Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

I have found another list that I am willing to discuss. I believe that this list more accurately defines some of the specific inclusions that are being proposed for the textbooks.One problem that I have is that since I am the only creationist being opposed by numerous others it is easy for me to be overwhelmed on this thread. I have not researched the “weaknesses” on this list so I am not adequately prepared to give a defense from the creationist or ID viewpoint. I am willing to discuss each of them, and attempt to do research as I go along. I believe there could be some benefit from the dialogue. However, it appears from the comments of others that if I am not able to defend something personally then I should not post it. I really do not know what is appropriate on these types of forums. Maybe you can give me some advice as to what I should do.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Well I finally found what you guys wanted, maybe. This comes straight from the "strengths and weaknesses" website from what appears to be an unlinked page. I believe this is probably more along the line of what they are proposing for inclusion in textbooks. At least it may provide something for discussion. I have not researched each of these weaknesses as they are not orginating from me. However, I will try to provide whatever defense that I can put forward in those areas that I support.

---

Essential List of Scientific Weaknesses of Evolution TheoriesThe following weaknesses of evolution should be discussed at appropriate points in every text from the viewpoint of a skeptic as well as a proponent of current evolutionary theory.Origin of Life Weaknesses:

• The extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems.
• The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place.
• No known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems.
• All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules.
• Photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed!
• There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.

Fossil Record Weaknesses:

• The Cambrian explosion quickly produced all of the basically different body structures, and some of these have since become extinct. This is very different from the evolutionary tree of life, which suggests a slow and gradual increase in body structures.
• Many life forms persist through large expanses of geologic time with essentially no change. Evolution theory suggests that mutations occur randomly over time and are selected to produce continuing change as the environment continually changes.
• Most major proposed transitional forms are problematic and controversial. Rarely does the whole organism fit into the proposed developmental path. For example, birds are often said to have transitioned from reptile- hipped dinosaurs like Velociraptor. But these have a different kind of hip structure than birds. Birds have the same kind of hip structure as the dinosaurs like stegosaurus and the horned dinosaurs.

Presently Observed Nature Weaknesses:

• Selective breeding has produced only very limited change with no new structures occurring over thousands of years and multitudes of generations of selection. This clearly demonstrates that there are natural limits to biological change. Examples: dogs, cattle, pigeons ...
• Induced mutations followed by selection in laboratory experiments have not produced any beneficial structural changes.
• Most all mutations are detrimental, a few are neutral, and extremely few if any are clearly beneficial.
• Small changes resulting from natural selection are observed, but are not observed to accumulate to produce structural changes.
• It is extremely difficult for scientists to propose in detail how the structural or biochemical systems of life could change from a more simple form that was functional.

General practice to avoid misunderstanding:

• When fossils are illustrated, the illustration should indicate which parts of the skeleton are actually present in the fossil material and which parts are inferred. This may be done for example by color, shading, or outline weight.
• Fossil abundance versus geologic period diagrams should be shown for all life forms discussed in the text or presented in tree of life or cladogram interpretations. One large diagram might be presented at an early point in the discussion of fossils. Where little intact fossil material is known, fine lines or dotted lines should be used to indicate inferred or hypothesized connections or relationships.
• If evolution is compared to the change over time of the product of any human endeavor, then the role of intelligence and purpose in that human endeavor must also be clearly recognized and discussed.

---

Here is a link to the original copy of this list. It was on the “strengths and weaknesses” website. I found no link on the website homepage that led into this webpage (Maybe I missed it, there are a lot of links)? That is why I could not find it earlier.Scientific Weaknesses of Evolution

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I disagree with this statement but I believe the discussion would be off topic for this thread. If you want to start another thread to discuss the assumptions of the theory of evolution, I would be happy to do that.By the way, I have posted another list for you to review.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I have posted another list that may more accurately portray what they are proposing to include in textbooks. See msg 78.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Hi Beagle Bob,I appreciate your input into this discussion. The question we are discussing is whether textbooks need to include the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. We may get along well since you do not like spaghetti logic (neither do I), and you seem to have started out where I would have chosen (at the beginning).Since there are four different areas that are included on the list of weaknesses that I posted, and abiogenesis is the first of those on that list, I will begin there. It would seem to be beneficial to deal with each of these four categories of weaknesses separately. I believe it would be easier on me to make a determination about each category before moving on to the next one. Otherwise, I will be chasing all over the place and that will make me irritable. So for those of you reading this, let us limit our discussion (at least with me) to abiogenesis until we make a determination on this area before moving on to the fossil record. The question that we must ask is: should the origin of life that is being taught to students in biology textbooks include anything about the "weaknesses" related to the science surrounding this area (abiogenesis)? I am not sure that all of these textbook authors understand that abiogenesis is not part of evolution. It seems that those on this website want to move abiogenesis as far away from biological evolution as they possibly can. I have seen discussions on other forums where the word evolution has been discussed. It obviously has a broad meaning and a narrow meaning. The broad meaning would include abiogenesis while the narrow meaning would only include biological evolution. It seems that textbook writers (in the textbooks I am looking at) include abiogenesis as part of the section that teaches evolution. In fact abiogenesis (chemical evolution) fits right into the theory of evolution. You must have life for anything to evolve, and evolution does not begin with complex organisms but with these simple single cell organisms. I have two college level textbooks that teach abiogenesis in two different ways but both are considered under the topic headings of evolution.

