Question about "Darwin's tubercle"

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm

Re: Question about "Darwin's tubercle"

Post by sandy_mcd »

Stu wrote:I'm not sure working in opposition to what we intuitively know about how things tend toward chaos and entropy rather than order, is one of them.
But scientific knowledge comes from evidence and experiments. Hypotheses or ideas may come from intuition, but science demands some interaction with the outside world. [And please, 'chaos', 'entropy', and 'order' all lumped in one phrase? Entropy is a quantifiable, measurable parameter. It doesn't mean 'chaos' or 'disorder'.]


But you are correct, more than time is required. Time alone will not raise a flat plain into a mountain range. Additional forces are needed. But seriously, don't we all know gravity pulls things down? How could mountains ever form? Obviously they must have been created in place. :sleep:
User avatar
Stu
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1401
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:32 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: Question about "Darwin's tubercle"

Post by Stu »

Ivellious wrote:That one's easy. Did you know that billions of years ago the Earth wasn't quite the same as it is now? All multi-cellular organisms on Earth today would have died on that Earth. Single celled organisms dominated the Earth because conditions such as atmospheric conditions, climate, availability of liquid water, etc. would not have sustained anything else. It's also important to note that they did change and become more varied over time, they just didn't form plants and animals.
Well just what early earth conditions might have resembled is still a source of speculation; we just don't know what the conditions were like back then.
To be more precise -- for the first billion years (25%) the earth was lifeless; for 2.9 billion years (62%) we had single-celled organisms, then for 625myr (13%) there were multicellular organisms; human evolution only required 0.002%
This coincides well with the Earth's climate, atmosphere and other conditions becoming just right for larger, more complex life to thrive. There are hypotheses, such as the beginning of the global arms race creating pressures for new organisms to quickly develop.
What exactly are these "just right" conditions that provided such a significant boost to evolution?

Remember this still doesn't explain the explosion of life that occured -- around 40 new phyla just appeared on the scene with no precursors to speak of????

That's not how evolution works. There is no "global arms race", there is no goal, there is only random change with positive effects being selected for. "Arms race" is a misnomer. There is no "racing", no "rush" in neo-Darwinian evolution, it just is.
The eye, while certainly complex, has early stages as simple light detectors and each stage following that could have easily been selected for (most notably due to an arms race). Like all things, the eye did not just appear out of thin air fully evolved. Is there a perfect explanation?
And this is exactly the problem; you're making the exact same mistake people like Dawkins would have us buy into -- that evolution is an uncomplicated event; simply building on the foundations of existing structures.

But explanation like these begs the question..

Explain how those "simple light detectors" formed. Your starting point is anything but... it too requires a series of additional steps including 11-cis-retinal and rhodospin to function.

A major fault is to view the eye as one large functional complex; when in fact it incorporates a number of seperate systems:

"The function of the retina alone is the perception of light.
The function of the lens is to gather light and focus it.
If a lens is used with a retina, the working retina is improved, but both the retina and lens can work by themselves.
The muscles that focus the lens or turn the eye function a a contraction apparatus, which can be applied to many different systems. The perception of light by the main retina is not dependent on them.
Tear ducts and eyelids are also complex systems; but separable from the function of the retina."
Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box

You have several individual complex systems incorporated into one larger system. If we are to attribute this to small step-by-step incremental events, it must be explained, not assumed. Which would require the explanation of co-opting several systems into the one, which of course raises the question of protein-to-protein binding sites.

As Behe further comments regarding the evolution of the eye from a "light-sensitive spot" and "little cup:

"This can be compared to answering the question "How is a stereo system made?" with the words "By plugging a set of speakers into an amplifier, and adding a CD player, radio receiver, and tape deck."

Either Darwinian theory can account for the assembly of the speakers and amplifier, or it can't.
Of course not, but unless you forget about all the geological and ecological factors involved, it isn't as ridiculous as you make it out to be.
Geological and ecological factors don't explain the formation of complex protein structures.
It might explain how it provided a more favourable environment for the mechanism to function but pointing to the environment as the key factor is ludicrous IMO.

It also doesn't explain why after the Cambrian explsion there was a decrease in phyla, as opposed to an increase as one might expect! -- if the environmental conditions had become so much more favourable why was there not a continued flourishing of new life, instead we see the opposite -- a continual reduction in phyla!!
By this logic, apes existing even though we evolved from them contradicts evolution. Just because something evolved from something else does not mean that the entire previous species dies out in the process...In fact, of course birds would have had to exist alongside dinosaurs! I mean, they couldn't have evolved from a dead species.
Are you really telling me that you would have no problem accepting a substantial selection of modern birds living alongside dinosaurs during the Cretaceous Era. That would be no big shock to you, and fits in perfectly with your idea of neo-Darwinism?

