Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand

Pogo:
Seems more a matter (to me) that evolutionists can dish it out
but they can't take it. Evolutionists have been very nasty towards
Creationists. I feel that any Creationist that gets a laugh at the
expense of an evolutionist is a hero.A hero? Well, just insult somebody, put no thought at all iinto your reply and people of like mind will laugh. Does this then that mean that your position is the correct one? I hope not.As far as dishing it and not being able to take it, I do not agree with you; it has been my experience (for what it's worth) that christians hold Free-Thinkers to the same standards that they "try" to adhere to: If a Free-Thinker cannot answer a question (or answer it to the satisfaction of the inquirer) then their whole position is refuted.
Bullcrap. Moosecrap. Monkeycrap...etc. For example, one CANNOT dismiss entire bible just because so many contradictions exist; yet that appears to be the posistion of many biblical literalists. Either the bible is 100% correct, or it's all wrong. One lie in a paragragh of true statements does not rule out the entire statement! There are many good and ethical things in the bible (and other religious texts), but just because some things are true doesn't mean that the entire book is; the opposite is self evident as well.The statement 'Evolutionists have been very nasty towards
Creationists.', is just absurd; I can site several examples (personal and historical) in which christians have literally attacked those that have not 'conformed to THIER image of christ'. I believe that this aggresive behavior exists because those involved have alot of time and money involved.

Well my debate with my ID buddy continues. I gave him a long reply that was primarily based off of your answers given to me previously (thank you for your contribution), and he gave me a long reply below. The first part of his reply pertains to our small discussion on prokaryotic evolution to eukaryotic organisms (am I correct in that assumption?), and the rest deals with the Cambrian Explosion in general. If anyone would like me to post my original reply to him, I will do so. Otherwise, I would like to ask, once again, for any help in a rebuttal on any or all his points.Thanks for any help in advance. Here's his reply:

quote:

---

"Regarding bacteria, while I understand you're not an expert in the field (nor am I), your explanation of why they haven't changed is full of hand waving. I claimed that through millions of generations of controlled experiments, in which the goal is explicitly to induce significant change in bacteria, we have failed. You responded by stating "Only way back in Precambrian times was it necessary, for some reason or another, to become linked to other cells, through symbiotic relationships or otherwise, did Eukaryotes come forth". For some reason or another? Become linked? Is there any evidence that this happened, or does it just fit the theory? I'm aware of Margulis' theories on symbiotic evolution, but they are a far cry from explaining entire cells joining together. Phagocytosis (one cell engulfing another or becoming linked) has never been observed (from a 1997 paper in "Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews"). In addition, the transition from prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells requires a host of new innovations that must be coordinated and regulated. The problems with material causes for that transition are numerous, and we can get into that if you wish.

​

But here's my point. It is truly interesting that through millions of generations of study (by brilliant minds no less), and through rigorous artificial selection pressures (sure to create an environment in which bacteria are NOT successful), we continually reproduce only bacteria. This is one of the simplest organisms ever known, and we can't get it to change significantly. What this indicates to me, as one who isn't committed to evolutionary processes, is that living systems are highly resistant to significant change. This makes sense given the internal proofreading mechanisms that exist within cells (to reduce errant proteins and such). It also makes sense given the intricate and tightly integrated nature of cellular activity. Such tightly integrated systems do not tolerate much change, as one change affects not only the single component directly, but other components that interact with it. This sort of behavior is seen continually in engineering. When I design a system, then change one component, it almost always requires numerous changes throughout the system as a whole - both from a structural standpoint and a performance standpoint. And once again I emphasize that this is a single cell. Given what bacteria have taught us, I think my skepticism about evolution's ability to create all the novel cell types associated with Cambrian explosion is well grounded. So, on to the Cambrian.

​

Before trying to explain away the evidence (in part) on the grounds of an incomplete fossil record, you seem to focus on natural selection's role in the "evolutionary radiation" (you site favorable environmental conditions, lack of competition, open niches left by mass extinctions, etc.). I have no problem with natural selection "selecting" things and preserving them, my point is that natural selection can only act AFTER selectable changes are apparent. Without rehashing my previous arguments about protein and cell type emergence, let me just say a few things. Cytochrome c and Hemoglobin may tolerate more change than other proteins, but those are a drop in the bucket in comparison to everything that would be needed - simply as raw materials - for creating all of the novel cell types. And as I said, even if the raw materials did exist, ASSEMBLING them into intricate complex cells which then are integrated into larger systems themselves is a staggering task to pull off successfully (especially via only material processes on the scale of different PHYLA!). Keep in mind that there is no evidence of cells that were "soupy" in nature, just built with things sort of floating around willy-nilly inside. All evidence indicates cellular function characterized by precision from the very start, and to get that precision you offer changes in regulatory genes. I think you drastically marginalize and understate the complexity and intricacy of cellular function. Experiments have shown time and again that random changes in tightly integrated systems almost always have negative results - which make sense. In "The Origin of Animal Body Plans", published by Cambridge University Press in 1997, Wallace Arthur writes:

