IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..

Ahmad,Regarding IC:I’m claiming victory, as I said I would in the last post if you yet again failed to produce positive evidence to back up your claim.I have asked & asked & asked for this positive evidence that IC cannot evolve. You have provided nothing of the kind. Your argument seems to be that I have to show otherwise, or you’re right. I don’t, & you’re not. It’s your claim, I’m not making one. If you can’t provide positive evidence to back that claim up, then you have an argument from incredulity, like I said all along.http://EvC Forum: NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation -->EvC Forum: NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation
{Note from Adminnemooseus: The above link is to the "NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation" topic, which I recently closed. There was a nice discussion going on there, but it was rather badly off topic, and deserved a better home. Thus, Mark started this new topic. I thank him.} This was the first mention of IC in this thread, & YOU claim it refutes evolution.

quote:

---

Ahmad:
We have observed the irreducible complexity in numerous organelles of living organisms (eg - bacterial flagellum, ATP synthase molecule, proteins etc)which refutes evolution

---

All subsequent discussion has been about asking you to back up that claim that IC can’t evolve, & that IC does, in fact, refute evolution. If you can’t show that IC can’t evolve, you don’t have an argument.Read & reread this next paragraph until you understand it:You have no positive evidence that IC systems cannot evolve. Therefore, the irreducible complexity argument is moot. A non-sequitur. Without positive evidence, you cannot make a positive assertion.OK so far?I have never claimed that IC systems evolved. There is only one person making a positive assertion regarding IC, & that’s you. If you think I’m making it up, take a look back through the posts & see if you can find me making an explicit claim that IC definately evolved (in context). Given that this is the case, that you are making a claim & I'm not, it is for you to back up said claim. You can’t? Well, I'm sorry, Ahmad, you therefore have no argument.You made a claim, & I didn't. I have NOTHING I have to back up, but you do.Regarding the Cambrian explosion:What part of the ToE is specifically contradicted by the Cambrian explosion. If you are going to claim a limit, I expect you to show that limit actually exists.Also, what is your assertion regarding the Cambrian explosion? Are you saying that God created life at the phyla level with "multipurpose" genomes that could then evolve into the many sub-taxa, orders, classes, families that we see today, with the genetic complexity built in? If not, what?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-26-2002]

bump

Ahmad,Thank you for your response.Now, please read the original post again, & please try to answer the specific questions. I NEVER said that IC never existed, but I DO ask you to show it couldn't have evolved, however, in order for you to have an argument that goes beyond "I'm SURE pink fairies exist" type stuff, that is.Please answer the second question, specificaly quoting the ToE's absolute refutation regarding the Cambrian explosion. "Evolution was a bit quick" isn't doing the business, mate.

quote:

---

Also, what is your assertion regarding the Cambrian explosion? Are you saying that God created life at the phyla level with "multipurpose" genomes that could then evolve into the many sub-taxa, orders, classes, families that we see today, with the genetic complexity built in? If not, what?

---

Please answer this question, as well. Not what you think it asks. How does your version of creation tie in with the fossil record? Tranquility Base thinks it ties in at the family level. Do you? Or perhaps the phyla level? Well? This is crucial to our argument regarding the Cambrian explosion.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ahmad,

quote:

---

Ok, do it like Primordial egg did. Give me the criterias or the possible potential pathways by which IC systems could have evolved and I will put some IC examples to the test to see if the proposed evolutionary pathway could have evolved the IC system. Fair enough? If not, then tell me.. what will it take me to prove, in your opinion, that IC systems couldn't have evolved and I'll chalk out a response.

---

NO!!! I repeat:

quote:

---

I have never claimed that IC systems evolved. There is only one person making a positive assertion regarding IC, & that’s you. If you think I’m making it up, take a look back through the posts & see if you can find me making an explicit claim that IC definitely evolved (in context).

---

It is not for me to prove you wrong, it is for you to positively back up your claim. Can you show that IC cannot evolve, yes or no?

quote:

---

Mark:
Please answer this question, as well. Not what you think it asks. How does your version of creation tie in with the fossil record? Tranquility Base thinks it ties in at the family level. Do you? Or perhaps the phyla level? Well? This is crucial to our argument regarding the Cambrian explosion.