We're not talking about intermediates here. They are the very same birds we see alive flying around today!
Groups like Parrots, Owls, Penguins, Sand Pipers, Loons, Ducks, Flamingo's, Cormorants, Albatross.

From what I understood no one in the Darwin camp expected anything close to it, intermediate species, yes of course; but seperate groups of diverse birds species... no, nothing close to it.
Your idea of evolution is skewed in that sense. Evolution does not require that a species die out in order to evolve into another species...Also, what do you mean by there being all types of plants and animals existing in the Mesozoic period? Why would it be so hard to believe things other than dinosaurs existed back then?
No I think it is your understanding of the nature of evolution that is skewed. It's a gradual process, not one where you'd expect to find numerous fully formed bird species in the same fossil record as their supposed ancestors.

Firstly, flowering plants were not supposed to exist during that period, also called the "Age of Cycads", dominated by non-flowering plants and trees. Yet there have been fossils finds of all the major plant divisions that we find alive today -- no change, once again stasis.

Secondly, because it was called the "Age of Dinosaurs", modern birds should not have co-existed alongside dinosaurs, this has been the standard evolutionary position for ages now.
When you say this you are just wrong. The anti-evolution camp states this over and over without end, refusing to accept any evidence to the contrary. I'll admit, we obviously do not have every single intermediate that could have ever existed. But we do have numerous examples of evolution, with intermediates. See: The evolution between horse and whale.
What are these "numerous examples of evolution" you refer to, please provide examples.

What about the horse and whale? Two very different creatures.
Equivocating "not having every example covered" to "having zero evidence" is a farce.
Well I never suggested you need to have every intermediate... I would settle for 5 intermediates out of the billions upon billions of animals / organisms that have existed throughout the entire history of the earth.
How does creationism or ID explain random, short lived existence of intermediates between whales and horses in the middle east?
What short lived intermediates are these?
Only when the blood runs and the shackles restrain, will the sheep then awake. When all is lost.
sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm

Re: Question about "Darwin's tubercle"

Post by sandy_mcd »

Stu wrote:What exactly are these "just right" conditions that provided such a significant boost to evolution?

Remember this still doesn't explain the explosion of life that occured -- around 40 new phyla just appeared on the scene with no precursors to speak of????

That's not how evolution works.
That's not how evolution works.
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion_shows_all_kinds_of_life_appearing_suddenly wrote:
The Cambrian "explosion" was about 50 million years long, from start to finish. [...]

There was complex life before the Cambrian and pre-cursors of many of the major groups have been found, including pre-Cambrian vertebrates.

One quite relevant element in the Cambrian explosion is that at this time some life forms appear to have only recently evolved the ability of incorporating calcium as calcium carbonate into their bodies, vastly increasing the chances of them appearing as fossils.

The evolution of complex organisms requires all the basic components of complex life (i.e. the ability to produce bone-like structures, hormonal regulation etc). The precambrian explosion simply indicates the point in time when all the necessary substrates of complex animals arrived allowing for the creation of all the different phyla.

The Cambrian Explosion is based on very limited data and is highly controversial in scientific circles. The fossil evidence for the explosion is based on three sites that are highly unusual fossilization events, rarely seen in other periods and thus the 'explosion' may be an observer artifact resulting from the nature of those unusual fossilization events. [...]

In 1997 Caltech scientists reported a mechanism for much more rapid plate movement relative to earth's poles resulting in both rapid and unstable climate changes. This mechanism would stress ecological subsystems severely thus promoting more rapid evolutionary change.

There have been other major radiations besides the Cambrian Explosion, including the Ordovician radiation, which saw the diversification of trilobites, echinoderms and brachiopods, as well as the rise of true corals, and the Devonian radiation, which saw another re-radiation of trilobite species, as well as the rise and diversification of sharks, ray-finned fish, lobe-finned fish, placoderms, and acanthodians.

