Does Chen's work pose a problem for ToE?

I have been of the opinion that evolution isn't just random mutation and natural selection for some time. Other factors are likely to be found, or explored, such as epigenetics. Early life may always remain a mystery, it may be that a mechanism that existed then no longer exists, or that fecundity and selection were very high. A mystery it may forever remain.The problem is, I've read this article before. I've not seen much else about it since it was written. It seems he is basically proposing 'Harmony' as another force in evolution. Have you any more information on this proposal? Does Chen have any evidence for his Harmony hypothesis?When I first read this article my reaction was

quote:

---

Had a look at the page. It quotes Eric Davidson as saying "Neo-Darwinism is dead," but I can't find the original quote. Note however, he didn't say the Theory of Evolution. And also note that this is suspiciously similar to something Gould said 25 years ago: “the neo-Darwinism synthesis is effectively dead, despite its continued presence as textbook orthodoxy.” (Stephen Jay Gould, Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? 6 Paleobiology 119, 119-20 (1980)

---

I would like to see what kind of mathematics have been done to demonstrate that the mechanisms we know of at this time are insufficient.As an aside, this topic has been addressed before, perhaps a read of Message 1 might be good for readers of this thread.

They are the biggest elements of evolutionary theory, and the easiest to describe. However, plenty of other mechanisms have been discussed on this board. I'm not au fait with them all, but things like horizontal transfer and epigenetics are among them as well as recombination. Not that I'm aware of. If such an argument was used, I imagine it was a simplification. I don't think the claim that microevolution is macroevolution holds particular water...I suspect that this argument is put forward as an illustration that the mechanisms are the same and there isn't a line between them.I don't know which EvC debate you've been reading but that is certainly not the extent of the evidence for macroevolution. I have two threads open that discuss in some way the evidence.

I don't think those mechanisms explain all of evolutionary change, no. I haven't a clue to be honest. However, see answer above. If ToE cannot explain the Cambrian explosion it is far from useless. That's like saying Newton laws of motion cannot explain near light speed physics so its useless, despite it getting us to the moon and back.I suspect you are under the impression that the ToE is only RM/NS. May I assure you that epigenetics, horizontal transfer etc are all part of it. I do suspect that there are more evolutionary mechanisms awaiting discovery and/or refinement, as do evolutionary biologists conducting research.

Rand was talking about phyla. Here is a list of the major phylaabe: I see rand previously said 'major life forms'. My mistake...and rand's.This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 24-February-2006 11:13 PM

quote:

---

The dearth of earlier
fossils made it impossible to test ideas
about what triggered the “explosion” or
even to say for sure whether it was real
or merely seemed so because earlier animals
left few detectable traces of themselves.
But research over the past half a
dozen years”including ours in Guizhou
Province”has changed the long-held
view, suggesting that complex animals
arose at least 50 million years earlier
than the Cambrian explosion.

---

and

quote:

---

Yet as Charles Marshall of Harvard
University has argued and as our fi ndings support, the genetic
tool kit and pattern-forming mechanisms characteristic of
bilaterians had likely evolved by the time of the Cambrian
explosion. Thus, the “explosion” of animal types was more
accurately the exploitation of newly present conditions by
animals that had already evolved the genetic tools to take
advantage of these novel habitats rather than a fundamental
change in the genetic makeup of the animals.

---

So there we have it, it seems there was no explosion. It looks like it was already evolved organisms suddenly finding themselves in a niche that was to their advantage (by virtue of creating it for themselves) and so they became the dominant life forms. Kind of like a biological feedback effect in a way.Very interesting stuff, thanks jar.

But work subsequent to the OP falsifies that. They previously thought that the evolution of these organisms started at x years, and the diversity was seen at x + 2 million years. Thus the compression. However, the evolution of these organisms started that at x - 50 million years. So the diversity of life came about not in 2 million years but instead 52 million years. No compression at all. Sure. Which piece of work? Their earlier work (from the OP), or the work that that superceded it (brought up by jar)? I've addressed both, so tell me which one you mean, and we'll talk about it.This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 25-February-2006 06:18 PM

I don't see that. I see the problem being the time scale. The earlier work compressed it, the later expanded it (effectively shifting it to an earlier date). Because it means that the diversity had longer than 3 million years to happen within. I caught some of their opinions on the matter. I don't see anything about the same kind of fossil rarity that you have been claiming. It seems that if you look hard enough you actually find the Cambrian explosion wasn't an explosion, but an exploitation by already existing organisms. As I said earlier in this thread...their statements are very old, and they are only referenced in only one source, a newspaper article. I asked you if you had any more up to date statements made by them, it would be helpful to get more context and depth to what they are actually saying.All I know right now is that Dr Chen is proposing another mechanism on top of what we already have, something referred to as 'harmony'. I don't know if he still holds to that view, and I don't know if there has been any work on the hypothesis since. Do you have anything?

---

I've found some more recent information (2004) and This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 25-February-2006 07:50 PM

I'm not missing that at all. These complex organisms have been found in layers 600 million years old, so the time scale isn't compressed. Interestingly the molecular evidence predicted this. Allow me to quote from jar's article: So, it goes like this,
We have things such as Vernanimalcula showing up 600 million years ago, 555 million years ago we get Kimberella and then 542 million years ago we find Anomalocaris. This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 25-February-2006 09:28 PM

Not at all. It means that there is 60 million years of evolution between early bilaterian life and the Cambrian period. We do not have a good fossil record of life before this (due to the rarity of the rock type required), so we do not know how much evolution happened between the start of life and the start of bilaterian life. We still have three billion years of evolution unaccounted for.If you'd like to explain why it is worse for the evo argument, might I suggest presenting your argument.

Nothing is definitive, that applies double at the area we are looking at. Why should we see massive numbers? The rock type we need to look in is very rare...only a few dozen exist, and I found only two that cover the area we are discussing. Asia is a massive continent. The people we are discussing are Chinese. I'm not sure we can say easily that the Chinese are more open minded or not. I've said before, I'm entirely open to their being other mechanisms involved in evolution.

The article you linked to was once again out of date. It is dated July 24, 2000. Chen and Li were disappointed, but 4 years later they found them. Which is what they found 4 years later...so does this logically unrebut Westerner wisdom? As arrogant as Walossek comes off in this quote, it turns out he has a point. The bilaterals were there.Just thought I'd throw that out there in case anybody was taken in by the article. For the lurkers: A better article, a more up to date article, can be found in the article jar referenced.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 27-February-2006 02:52 PM

As PaulK mentioned in Message 9 - science is conservative. I appreciate this can lead to a dogmatic appearance, and it would be nice to see a more liberal approach. However, the liberal approach is known for allowing pseudoscience to creep in, so I'm inclined to stick with the flaws of conservatism rather than the flaws of liberalism in the case of science.I like the fact that it takes a lot of work to change the minds of scientists, it gives me confidence that the theories they hold to have been rigorously examined and criticised before becoming 'dogma'. Before his 2004 discoveries Chen was proposing that the mechanisms we know of evolution were not enough (he proposed Harmony as another principle, but I never saw any details about what this actually is). He was basing this conclusion on an absense of evidence. Other scientists were rightly skeptical. A few years down the line and Chen's absence of evidence seemed to vanish.I am also unwilling to make hasty generalizations about 1.3 billion people based on a sample size of less than a dozen hand picked by an intelligent design journalist.abe: oh! And enjoy your vacation!This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 27-February-2006 06:21 PM