​

"Those genes that control key early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are ALWAYS SO." (emphasis in original)

​

If you have evidence of random changes (in regulatory genes or others) producing directional, beneficial, and significant changes in an organism, cell, or system, I'd be interested in reading it. You also touch on co-opting a bit when discussing different functions for actin and myosin, and imply that such activity may be used to explain the emergence of IC systems. There are severe flaws with that reasoning, but I'm sure they'll come out in detail if the discussion gets there.

​

I'd like to rephrase the above in slightly different terms. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex cell would require somewhere between 320 and 550 kilo base pairs of DNA to sustain itself (i.e. from the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 93 (1996)). That's for one cell. To build and sustain organisms we find in the Cambrian would require genomes orders of magnitude greater. For example the genome of a fly is 120 million base pairs. We're talking about a quantum leap in genetic information, and not just for one species, but for different phyla. Genetic information is obviously highly specific in nature (in a similar way to amino acid sequences). An analogy can be drawn between nucleotide base sequencing and the sequencing of letters in our alphabet. Neither is governed by necessity (i.e. there is no physical law responsible for the order of bases in DNA or of letters in sentences - indeed, if there were, they would not have the tremendous information storage capabilities that they do). On the other hand, the space of functional or meaningful sequences of either the DNA alphabet or the English alphabet is a minute portion of all possible sequences. While none of this information renders evolutionary pathways for the Cambrian impossible, they could certainly be thought of as highly improbable, and consequently implausible.

​

Now, let's move from "sufficient causes" to the actual paleontological evidence. You questioned my claim of 40 new phyla in the Cambrian (which is A-OK), and thought that might be outdated. That number comes from a variety of primary papers and paleontology texts, none of which were published before 1987, and the most recent of which was 1999. Even if the number is scaled back, it makes little difference. The bottom line is that neither Darwinism nor MET (modern evolutionary theory) would expect nor predict the appearance of widely disparate phyla before slow diversification of species. Organisms representing different phyla simply shouldn't come first according to evolutionary theory (and you acknowledged this in a previous email when you stated that speciation eventually produces new genera, families, orders, etc. until different phyla are represented).

​

Now, I agree that soft bodied organisms and parts would not fossilize as frequently as hard and skeletal parts. I also agree that it is important to note as much when considering the cause of the Cambrian explosion. However, claiming that there is a paucity of fossil sites from the time and that we're calling it an explosion because we're extrapolating too much from too little data is going too far. While soft bodied life doesn't fossilize as frequently, it does fossilize, and we have many excellent specimens in both the Cambrian and before (embryos, guts, single celled algae, etc.). Postulating a poor sampling of Precambrian life in the fossil record as a general solution to the Cambrian explosion is just a bit too ad hoc.

​

Darwin recognized the problem of the Cambrian when he wrote his first book, and rather than "softening the edge" of the explosion with 150 years of collecting fossils, the problem is now even more acute. Writing in "Paleobiology" in 1997 ("Sampling, Taxonomic Description, and Our Evolving Knowledge of Morphological Diversity"), Michael Foote writes that new fossil discoveries repeatedly fall into existing taxonomic groups. Despite the fervent search for morphologically intermediate forms, the gaps remain real and large. The more fossils fall within existing phyletic groups, the less likely it is that the absence of Precambrian fossils leading to the Cambrian reflects a bias in sampling.

​

To me, the problem of the lack of Precambrian fossils, and the problem of claiming incompleteness in the fossil record, is re-emphasized to me when I remember this: what requires explanation is not the sudden appearance of a good number of different species, but of different PHYLA. And these different phyla are represented by extremely complex life (like trilobites). The number of intermediate forms that should have left an evolutionary path in the Precambrian is huge, yet we find very little. What we do find
Is copious DISPARITY at the beginning of the Cambrian (once again completely unexpected and unpredicted by MET). As Jan Bergstrom writes in "Ideas on Early Animal Evolution", in EARLY LIFE ON EARTH, Nobel Symposium No. 84 (1994):

​

"There is absolutely no sign of convergence between phyla as we follow them backwards to the Early Cambrian. They were as widely apart from the beginning as they are today. Hierarchal levels apparently include a biological reality, not only classificatory convention. In fact, the overwhelming taxonomic difficulty is to recognize relationships between phyla, not to distinguish between them."