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
To begin with, I don't understand your question. If you could be more clear... it would be helpful for me to respond since you want me to be more specific. I will make an attempt to answer nonetheless, as I have understood it. I think it ties at the phyla level since most of the animal phyla made their first appearances during that time. Thats all I can say for now... unless you can be more specific

---

What I am asking is how the Cambrian explosion is relevant to your own world view? Do you maintain that animals were created at the phyla level (possibly with a multipurpose genome that allows new structures to evolve because the information was created in the genome with evolution in mind), & subsequently evolved into the various extant orders & classes, or; were species created as is, or; were families the basic unit of creation? If none of the above, then what?This question is really for clarification. Since most metazoan phyla appeared in the Cambrian, but (I’m guessing) no extant families appear in the Cambrian. How do you rationalise that? If the Cambrian explosion represents an act of creation, why do the sub-taxa appear later in the fossil record?Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ahmad,

quote:

---

It is not for me to prove you wrong, it is for you to positively back up your claim. Can you show that IC cannot evolve, yes or no?

---

quote:

---

Yes, Yes I can and I have many a times. But you dismiss my response by saying its an argument from incredulity when its not. I will reiterate once again and this time in the words of Behe

---

IN-THE-WORDS-OF-BEHE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!Behe has NOT demonstrated that IC cannot evolve. It is an argument by definition. Because Behe asserts that IC can’t evolve, therefore it can’t. SHOW that IC cant evolve, or hush, now. Been here, done that, got the T-shirt. You’re going around in circles. POSITIVELY back up your assertion with positive evidence. The say so of the definition of an ID’ist ain’t good enough.

quote:

---

I am not updated with this "multipurpose genome"... never heard of it, but it seems interesting. In my opinion, I favor the polyphyletic explanation. Yes I am well-aware of that this taxon is recognised invalid in the cladistic taxonomies but nonetheless, it can well explain the cambrian explosion adequately. Polyphyly implies that the genetic code has multiple independent origins, and is not the result of common ancestry as the darwinian monophyletic tree depicts. This suggests the concept of similarity by common design. Design may be the best explanation for the origin and ubiquity of the genetic code, as I have said before. Common design seems eminently reasonable as an explanation of similar features in organisms that appear genealogically unlinked (for eg - try comparing the trilobites with ottoia and see if you can find any morphological similarity)
Perhaps polyphyly is an idea that deserves greater consideration by the scientific community. The idea has been mentioned a few times as I remember, but does not seem to have been seriously discussed within the mainstream scientific community.

​

One counterargument against polyphyly, that I know of, is that biomolecular similarities indicate common ancestry and monophyly. For example, the genetic code and metabolic enzymes are similar in nearly all living organisms. However, there are significant differences in the details of the cellular processes in different groups of organisms.(The phylogeny of prokaryotes. Science 209:457-463.). I hope the explanation suffices.

---

Thank you. So given polyphyletic origins are a truth, at what level, roughly? Families, orders, class? And WHEN? What are the descendants of say, early mammals? Or early reptiles?I repeat, again:What part of the ToE is specifically contradicted by the Cambrian explosion? If you are going to claim a limit, I expect you to show that limit actually exists.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ahmad,It is polyphyly because all the other phyla are separate creation events & are monophyletic in themselves. Andya has gt to the crux of my argument better than I could. If the phylum level isn't the creation event, then what? Orders, classes, families?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ahmad,

quote:

---

Then what is "good enough" for you?

---

Data that positively shows that IC systems can’t evolve.Thus far you have presented none. I know what IC is, but I don’t know that it can’t evolve. You can present as many examples of IC systems as you like, quote Behe’s opinions as much as you like, BUT, none of this is providing what I’m asking for, nay, what is required!. It doesn’t exist, Ahmad. If it did, evolution WOULD be on the rocks.

quote:

---

It seems as though you have pre-decided that no matter what the evidence provided, you will keep on regurgitating that "it ain't good enough". By definition as well by many demonstrated examples, IC is a theory that is still open for more research. Exactly what kind of evidence you're looking for is bizarre to me. I gave you positive evidence for the non-evolvability of IC. I even showed you examples.

