|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont.. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
quote: 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: Once again, where is the POSITIVE evidence that supports your contention that IC is unevolvable?
quote: 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: quote: Like prokaryotes to eukaryotes to multicellular eukaryotes, you mean? All this is seen in order in the Precambrian.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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: 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 Inactive Member |
quote: I gave you the data with examples.
quote: The eamples I have provided previously serve as the evidence of the non-evolvablility of such systems. If you can show how they evolve, then fine and dandy with me. You're on denial no matter how many evidence is given..
quote: I gave you the evidence, that I consider as positive. It seems as though you're unwilling to accept it.
quote: Now is an argument from defintion, an unbacked assertion or an argument from incredulity? I even gave you examples of systems where all required componenets are needed for the system to function. They can't evolve thus since all their componenets need to be present from the very moment of their existence.
quote: Then where are the transitions??
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.
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. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
quote: Sure.. No problem.
quote: Alright.. then get back to my original contention. If evolution does not predict what I stated.. what exactly does it predict then? Lame question to ask but seems vital for our discussion. Now as I know.. it is the general increase in complexity. Is it not? But then how did the wide mosaic of living organisms that just "abruptly" appeared with no evolutionary history or no transitional links, take place? Whats more is that the organisms had novel body plans and highly complex anatomical design. The trilobite eye is just one of the examples. This occurence is very unlikely and contrary to the predictions of evolution. How does evolution explain it?
quote: Well first appearances for orders peak in the Cambrian and Ordovician, but are more broadly distributed. In contrast, first appearances of families, genera and species are relatively low in the Cambrian, and generally increase through the geologic column but they did exist in the cambrian. Now regarding the question of the number of creation events, its still not clear. We really don't know how many creation events took place but we do know the organisms were created. Two evidence is cited for this: 1. Abrupt appearance of almost all phylas, save bryozoans, in a geologically short period of time (~5-10 mya). 2. Organisms differing highly from one another (at the species level) in design and body plans but were indeed complex.
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. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
1/
quote: quote: LOL, what would you accept as a transitional eukaryote? A cell with half a mitochondria?
quote: 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: 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: 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 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 Inactive Member |
quote: Possibly...
quote: You don't seem to understand what I want to say. Consider this simple graph obtained from On the Origin of Stasis According to evolutionary theory, animals had ancestors from which they evolved. Is this explosion of life consistent with an evolutionist interpretation? If these animals, which include some very modern (complex) shelled creatures, sponges, and jawless fish, trilobites did have primitive evolutionary ancestors, where are they to be found in the fossil record? The answer is they aren’t anywhere to be found. Before the Cambrian Period, very few fossil having anything to do with modern phyla are found in the fossil record.
quote: What is the basis for saying there is "an overall trend of increasing complexity"? Now let me choose a group of animal and look attrends in the record. My favuorite example are the trilobites. I've drawn the following mainly from: Babin, C. 1980, "Elements of Palaeontology", John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. Numerous species of trilobites are found in Lower Cambrian rocks.They are well differentiated from other arthropods, resulting in problems for those who wish to trace an evolutionary ancestry. Babin says their ancestry is "obscure" (p.255). There are about 1500 genera of trilobites known, with a more orless consistent decline in number of genera from the Upper Cambrian to the Permian. From the Upper Ordovician, the number of genera was always less than that in the Lower Cambrian. Thus, there is no trend of increasing numbers of genera in the fossil record. Evolutionary trends have been analysesd as follows: (a) Paedomorphosis (where juvenile features become dominant inthe ontogenesis of descendants). (b) Gerontomorphosis (where adult features become dominant in the ontogenesis of descendants). Sometimes, these two trends coexist: for example, the paedomorphic tendency towards a reduction in the number of thoracic segments has been observed to coexist with the gerontomorphic tendency towards the enlargement of the rachis. Overall, there are no dominant trends and Babin writes that the data "still tends to be difficult to interpret" (p.262). Whatever these trends are, can they be interpreted in any way asan increase in complexity? Neither of the reported trends involves novel structures - only modifications of existing structures. Trilobite morphologies are, of course, very diverse. Cambrianfaunas are distinctive, although some of these forms are also found in Ordovician strata. A number of variants are found in the base of the Ordovician, but these are localised stratigraphically. The dominant Ordovician groups have a much broader range. Above the Ordovician, according to Nield and Tucker (1985), "there seems to have been little further development in the overall design of trilobites, with only minor variations on the basic themes stated in the early Ordovician" (p.26). The conclusion: in the context of trilobites, claims of increasingcomplexity in the fossil record appear to lack a solid foundation. quote: I don't want to think what evolution says but want to hear it from the horse's mouth. What exactly does evolution predict? Its very relevant and certainly not a strawman.