---

Here is an example of how one college textbook organizes their book. “Life: the Science of Biology” by Purves, Sadava, Orians, Heller:Chapter 1 - An Evolutionary Framework for Biology

• Organisms have changed over billions of years - 1
• Evolutionary milestones - 3
• Life arises from non life - 3
• Cells form from molecules - 4
• Photosynthesis changes earth’s environment - 4
• Sex enhances adaptation - 4
• Eukaryotes are cells within cells - 4

In this book they consider abiogenesis as a Milestone in the evolution of life. They go on to discuss the origin of life in more detail under a section entitled evolutionary processes near the middle of the textbook. At the beginning of this textbook they seem to treat abiogenesis as an accepted scientific theory rather than an unproven hypothesis. You have to read into much detail to find anything that would contradict this original statement in the book.

---

Let us look at another textbook that I have. It is called “Inquiry into Life” by Sylvia Mader. Here is how they organize the teaching of origins in this college textbook.Evolution of Life - 539

• Evidence of Evolution - 540
• Origin of Life - 546
• Process of Evolution - 549
• Speciation - 557
• Classification - 560

Once again we have the origin of life right in the middle of the introductory chapter on evolution. This is a Biology textbook and they do not begin to discuss abiogenesis or the origin of life until they begin to discuss evolution after 540 pages have gone by in this book.I think that we can see that abiogenesis is being taught as part of evolutionary theory in these textbooks.Here are some comments about abiogenesis in this textbook:

quote:

---

The origin of the first cell is an event of low probability, but this length of time is long enough for an event of low probability to have occurred.

---

quote:

---

Today we do not believe that life arises spontaneously from nonlife and we say that “life only comes from life.” But the very first living thing had to have come from nonliving chemicals.

---

quote:

---

Under the conditions of the primitive earth, it is possible that a primitive evolution produced the first cell(s).

---

quote:

---

Researchers point out that because nucleic acid is a very complicated molecule the likelihood that RNA arose de novo on it’s own is minimal.

---

That seems a bit confusing and contradictory to me. At least this textbook does indicate that there are weaknesses with the theory of abiogenesis. They indicate a possibility of a chemical evolution that resulted in the first cells with an indication that this process is no longer taking place today. Then they go on to give a variety of hypothesis related to the origin of life (not theories but hypothesis). If living things could come from nonliving chemicals at one time, why can’t that happen today? How low of a probability is this event? They do not explain.Authors seem to include abiogenesis in the sections treating biological evolution as a form of chemical evolution. I think it is appropriate to deal with the subject of abiogenesis under this topic. It appears to me that it is a very low probable event

---

You are the expert in this field, so I will rely upon your input. Is it not true that it is improbable that these proteins will fold in the proper shape and with the proper function without a specified amino acid sequence? Here is a quote that kind of describes this process in layman’s terms.

quote:

---

The sequence of nucleotides in a gene is translated by cells to produce a chain of amino acids, creating proteins”the order of amino acids in a protein corresponds to the order of nucleotides in the gene. This is known as the genetic code. The amino acids in a protein determine how it folds into a three-dimensional shape; this structure is, in turn, responsible for the protein's function. Proteins carry out almost all the functions needed for cells to live. A change to the DNA in a gene can change a protein's amino acids, changing its shape and function: this can have a dramatic effect in the cell and on the organism as a whole.

---

Genetics - WikipediaI have read other articles that indicate that the changes in the shape of the protein can render it so that it will not function? Changes in the amino acid sequence apparently change the shape. I do not want to have to spend years studying this subject like you evidently have. Is this part of science improbable enough that it should be taught in a way that allows students to understand that scientists really do not know exactly how this happened? Scientists seem to have different hypothesis that have never reached the stage of theory. The reason I ask this is because some of the textbooks I have seen teach abiogenesis as if it is a scientific fact with very little or no time spent discussing weaknesses whatsoever that I can see.