(2008 ) At least one other 'explosion' predates the Cambrian explosion ; the Avalon explosion (575 to 565 Ma)—This period( named after a Canadian peninsula in New Foundland )represent earth's oldest known fossil complex macroscopic life forms at the base of the Ediacaran fauna and occurred about 33 million years prior to the previously identified 'Cambrian Explosion' http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... 19/5859/81
sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm

Re: Question about "Darwin's tubercle"

Post by sandy_mcd »

Stu wrote:I would settle for 5 intermediates out of the billions upon billions of animals / organisms that have existed throughout the entire history of the earth.
Did you check out wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils
User avatar
Stu
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1401
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:32 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: Question about "Darwin's tubercle"

Post by Stu »

sandy_mcd wrote:That's not how evolution works.
What? Explain what you mean by this..
//evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion_shows_all_kinds_of_life_appearing_suddenly"]

The Cambrian "explosion" was about 50 million years long, from start to finish. [...]
No that's wrong, the Cambrian Period extended from 543mya - 490mya, while the Cambrian explosion itself occurred around 530mya lasting a max of 5 million years. The exact duration we don't know.
There was complex life before the Cambrian and pre-cursors of many of the major groups have been found, including pre-Cambrian vertebrates.
What are these pre-cursors that you refer to, I've visited many (pro-evolution) sites and sifted through books concerning the Cambrian explosion and there are no fossil animals that I'm aware of. Multicellular animals begin to appear in the rock record during the late precambrian period (570 - 565mya); nothing more than sponges, the peculiar Ediacaran biota, and perhaps some primitive worms or mollusks. Nothing close to an intermediate.
One quite relevant element in the Cambrian explosion is that at this time some life forms appear to have only recently evolved the ability of incorporating calcium as calcium carbonate into their bodies, vastly increasing the chances of them appearing as fossils.
Naturally soft-bodied organisms will have less of a chance of being preserved, yet there has been enough preservation of soft-bodied animals and organs to render this, at the least, suspect.

- Entirely soft-bodied creatures of several phyla appear in the Cambrian strata.
- Most noteably, soft-bodied organisms do appear in Precambrian strata around the world -- though these themselves do not represent credible precursors to the Cambrian phyla.

Furthermore, and more significantly, the suggestion that soft-bodied ancestors alone could be responsible for their hard-bodied successors is nonsensical. Many of the creatures could not have evolved their hard parts (after the fact) as those hard parts played a fundamental role in protecting the soft parts from environmental conditions.
The evolution of complex organisms requires all the basic components of complex life (i.e. the ability to produce bone-like structures, hormonal regulation etc). The precambrian explosion simply indicates the point in time when all the necessary substrates of complex animals arrived allowing for the creation of all the different phyla.
This is one of the more self-serving contradictory statements I've read. It's circular reasoning from beginning to end.
The Cambrian Explosion is based on very limited data and is highly controversial in scientific circles. The fossil evidence for the explosion is based on three sites that are highly unusual fossilization events, rarely seen in other periods and thus the 'explosion' may be an observer artifact resulting from the nature of those unusual fossilization events. [...]
It's hardly limited data. From the time of Darwin people have been searching for the missing intermediates. Finding such fossils would make a persons career they would be set for life in the academic world, yet nothing has been found.

And recent statistical paleontology studies have revealed some interesting findings relating to the comprehensiveness of the fossil record.

1. New fossil findings continue to fall within existing animal groupings, suggesting at best that the fossil record is curiously selective in it's incompleteness.

2. While the fossil record does amply display many of the organisms found on the tree of life, it inexplicably fails to preserve those organisms required to link the various branches of the tree.

3. As more and more fossils continue to fall within existing groups, the less likely it becomes that the existing fossil record represents one that is imperfect or bias.
Michael Foote: We have a representative sample of morphological diversity and therefore we can rely on patterns documented in the fossil record. Although we have much to learn about the evolution of form, in many respects our view of the history of biological diversity is mature.
In 1997 Caltech scientists reported a mechanism for much more rapid plate movement relative to earth's poles resulting in both rapid and unstable climate changes. This mechanism would stress ecological subsystems severely thus promoting more rapid evolutionary change.

There have been other major radiations besides the Cambrian Explosion, including the Ordovician radiation, which saw the diversification of trilobites, echinoderms and brachiopods, as well as the rise of true corals, and the Devonian radiation, which saw another re-radiation of trilobite species, as well as the rise and diversification of sharks, ray-finned fish, lobe-finned fish, placoderms, and acanthodians.
Well that surely doesn't assist your case at all -- in fact referencing another explosion / radiation to explain away a previous one surely adds to the dilemma and not resolve it. It flies in the face of everything we know about phyletic gradualism.
(2008 ) At least one other 'explosion' predates the Cambrian explosion ; the Avalon explosion (575 to 565 Ma)—This period( named after a Canadian peninsula in New Foundland )represent earth's oldest known fossil complex macroscopic life forms at the base of the Ediacaran fauna and occurred about 33 million years prior to the previously identified 'Cambrian Explosion' //www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5859/81

Again how does this in anyway help?