---

Once again, where is the POSITIVE evidence that supports your contention that IC is unevolvable?

quote:

---

IC is evident as I many times said before. IC describes a system whose function is dependent on the interaction of multiple components, such that the removal of even one component results in the complete loss of function. Consider the following equation:
A + B + C + D ~~~> F
where A,B,C, and D represent specific components (gene products) and F represents the function that is elicited by the interaction of these four parts. From this observation, it is evident that F could not possibly evolve by the darwinian evolution, as F requires the presence of all four components. In other words, there would be no selective advantage of having parts A, B, and D compared to an organism having only parts A and B. Why? Because both combinations fail to elicit the function!! So you tell me: HOW CAN SUCH A SYSTEM EVOLVE, in the first place??

---

You’re doing it again, asking me to show how IC can evolve. Whether I can or can’t doesn’t support your argument at all. You need evidence that goes beyond your own incredulity, that positively supports your contention. This is what I require, & what science requires.Ultimately you present something like the cilia & say how could that evolve? That is a question, Ahmad, not evidence. Your other tack is to claim because it is IC, it couldn’t evolve, & that’s the end of that! This is an argument by definition, & also an unbacked assertion. Such things do not constitute positive evidence. No positive evidence = argument from incredulity.Next time you reply, can you come up with something that doesn’t fall into these two categories?

quote:

---

Mark:
What part of the ToE is specifically contradicted by the Cambrian explosion? If you are going to claim a limit, I expect you to show that limit actually exists.

---

quote:

---

ToE predicts "gradual" progressive evolution from simple to complex.

---

Like prokaryotes to eukaryotes to multicellular eukaryotes, you mean? All this is seen in order in the Precambrian.

quote:

---

This is where it contradicts evolution.

---

You’re fundamentally wrong on this score, too. Evolution predicts both increases & decreases in complexity. The Cambrian explosion is not contradicted by your claim, in fact it is entirely in order.

quote:

---

Now are you denying that "limit" does not exist?

---

Yes, I do deny this limit exists. Your assumption is incorrect. A progressive simple to complex trend is seen in the fossil record. Unfortunately, not everything that dies gets fossilised, but the trend is there. Abrupt appearances do not falsify evolution, it simply means that gaps exist in the fossil record. If they didn’t, intermediates & transitionals would never get found.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Bump......Ahmad,We can take the IC argument to Schrafs thread, "How do we tell the difference, Ahmad?", if you like, since we seem to be asking the same questions.1/ I would like to continue the Cambrian explosion "falsification" criteria here though.

quote:

---

"ToE predicts "gradual" progressive evolution from simple to complex. This is where it contradicts evolution."

---

This was your last answer, & is patently false. Evolution makes no such prediction. A look at almost any cladogram will see the gain of as many features as are lost (generally speaking), & I'm not sure I'm any more complex than a fish, or frog, for example.So, I ask again, what part of the ToE is specifically contradicted by the Cambrian explosion? If you are going to claim a limit, I expect you to show that limit actually exists. It's not as easy a claim to back up as it first looks, is it?2/ What is the significance of the Cambrian explosion to your creation POV? The argument you have touted is that major metazoan phyla appear in the lower Cambrian, & that is evidence of creation. Was there a single creation event, or many? Most classes, orders, families, genera etc appear nowhere near the Cambrian, so how are they explained?The question I was asking (poorly), was at what classification level did creation take place? Did the creator create all families with a single ancestor that subsequently radiated into it's extant genera & species? Or was the same done with classes, orders, or phyla, for example? Another way of asking the same question is at what classification level was life created polyphyletic?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ahmad,1/

quote:

---

Mark:
Like prokaryotes to eukaryotes to multicellular eukaryotes, you mean? All this is seen in order in the Precambrian.

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
Then where are the transitions??