---

I see the headlines but I do not find any link to any published study. If I understand correctly, then the study by Breslow is to be forthcoming. It appeared to be a presentation of some sort to a group of scientists. The study where it was "discovered that certain frequencies of polarized light preferentially destroyed right-handed amino acids" actually took place about fifteen years ago, so it was not a recent discovery. Here is a link to that study:http://www.springerlink.com/content/n5283v6303l7k332/I believe that we have a few weaknesses in the hypothesis that was presented. It seems that Breslow is proposing that a meteorite with some of these amino acids on them passed through a circularly polarized light and landed on earth with a few more left handed amino acids then right handed ones, five to ten percent more if I am reading correctly. Then it appears that everything evaporated away in the primordial soup except the left handed amino acids. Then he makes a couple of interesting comments:

quote:

---

Breslow and Columbia chemistry grad student Mindy Levine found that these cosmic amino acids could transfer their chirality to simple amino acids in living things.

---

quote:

---

Eventually, the amino acid in excess became ubiquitous as it was used selectively by living organisms.

---

Do you not see the “weaknesses” in this hypothesis? Should we be teaching this as a scientific fact in our schools? What living organisms are we talking about here? As far as I know there were no living organisms at the time life was to have originated. That is why there is a need for this hypothesis.Then we have this statement from the article:

quote:

---

The steps afterward that led towards the genesis of life are shrouded in mystery.

---

Now I want to ask you honestly. If we are going to teach children that this is a scientific fact, don’t you think we ought to point out that there are a few “weaknesses” in the hypothesis?

---

Since you are a geneticist, let us assume that the information they are talking about is genetic information.There have been different suggestions about the minimum number of genes that would be necessary to sustain life. In one article I find it clearly stated that this number is 256.

quote:

---

We suggest that the remaining 256 genes are close to the minimal gene set that is necessary and sufficient to sustain the existence of a modern-type cell.

---

Just a moment...However, the truth in science seems to be a moving target, so this may have changed. I once again do not have time to read every scientific article to determine what the present scientific truth may be. I am sure that students in high school also do not have this time available.Here is another quote that I ran across:

quote:

---

After a cross-kingdom comparison of 21 bacterial, 4 archea, and 1 eukaryote genome, only 80 genes (instead of 256) are universally present. Koonin (77) wrote: “It seems that a more general and hence more robust idea is a minimal set of functional niches, most of which can be filled by proteins that belong to two or more distinct families of orthologs. A conserved core of functions with a single, ubiquitous solution certainly exists.” We believe that the minimal cell model could reveal this last solution.

---

Has the minimal number of genes to sustain life changed from 256 to 80? Is this a theory or a hypothesis? I do not know. It did not seem from the article that I read that they have proven the 80 figure. Regardless, these genes could be the information that they are talking about. If my reading is correct then every one of these genes is typically 1000 or more base pairs long with spaces in between. You can tell us more about this, but I believe that these spiral and all of them appear to need to spiral in the same direction. I am sure that you can give some idea of how likely that this amount of information could be generated by natural random processes. All of this does not even take into consideration the type of protein that is being generated. It may be that the “strengths and weaknesses” people are proposing that if you are going to teach this as a scientific fact then you need to explain how difficult or near impossible it is for this to have occurred.(Here I repeat the quote included above about the minimal possibility that RNA could have arose on its own.)

quote:

---

Researchers point out that because nucleic acid is a very complicated molecule the likelihood that RNA arose de novo on it’s own is minimal.

---

---

In Conclusion:It appears to me that biology textbooks are teaching that abiogenesis is a scientific part of the evolutionary process. In truth, it appears to be at the hypothesis stage with many competing studies going on at the present time. It also appears to me from these college level textbooks that there are many "weaknesses" in these different ideas about abiogenesis. It is a very low probable event that can only seem to be justified by breaking it down into very, very simple processes and then assuming that they had lots and lots of time for these random processes to generate a living cell. We never see this happening in the real world today, and science is all about reality. It seems to me that this is one area of science that the “strengths and weaknesses” people have justifiable reason to request that the "weaknesses" of the hypotheses of abiogenesis be included in the textbooks, if the hypotheses are going to be taught. We should make it clear to children that science does not know how life originated. They are studying, and maybe someday they could reach a conclusion that would be accepted by the scientific community. Let’s teach our children the truth about abiogenesis.If we can get a consensus from those involved in this discussion that there are “weaknesses” with the different hypothesis of abiogenesis, and that these “weaknesses” should be taught along with the different hypotheses for abiogenesis in high school textbooks then I believe we can move to the next “weakness” that was posted regarding the fossil record.If you would like a reply, then please respond directly to this post.Edited by Wumpini, : grammar

