian (with minor exceptions).

While, it is hard to see this with evolution, because of the slow pace and lack of records, we can see the basics of natural selection and competition with the market place. From phones to vehicles.


How do you distinguish between lack of records and non-existence of purported records? There are in fact no records that show ANY kind of ancestors for ANY of the morphologically vey distinct Cambrian phyla - YET the strata does contain beautifully preserved fossils of baceria, algae, early jellyfish and even embryos - yet NOTHING in between and this pattern is the same in EVERY part of the earth that we find Cambrian fossils.

It has already been explained how rare the fossilization process is. Over the course of billions of years, when evolution is moving slowly over a long period of time, rarity will be beat by the law of averages. When something "explodes" over several million years, rarity can win.

As shown with the T-Rex fossils, we've only recovered a handful of them, and they lived for several million years. If there were a bunch of steps in the middle of the explosion, each would only be around for a few hundred thousand years before they were wiped out by better species, and so have a significant chance of either not leaving any fossils, or not not leaving very many.


For thousands of years, we rode horse back. Then we invented motors and it took no time at all to make cars, trains, planes, and rockets. From the first domesticated horses to internal combustion engines took almost 6,000 years, from them to rockets took only 150 years.


I'm not discussing the man made world, it's history, societies or technologies - I'm discussing the Cambrian explosion animals and the complete lack of supporting evidence for the claim they evolved.

The concept of singularities and explosions of development go hand in hand for both. After all, market competition is a form of evolution of businesses.


Once new plateaus are reached, there can be explosions, and there is nothing out of place about it.

Perhaps but science requires evidence not fantastic imaginary schemes - if you want to insist that these beasts did evolve and that you consider it true without a need for evidence then you are not being scientific here only speculative.

http://www.gophoto.it...

It actually fits all steps of the scientific method, thus qualifying it as a theory, rather than just a hypothesis. Now, moving on, it must be weighed against other theories to see which best explains and has the broadest range of predictions (and various other deciding factors, up to Occam's Razor).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wulfyn
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 2:45:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Cambrian Explosion is an important aspect of the evolution of species from both a historic and predictive perspective. That all major phyla were created during this time with none since is entirely consistent with evolution. The rules of the game are the same now as they were back then, but the competition is very different, and it is this competition difference that causes the explosion then and absolutely prevents it now.

Evolution requires natural selection in order to promote the best attributes to be passed on down to the next generation. If you are not well adapted to your environment then you risk not breeding because of competition from other species.

Before I go any further it is important to realise (and I will loop to this at the end) that adaptation and evolution is a 2 way street. Natural selection can just as well prevent an organism from changing as it can promote it. If your organism develops a new trait that makes them less adapted to that environment then they will be less likely to survive and breed and therefore that trait will be loss. This can fix organisms to their environment unless their environment changes and they need to readapt.

So once the first complex animals evolved they were going to be poorly adapted to their environments (relative to modern animals) and they were going to find other environments quite hostile. However having passed a complexity threshold to become complex animals new environments were open to them for the first time (having good control over your ownmovement for example). The thing on their side is that all the other organisms were also poorly adapted or not present at all. With little in the way of competition to deselect poor traits there was an explosion of variety, and in fact variety itself would have been selected for because of the new environments to discover.

But once all of the environments had been filled with some life then variation starts to get selected against because it is better to become specific about where you are than to just move to a new area because the latter option will result in you encountering another species that is already there and have begun to adapt to that environment. Your species begins to become fixed in their habitat and natural selection now encourages you to be better at what you are already starting to get good at.

There are some testable conclusions to this:

For a start if all Cambrian Explosion organisms were poorly adapted to their environment then we would expect them to be replaced by more adapted organisms which would result in organisms of that time period becoming extinct. Indeed we see that extinction during this time period increased by an order of magnitude.

Secondly we will see a diversification of habitats as organisms begin to fill new niches. Again we see this, with diversification occurring in 2 waves, once along the sea floor and then again along water columns.

Thirdly we should see a similar explosion whenever brand new environments are made accessible. We can see this occurring with the rapid spread and diversification of plants on land when that became accessible to them.

Fourthly we should see the explosion stop when all niches are filled and organisms have had some time to become adapted to their environment. This is because incumbent organisms can now out-compete the majority of new ones and this specialisation will result in a retardation of evolution.

Finally we should not see the explosion happen again unless either a mass extinction event occurs to remove the majority of incumbent organisms (with the explosion only occurring at the level of the extinction - so dinosaurs would not be replaced by a new type of fungus but by other small-medium size land animals), or an evolutionary trait emerges that is so powerful that it makes all other organisms trivial with regard to competition. We see both of these occur with the extinction of the dinosaurs paving the way for mammals to take over as the dominant land based animal, and the emergence of flowering plants significantly out competing other plants. Additionally outside of these events we do not see another explosion - in fact we don't see any new life at all. It would be very difficult for a new phyla to emerge because of how well adapted all the other ones are, and speciation will likley be selected against in favour of improved adaptability.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 8:28:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/10/2012 2:45:02 PM, Wulfyn wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion is an important aspect of the evolution of species from both a historic and predictive perspective. That all major phyla were created during this time with none since is entirely consistent with evolution.

