Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Chen's work pose a problem for ToE?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 9 of 84 (290137)
02-24-2006 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
02-24-2006 2:07 PM


Firstly it should be noted that the quoted sources are known anti-evolutionists. It would be very good to check their contentions against the primary work rather than simply assuming that they are correct.
All we can say about Chen from the quoted material is that he seems to be upset that his pet theory is not being accepted. We are in no position to say whether the reasons are bad as Chen claims or whether they are better than he would like to admit. It is highly unlikely that this represents anything worse than the normal conservatism of science - and without evaluating Chen's arguments and the responses we are not evne in a position to say that.
The Davidson argument is easier to evaluate, if the soruce is correct. Devidson seems to equate neo-Darwinism with a reliance on point-mutations as a source of variation. So far as I am aware neo-Darwinian theory is quite happy to accept the other known mechanisms of mutation (e.g. duplication, transposition and insertion). Indeed if the argument attributed to Davidson were correct he would be beating a dead horse - evolutionary theory certainly does accept the other known mechanisms of mutation. If neo-Darwinism is dead on these grounds, it died the minute any alternative mechanism of mutation became widely accepted.
Thus unless Davidson's argument has been misreported it does not apply to modern evolutionary theory.o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 2:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 7:44 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 54 of 84 (290265)
02-25-2006 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
02-24-2006 7:44 PM


Re: the fossil record
If Chen and his associates claim that the lack of fossils is anything other than a problem of the fossil record then the evidence is against them. The discovery of phsophatised organisms from the period preceding the "explosion", which indicate that the diversification had started well before is strong evidence for that.
To explain, phosphatisation is a rare form of fossilisation that is only good for preserving very small organisms. The more usual forms of fossilisation only preserve considerably larger forms. Thus it appears that the early diversification involved organisms too small to be represented in much of the fossil record.
You are also wrong about the production of phyla. By the very nature of taxonomy we should expect to see phyla appearing early. Even Linnean taxonomy was based on modern organisms and if the divisions seen are the product of evolution then the most basic divisions should appear early on. It is not that the animals of the Cambrian explosion were so radically different that they would automatically be classified in different phyla if we made no reference to modern life - it is that the differences between them are important to the classification of modern life.
More importantly you misrepresent Chen in one crucial respect. He claims that currently accepted theories of evolution cannot explain his observations - but HIS theories can. He is not attacking evolution, he is promoting his own views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 7:44 PM randman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 70 of 84 (290448)
02-25-2006 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by randman
02-25-2006 6:28 PM


Re: a small recap
Why should we expect to see large numbers ? As I pointed out in an earlier post these very early bilaterians are so small that they can only be preserved by phosphatisation. This is why they do not show up elsewhere in the fossil record - the more common processes of fossilisation are unable to preserve them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 02-25-2006 6:28 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 02-25-2006 7:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 76 of 84 (290533)
02-26-2006 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by randman
02-25-2006 7:36 PM


Re: a small recap
Again it all comes down to your assumptions on what should be preserved.
The fact is that the discovery of early bilaterians validated the predictions of evolutionary scientists and contradicts your ideas. At present there seems no reason to assume that there is any problem beyond the limits of the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 02-25-2006 7:36 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024