---

LOL, what would you accept as a transitional eukaryote? A cell with half a mitochondria?

quote:

---

How is it in "order"? It surely doesn't fit the traditional evolutionary explanation. Nor is it sufficiently explained by the modern neo-darwinian theories, now is it? Now if evolution predicts both increase and decrease in complexity, which one do you think is more plausible? How is the specified complexity increased. Your explanation gives rise to more question than answers.. I guess.

---

The Cambrian explosion is in order because life first appears as single celled prokaryotes, then more complex eukaryotes appear, then simple eukaryotic multicellular organisms appear, & then more complex ones in the Cambrian.

quote:

---

How are transitionals and intermediates found with the present situation of the fossil record? And you're wrong. A progressive simple to complex trend is not seen in the fossil record. In fact the greatest morphological differences appear in the lower Phanerozoic rocks, while the rest of the fossil record consists largely of variations of familiar themes.

---

You are patently, demonstrably wrong. There is a simple to complex trend in the fossil record, but, generally speaking it culminates with the Cambrian explosion. I never said anything but, did I? I plainly said that in most cladograms traits are gained & lost, meaning no particular gain in complexity. Most cladograms being after the Cambrian explosion, of course. However, from the first fossils discovered, there is an overall trend of increasing complexity.

quote:

---

Ahmed:
Alright.. then get back to my original contention. If evolution does not predict what I stated.. what exactly does it predict then?

---

Irrelevant to this discussion. You are telling me what refutes evolution regarding the Cambrian explosion. You are inventing strawmen when you claim what you think evolution says.Anything else that refutes evolution in the Cambrian explosion?2/

quote:

---

I understood your question now . The answer is: I don't know. Of course, we can all make good predictions. But I have to think over this before I can issue my response. Its a very good question and Insha Allah I will respond to it once I have additional information.

---

I look forward to your response.Whilst you’re researching this, do you accept evolution within genera?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ahmad,A few questions.1/ The last coelacanth fossil was dated at about 80 million years ago, yet they exist today. Where are the missing fossils?2/ Holocepheli (a group of cartilagenous fish) appear during the Carboniferous, throughout the Permian, not a single example is found in the Triassic, yet are found through the Jurassic to present. Where are the missing fossils?3/ Testudines (turtles) appear briefly at the Triassic/Jurassic boundary. There is a gap of 50 million years, whereupon they become common from the late Jurassic to present. Where are the missing fossils?4/ Monotreme mammals appear briefly in the Cretaceous, they do not appear in the fossil record again until about 5 million years ago. Where are the missing fossils?5/ Paleognathae (e.g. Ostrich) appear briefly during the Paleocene. No more examples exist until the Miocene. Where are the missing fossils?6/ Sphenodonts appear briefly at the Triassic/Jurassic boundary, again at the Jurassic Cretaceous boundary, & no more. There even exists a living example, the Tuatara. Where are the missing fossils?(FYI. All info taken from spindle diagrams in "Vertebrate Palaeontology". Michael J Benton. 2nd ed. 2002)I ask you to consider that potentially small populations of soft bodied organisms, that molecular evidence you have cited says exist, may not have fossilised in sufficient quantities & detail to be able to corroborate the existence of said molecular phylogeny (among others) beyond the Cambrian.But I would be interested in where the fossils in 1/ to 6/ allegedly disappeared to?

quote:

---

Ahmad:
What is the basis for saying there is "an overall trend of increasing complexity"? Now let me choose a group of animal and look at....

---

Already answered:

quote:

---

There is a simple to complex trend in the fossil record, but, generally speaking it culminates with the Cambrian explosion. I never said anything but, did I? I plainly said that in most cladograms traits are gained & lost, meaning no particular gain in complexity. Most cladograms being after the Cambrian explosion, of course. However, from the first fossils discovered, there is an overall trend of increasing complexity.