No evolution rests upon the view that morphological disparity arises from preceding genetic diversity. The cambrian fossil beds reveal extreme morphological disparity - nothing like it before or since - yet no evidence at all of any ancestors for any of the highly developed animals. Almost all current phyla sprang into existence within a period of perhaps 10-15 million years, yet there is no trace anywhere that this was due to evolution.

The rules of the game are the same now as they were back then, but the competition is very different, and it is this competition difference that causes the explosion then and absolutely prevents it now.


Where is the evidence?


Evolution requires natural selection in order to promote the best attributes to be passed on down to the next generation. If you are not well adapted to your environment then you risk not breeding because of competition from other species.

Understood.

Before I go any further it is important to realise (and I will loop to this at the end) that adaptation and evolution is a 2 way street. Natural selection can just as well prevent an organism from changing as it can promote it. If your organism develops a new trait that makes them less adapted to that environment then they will be less likely to survive and breed and therefore that trait will be loss. This can fix organisms to their environment unless their environment changes and they need to readapt.

But what about the evidence that this process led to the Cambrian beasts? there is simply no trace of any ancestors for any of them - Anomalocaris, Opabinia, Trilobite etc etc etc - their fossils just appear so how do you KNOW that the process you allude to ever took place?

So once the first complex animals evolved they were going to be poorly adapted to their environments (relative to modern animals) and they were going to find other environments quite hostile. However having passed a complexity threshold to become complex animals new environments were open to them for the first time (having good control over your ownmovement for example). The thing on their side is that all the other organisms were also poorly adapted or not present at all. With little in the way of competition to deselect poor traits there was an explosion of variety, and in fact variety itself would have been selected for because of the new environments to discover.

This is all fine and very familiar, a typical "explanation" of life on earth - but I ask you again how do you KNOW the Cambrian animals evolved? you can insist they did all you like but the evidence flies in the face of this - there are no ancestral fossils for ANY of the 35+ phyla (perhaps many hundreds of species).

But once all of the environments had been filled with some life then variation starts to get selected against because it is better to become specific about where you are than to just move to a new area because the latter option will result in you encountering another species that is already there and have begun to adapt to that environment. Your species begins to become fixed in their habitat and natural selection now encourages you to be better at what you are already starting to get good at.

Yes, I've heard these vacuous "explanations" many many times.

There are some testable conclusions to this:

For a start if all Cambrian Explosion organisms were poorly adapted to their environment then we would expect them to be replaced by more adapted organisms which would result in organisms of that time period becoming extinct. Indeed we see that extinction during this time period increased by an order of magnitude.

Evidence? The trilobite for example just appears in the fossil record and lasts for approx 270 million years - why do you insist it had an ancestral history when there is absolutely no trace of such?

Secondly we will see a diversification of habitats as organisms begin to fill new niches. Again we see this, with diversification occurring in 2 waves, once along the sea floor and then again along water columns.

do go on...

Thirdly we should see a similar explosion whenever brand new environments are made accessible. We can see this occurring with the rapid spread and diversification of plants on land when that became accessible to them.

We're discussing the Cambrian in this thread and all of this lecturing is unrelated the core question of evidence.

Fourthly we should see the explosion stop when all niches are filled and organisms have had some time to become adapted to their environment. This is because incumbent organisms can now out-compete the majority of new ones and this specialisation will result in a retardation of evolution.

Finally we should not see the explosion happen again unless either a mass extinction event occurs to remove the majority of incumbent organisms (with the explosion only occurring at the level of the extinction - so dinosaurs would not be replaced by a new type of fungus but by other small-medium size land animals), or an evolutionary trait emerges that is so powerful that it makes all other organisms trivial with regard to competition. We see both of these occur with the extinction of the dinosaurs paving the way for mammals to take over as the dominant land based animal, and the emergence of flowering plants significantly out competing other plants. Additionally outside of these events we do not see another explosion - in fact we don't see any new life at all. It would be very difficult for a new phyla to emerge because of how well adapted all the other ones are, and speciation will likley be selected against in favour of improved adaptability.

There is no evidence of any mass extinction before the Cambrian explosion - all we an see from the record is that the earth was once full of bacteria, algae and plankton and then - out the blue became populated with a vast diversity of large, hard shelled, swimming animals - this is the data and it is at odd with the naturalistic hypotheses you have listed above.

Harry.