Up until the appearance of the organisms in the Avalon explosion the only biota recorded in a 3 000 000 000 (billion) year period prior were single-celled organisms and algae.
The sudden appearance of these organisms within the Precambrian period poses the exact same (if on a smaller scale) problem as it does with the Cambrian explosion: another discontinuous increase in the information content and disparity of the biota at the time, indicating a mini Precambrian explosion.

The Avalon explosion does not explain the Cambrian explosion, rather it adds to the problem. It once again points to long periods of stasis, followed by a massive increase in complexity and information content, followed by more periods of stasis. This pattern then repeats.
It is the complete opposite of what we would expect from a neo-Darwinian history of life on earth.

A picture paints a thousand words and this one provides a good representation of just how much of a problem the Cambrian explosion presents for neo-Darwinism.

Image
Last edited by Stu on Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Only when the blood runs and the shackles restrain, will the sheep then awake. When all is lost.
User avatar
Stu
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1401
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:32 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: Question about "Darwin's tubercle"

Post by Stu »

sandy_mcd wrote:
Stu wrote:I would settle for 5 intermediates out of the billions upon billions of animals / organisms that have existed throughout the entire history of the earth.
Did you check out wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils
Well ironically the first picture I see on that page is that of Archaeopteryx, who has in fact has been stripped of the title of "first bird".
Remember the Icon of the First Bird, Archaeopteryx? Word is, it’s not a bird
Only when the blood runs and the shackles restrain, will the sheep then awake. When all is lost.
sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm

Re: Question about "Darwin's tubercle"

Post by sandy_mcd »

Stu wrote:Cambrian explosion itself occurred around 530mya lasting a max of 5 million years. The exact duration we don't know.
The figures I have seen range from 55 to 20 million years. Stephen Meyer is the only 5 MY figure i have seen.
But anyhow, what is your basic complaint about the standard scientific interpretation of all this?
sandy_mcd
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:56 pm

Re: Question about "Darwin's tubercle"

Post by sandy_mcd »

Stu wrote:
sandy_mcd wrote:
Stu wrote:I would settle for 5 intermediates out of the billions upon billions of animals / organisms that have existed throughout the entire history of the earth.
Did you check out wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils
Well ironically the first picture I see on that page is that of Archaeopteryx, who has in fact has been stripped of the title of "first bird".
Remember the Icon of the First Bird, Archaeopteryx? Word is, it’s not a bird

Hold on a sec, and let me see if I've got this correct. A fossil may be reclassified from bird to dinosaur. The problem is that it has characteristics of both, making it difficult to decide whether it is closer to birds or dinosaurs.
How is this a problem for evolution? How does this disprove the existence of intermediates?

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/news.2011.443.html wrote:Archaeopteryx has long been placed at the base of the bird evolutionary tree. It has traits that have helped to define what it is to be a bird, such as long and robust forelimbs. Yet in recent years, the discoveries of numerous small, feathery dinosaurs have created a conundrum for palaeontologists, raising questions about which animals are the ancestors of modern birds and which are just closely related cousins. ... After analysing the traits present in Xiaotingia and its relations, Xu and his colleagues are suggesting that the creatures bear more resemblance to the dinosaurs Velociraptor and Microraptor than to early birds, and so belong in the dinosaur group Deinonychosauria rather than in the bird group, Avialae. Many features led the team to this decision, but the most immediately noticeable are that Xiaotingia, Archaeopteryx and Anchiornis have shallow snouts and expanded regions behind their eye sockets. Microraptor has similar traits, but the early birds in Avialae have very different skulls.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/nature10288.html wrote:Archaeopteryx is widely accepted as being the most basal bird, and accordingly it is regarded as central to understanding avialan origins; however, recent discoveries of derived maniraptorans have weakened the avialan status of Archaeopteryx. Here we report a new Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China. This find further demonstrates that many features formerly regarded as being diagnostic of Avialae, including long and robust forelimbs, actually characterize the more inclusive group Paraves (composed of the avialans and the deinonychosaurs). Notably, adding the new taxon into a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis shifts Archaeopteryx to the Deinonychosauria. Despite only tentative statistical support, this result challenges the centrality of Archaeopteryx in the transition to birds. If this new phylogenetic hypothesis can be confirmed by further investigation, current assumptions regarding the avialan ancestral condition will need to be re-evaluated.
Post Reply