​

One of the papers you site, and quote from, states the following in reference to their method of dating divergence times using molecular data:

​

"...The data are not compatible with the Cambrian explosion hypothesis
as an explanation for the origin of metazoan phyla, and provide additional support for an extended period of Precambrian metazoan diversification."
- Bromham, Rambaut, Fortey, Cooper, & Penny (1998)
Just a moment...

​

So they're saying that because the data doesn't fit their theory, the data must be wrong or incomplete. This is a perfect statement demonstrating the sheer arrogance of evolutionary theory. It is simply assumed. We know evolution is responsible for the Cambrian, and because the molecular divergence data isn't compatible with that sudden "evolutionary radiation", we now have good evidence that Precambrian diversification did indeed occur. Of course there isn't any significant record of that in the geologic column, but nevertheless, it must have happened. To me, that just seems like bad science. Maybe I'm wrong.

​

My conclusion is that evolutionary processes, whether they be gradual, rapid, focused on regulatory genes, or any other twist, do not plausibly explain the data regarding the Cambrian.

---

Well there's a lot there (and I STILL suspect that the claim of 40 new phyla is based on outdated sources).Probably the first thing to do is tackle him on the last part. It's obviously false that Bromham et al are rejecting the data - they are REPORTING data that they fully accept. If he has any integrity he ought to retract and apologise.

You're correct Paul, and that's one of the first things I saw. It seems fairly obvious that he didn't read the article, just the intro. where this is stated. It was a misrepresentation on his part, and I will give mention on this point. Now as to the rest of his rebuttal - anyone see some other points to note?

*bump*litttle help anyone?

Well for a start phagocytosis is seen all the time, it is how amoebas ingest food. I assume your interlocutor means 'endosymbiosis' in which case he is still arguably wrong see which clearly has a gram negative bacteria living in its cytoplasm and neither of which can be cultured successfully independently. If what he means is 'no one has observed an organism being phagocytosed and subsequently become an organelle' then he is probably right but that doesn't mean it hasn't ever happened, indeed there are numerous examples, such as this one in acanthamoeba, where it clearly has happened and the endosymbiont is still clearly distinguishable, in a way mitochondria arguably no longer are.You should also ask him to start citing things properly 'a paper from MMBR in 1997' just doesn't cut it. I've tracked it down now it is The sentence immediately preceding the one he quotes states that "bacteria living intracellularly
in a different bacterial species have been reported".[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-22-2003]

Thanks for the input W. King. Any other discrepencies?

Still needing some help from the knowledgeable folks out there. I'll break down the parts I'm having a little trouble with.

quote:

---

Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex cell would require somewhere between 320 and 550 kilo base pairs of DNA to sustain itself (i.e. from the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 93 (1996)). That's for one cell. To build and sustain organisms we find in the Cambrian would require genomes orders of magnitude greater. For example the genome of a fly is 120 million base pairs. We're talking about a quantum leap in genetic information, and not just for one species, but for different phyla.

---

There seems to be a flaw with this argument, though I can't pin it down. It seems that he's dancing on the argument from incredulity here, saying how unlikely it is for organisms to be created based on how many base pairs are required for existance and maintenance of life. If there are articles that show beneficial random changes in regulatory genes (which I've seen), would that likely suffice in this particular situation? Anything else required possibly?

quote:

---

The bottom line is that neither Darwinism nor MET (modern evolutionary theory) would expect nor predict the appearance of widely disparate phyla before slow diversification of species. Organisms representing different phyla simply shouldn't come first according to evolutionary theory

---

Okay, again he appears to have a flaw with this argument, though I can't exactly pinpoint it. Is he confusing a timeline of events here by chance? I thought MET predicts rather well what occurred with diversification? Is this not true?

quote:

---

Michael Foote writes that new fossil discoveries repeatedly fall into existing taxonomic groups. Despite the fervent search for morphologically intermediate forms, the gaps remain real and large. The more fossils fall within existing phyletic groups, the less likely it is that the absence of Precambrian fossils leading to the Cambrian reflects a bias in sampling.

---

Again, the conclusion here seems not to follow the premise, though I'm not completely sure. Classification of fossils into existing phyletic groups seems only a means of our need of association, though from what I've read lately much of early forms of life have little similarities morphologically to our modern phyletic groups. How far off am I here?

quote:

---

what requires explanation is not the sudden appearance of a good number of different species, but of different PHYLA. And these different phyla are represented by extremely complex life (like trilobites). The number of intermediate forms that should have left an evolutionary path in the Precambrian is huge, yet we find very little. What we do find
Is copious DISPARITY at the beginning of the Cambrian (once again completely unexpected and unpredicted by MET).

---

again, why is he so hung up on phyla diversification? Does his question here have merit?Thanks for any help.