---

That is to say, for at least the fifth time. The first organisms to appear are single celled prokaryotes, then single celled eukaryotes, then multicellular eukaryotes. That, as I have explained, is a general increase in complexity seen in the fossil record. I have already qualified that not much more complexity appears after the Cambrian.Why would the first organisms to appear be the simplest, followed by successive increases? Let's recap; the first bacteria appear circa 3 bya, the eukaryotes appear circa 1.5 bya, then multicellular life appears 0.5 to 0.9 bya. Seems like a general increase to me.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-09-2002][This message has been edited by mark24, 12-09-2002]

bump...

bump....------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ahmad,

quote:

---

Mark:I ask you to consider that potentially small populations of soft bodied organisms, that molecular evidence you have cited says exist, may not have fossilised in sufficient quantities & detail to be able to corroborate the existence of said molecular phylogeny (among others) beyond the Cambrian.

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
I should remind you that fossils of soft-bodied organisms are famously found in Cambrian Preservat-Lagerstatten such as the Burgess Shale and the Chengjiang locality in China. Fossil bacteria are reported from both Precambrian and Phanerozoic rocks. The fossil record is obviously incomplete, but there is no evidence it is so incomplete it would not preserve fossils of soft-bodied organisms for half their supposed geologic history!!

---

The oldest multicellular animals date from 900 mya, in general agreement with molecular data making your point moot.Fine & dandy! So the annelid worms that crept underneath the dinosaurs fossils are where? Where are the bacteria that caused their decay? Or could I be right, god forbid, as taphonomy suggests, that soft bodied organisms fossilise much less readily than hard bodied ones? This is a patently ridiculous claim often made by creationists, that soft bodied organisms fossilise as well as hard parts. Why are the VAST majority of vertebrates fossils known only by their bones, & often by only one or two of them!? Same goes for marine molluscs & brachiopods (shells)? The FACT remains that the conditions for soft bodied preservation is much more restrictive than for hard part preservation. Conditions must exist that are almost totally antiseptic at the time of death.

quote:

---

Why would depositional conditions favor preservation of bacteria in both Precambrian and Phanerozoic rocks, but soft-bodied multicellular organisms only in the Phanerozoic and uppermost Precambrian?

---

Soft bodied multicellular organisms only appear in the upper Precambrian because that’s when they lived, obviously. Bacteria can be found anywhere after their initial appearance, not just in Precambrian rocks.

quote:

---

Mark:
But I would be interested in where the fossils in 1/ to 6/ allegedly disappeared to?

---

quote:

---

Ahmad:
I haven't the slightest idea. Species appear and disappear abruptly, according to scientists and they show no "gradual evolution" but "the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another". Thats the sole problem of evolution. Where, indeed, are the missing fossils... the missing links?

---

But therein lies your problem, groups of organisms DO appear & disappear in the fossil record, only to appear again at a later date. Where did they go? Why did tens of millions of years pass without a single discovered example, yet the lineages clearly existed? Why would you expect to see anything but abrupt appearances when lineages can go this long without preservation? Wouldn’t it be the case, therefore, to expect transitional series to be extremely rare?

quote:

---

You have generalized it greatly. Only if you go into details of the trend, you might realize how incredibly random it is (like I have described in the case of the trilobites).

---

Have I? Can you show me examples of prokaryotes & eukaryotes decreasing in complexity, then? That is, for five sixths of the fossil record the only change in complexity is upward? For the remaining portion, where does evolution claim that complexity MUST increase & NEVER decrease? This is a creationist strawman.

quote:

---

Interesting but would you consider the remarkable similarities between bacteria billions of years old and present bacteria? Have they not undergone evolution of any sort?

---

Another creationist strawman, morphology MUST change over time. Says who? Who says they haven't evolved?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-31-2002]

bump.....------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Ahmad,

​

You say:

​

A: Where, indeed, are the missing fossils... the missing links?

​

PB: What missing fossils? Isn't it illogic to assume missing fossils, while nobody ever observed such fossils? How can something be missing that never was?

​

Best wishes,
Peter

​

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 01-07-2003]

---

That's right, Peter, Sphenodonts appear at the Tri/Jur boundary, become extinct for 50 million years ago, are re-created at the Ju/K boundary, become extinct for a further 146 million years, then, without warning are re-created again when Europeans described them again a few hundred years ago.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.