quote: Just like to respond to your previous question: "At what classification level was life made polyphyletic?" It's quite hard to be specific in this case. Especially when you're dealing with taxonomy. Since polyphyly implies that the genetic code had multiple independent origins, ascribing it to one classification level can hardly be in general. I'll add some more thoughts to this next time Insha Allah. Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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: Already answered:
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
Ahmad, as I see it the problem with IC's is something like this:
You can't prove that something does NOT exist within an infinite set of possibilities.The opposite is easy. To prove that something actually does exist, all that is needed is to present a example of it. In your case, Ahmad, you try to prove that there is no solution to a problem, when actually all you can prove is that YOU cant find a solution. (i.e you cant imagine a way for them to have evolved.Still you cannot dismiss that someone might have a more vivid imagination than you, and has thought of a way.) Its like claiming there can't exist any 3 legged animals, just because you haven't seen any. You can't prove there isn't.You can however easily prove that there are 4 legged animals. Has there been some matematical approches to this ic-problem? TechnoCore !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[xeno]Julios Inactive Member |
I'm new here, and I haven't carefully read the entire thread, but as technocore has indicated, there are some fundamental dynamics that seem to occur when having these discussions.
The evolutionist will always be able to provide "positive" evidence, by merely engaging in thought experiments using "natural" selection as a model. Perhaps this is indicative of the low level of falsifiability of the theory. Creationists on the other hand, who are open to the possibility that a guiding intelligence factors in, will never really be able to provide positive evidence. The only conceivable way I can think of to do so, would be to present proof of a designer. The evolutionist will be able to take any "evidence" of intelligent oversight, and ascribe the design to probability, and selective pressures, etc. Even in IC, there is always the final resort of postulating that the system arose against the odds... Thus, ultimately, the best a creationist can do (imo), is to provide NEGATIVE "evidence" to the contrary based on statistical improbabilities. This reflects a reasonable argument, rather that logical proof, and is mirrored by the nature of faith - i.e. it is reasonable to postulate the existence of God since it is reasonable to believe we have free will, and it is very hard to conceive how to explain free will without a divine component. I realize that not all proposed solutions of the origins and complexities of life are dichotomies of god vs nature, and I have been rather simplistic in the post, but only for sake of clarity. peace Marwan Julios, 12-14-2002
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
[xeno] Julios writes: The evolutionist will always be able to provide "positive" evidence, by merely engaging in thought experiments using "natural" selection as a model. Perhaps this is indicative of the low level of falsifiability of the theory. A thought experiment is not evidence. Anyone claiming that a hypothetical scenario is evidence in favor of evolution is incorrect. Such exercises are merely projections of an evolutionary framework onto a puzzle of natural history.
Thus, ultimately, the best a creationist can do (imo), is to provide NEGATIVE "evidence" to the contrary based on statistical improbabilities. The Creationist argument from unlikeLihood is most often raised in reference to abiogenesis, the origin of life. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this type of arguments, but it has to address the actual scenario proposed by evolutionists. For example, Creationists often state that the likelihood of a cell coming together spontaneously from constituent chemicals is 1 in 1^100. Evolutionists would agree and feel untroubled, since they propose no such scenario. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[xeno]Julios Inactive Member |
quote: Agreed - I should have put quotation marks around the word evidence.
quote: Right - I agree fully. My point was to pinpoint the fact that a creationist cannot provide positive evidence in the same way that evolutionists can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bump...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5220 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
bump....
------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
A nice posting has happened in Yahooland, at the "Evolution versus Creationism" group. The message is titled "The Cambrian "Explosion" in the real world. It is from Ray T. Perreault, responding to a JimG. The following is it, in it's entirety.
quote: Moose [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
Mark,
quote: 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. 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? 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!!
quote: 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?
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).
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? Regards,Ahmad
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024