The minimal genomes paper is The important thing to note is that that minimal genome is for a modern cell. The authors actually discuss a number of areas where a more primitive cell might have, and indeed suggests that the last common ancestor(LCA) of the prokaryote, eukaryotes and archaea may have had an RNA based genome.On a technical point the minimal size the authors arrive at is 318Kb below even your opponents lower figure.

Okay, I came up with a couple of other references you can use. The first one, unfortunately, I don't have an on-line citation for. It was sent to me awhile ago, so all I have is the abstract and an (incomplete, IMO) reference. I'll copy it in toto:Grey et al, 2003. Neoproterozoic biotic diversification: Snowball Earth or aftermath of the Acraman impact? Geology: Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 459—462. Although the key elements of the article deal with an argument for the Acraman metor impact as a mass extinction event that led to the rapid diversification during the Cambrian (like other mass extinction events, the survivors achieved ecological release when all those neat habitats and niches were suddenly vacant), what I find germane to your discussion is the fact that a major order or even class-level change occurred in plankton - going from one lifestyle and body plan represented by a very few species to a whole different lifestyle and body plan represented by some 57 new species. So much for all life appearing in the Cambrian - this radiation took place at the end of the Proterozoic (i.e., pre-Cambrian). Of course, your friend will simply dismiss it by saying, "Well, they're all still plankton.", thereby ignoring the implications of this diversification happening before the so-called explosion back in the days when there supposedly weren't any critters.Another major problem with your friend's arguments is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by "phyla suddenly appearing in the Cambrian". He's either deliberately obfuscating or completely misunderstanding that statement. Consider: if we look at the critters in the "phylum" taxonomic level today, we're talking literally (in some cases) millions of distinct species. At the Proterozoic boundary, however, "phylum" may only comprise a few dozen or less species. IOW, his fallacy rests on claiming an equivalency between what a phylum consists of today and what a phylum consisted of way back when. Someone here will know the official term for this. The reality is that since phylum is simply a generic term for a basic body plan, critters are assigned to a phylum based on this criteria, and your creationist is neglecting the minor fact that some critter had to be the first. It'd be different if there was evidence that all the millions of modern species appeared suddenly in the Cambrian rather than a few hundred - many of which had precursors in the Proterozoic in spite of what the creationists claim. Which of course lends stupendous support to the whole "descent with modification" and diversification of life through evolution scenario.Glen Morton (*we are not worthy*) has a pretty good article on line that explains this "phylum level evolution", appropriately titled Phylum Level Evolution. Hopefully you'll get some good ammunition from there.Keep us posted.

Excellent response and links Quetzal and W.King. Many thanks! With such a wealth of info. presented (and disinformation from my friend's sources), I felt it vital that I sit and read a little more thoroughly before I respond to him. Not only do I feel it necessary to know more of the topic at hand, but I certainly feel more comfortable knowing exactly what I'm discussing when I present my arguments and counterarguments. I've also found that he is beginning to blur the lines a bit with the CE and abiogenesis somewhat, which are two completely different topics (and one has nothing to do with evolution anyhow) and must be separated. I will keep you posted. Thanks again.

Evolution Really Comes down to DNA. Without it life could never have began to start with. Science Has reproduced conditions that may have made amino acid, but no one can make DNA which is necessary for even the simpleist forms of life. Knowing this many scientists have speculated that viruses came from space and started our gene pool. If this is true it begs the question of were did that DNA come from. It is much to complex to have formed on its own. Even a virus must depend on a more complex form of life to reproduce itself. There are even more simple viruses that need another virus present in the host inorder to reproduce, hep-d is one such virus. Being double dependent on the host and another form of hepatitus or it cannot reproduce. This being true a virus could never have began without it's host. It's like the, question which came first the chicken or the egg, who knows but you can bet it wasn't thin air. With advances in our knowledge of space, we have come to the conclusion that there are other planets out there, and even more than we had ever imagined it would be pretty arrogant of us to think we are alone in the universe: which would explain DNA. It would be just as arrogant to think we were the most advanced form of life in the universe. There must be some that started their evolutionary road millions of yrs ahead of us. We would think them Gods. This being so there must be some that are so advanced that those afore mentioned would think them Gods. So on, and so on till you reached some that never had a begining at all, alittle hard to grasp that concept, but very possible. That my friends would be god. Came first, and above all. What every one forgets is what happend here obviously is possible from big bang and on, so I submit that there are other universes and a God

The simplest forms of life don't use DNA, though.

Hi Bob,Since this thread is over a year old, or rather since the last post was more than a year ago, you probably won't get much mileage out of posting to it. Maybe you should try a 'proposed new topic' about your particular beliefs.TTFN,WK

Probably off-topic. As noted just above, this thread is rather ancient now, closing it down.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director