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

It seems as though half of the posts that I have made on this website have been attempts to define words.Now we have the question, what is the definition of a “weakness?”I do not know how the “strengths and weaknesses” people would define this word. I have looked on their website for a definition and did not find one listed. So, I will attempt to provide a definition.Weakness:Any information or evidence regarding a hypothesis or theory that could lead someone to reach a different conclusion about that hypothesis or theory if that information or evidence was known.Here are a few examples:Scientific evidence that directly contradicts a theory. (Actually if this is the case then the theory is falsified and should not be taught in the first place).Scientific evidence that could be correctly interpreted in more than one way that could falsify a theory if interpreted differently.Assumptions relating to unanswered questions that are used as a basis for a hypothesis or theory which if answered differently could falsify the hypothesis or theory. (i.e. Assumptions about the composition of the environment billions of years ago. Oxidizing vs Reducing).

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Hi Nosy Ned,I am only going to deal with your orgin of life arguments at the present time. We are dealing with what is included in high school biology textbooks. It may not fall under your definition of biology, but that does not keep authors of textbooks from including it as part of the study of evolution. See msg 95. The point of the matter is that the orgin of life is part of biology class, and is included in those textbooks. Could you show me some of this “good evidence?” Are you saying that this statement is obviously false because they used the word information?

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I have found a list where these folks have proposed that they want textbooks to include additional information related to these areas where they feel that science is weak. In other words, they want the students to know that scientists do not have all the answers. Now you seem to be telling me that I should focus my discussion on areas where there are no questions. Do you not see a little contradiction in that line of thought? I think that this is all that the “strengths and weaknesses” people are suggesting. They want students to know that abiogenesis is not a proven fact. However, look at the responses to my initial post. Those on this forum could have just as easily approached the subject as you have. They could have said there are many unanswered questions and it should not be taught as a fact. However, what they did is attempt to refute every unanswered question that the weakness people wanted students to be made aware of. This gives you an idea of the sentiment. There are those who want to teach this as fact. I have a college biology textbook in front of me that teaches abiogensis as a fact in the first chapter of this book. To find out that there are questions that are unanswered you have to dig into the rest of the book. Do you not feel I need to respond to those people who have already replied to me? I think we agree. These people explicitly say they are not promoting intelligent design or creationism. I know that you do not trust them. I know you think this is only an excuse to get creationism into the science classroom. However, students need to be taught when science has become well established and when it is in the developmental phase. You can make students aware of unanswered questions, and different alternatives without giving supernatural explanations. That is probably why they dislike the word weakness so much. It really does not matter what word is used if students are taught that there are areas where science does not have all of the answers. I really do not believe that. I think that creationists and ID people are holding other scientists accountable when they attempt to make assumptions that may be way out of line. How are creationists keeping science from progressing? Are you talking about stem cell research, the use of human embryos, or some other controversial moral type issues that are opposed by creationists?It was my plan to deal with the weaknesses in order. As soon as I get through the origin of life weaknesses then I will go on to the fossil record weaknesses. I will attempt to move it forward as quickly as I can. However, I believe it would be unfair not to deal with the complete list if possible.I have done what I was asked to do. I have come up with a list put forth by these people. There have been responses to this list. I was then confronted with the question of what is the definition of a weakness. I have provided a definition. I am now going to respond to those people regarding the origin of life weaknesses that have been presented. All we have to do to stop the debate in that area and move on to the fossil record is for those people to take the same position that you have. That the theories related to the origin of life have many unanswered questions, and it should not be taught as a scientific fact. Students should be made aware of these unanswered questions.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

They generally do not teach the science of meteorology in a high school biology class, or include that area of science in biology textbooks. See msg 95. And I think you would agree that all of those ways would be highly improbable. See msg 95. What conditions do you propose were in existence at this time when you believe these amino acid chains were formed? I believe that many of you are being turned away by the word weakness. Think of it like a criminal case. You can have a strong case or a weak case depending upon unanswered questions and the interpretation of evidence. The more unanswered questions that you have with a case, then the weaker your case would be. I think we agree. That is what needs to be taught to students in high school biology textbooks. How did life originate on earth? We don’t know, but scientists are examining different possibilities. If they want to examine those possibilities then that is fine. But, examine them with intellectual skeptism. I think we are in agreement then. If there are unanswered questions then give the students the entire picture. I guess that some think this is not happening. I do not know myself. It has been a long time since I was in a high school biology class. Most science teachers in the area of the country that I am from still do not teach any evolutionary theory, much less abiogenesis. I have researched this some, but I am not going to debate the issue here. Once again if everything is taught then I do not believe there is any problem. It seems to me that there is a lot of dispute in the scientific world as to actually what the atmosphere consisted of at the time that life was proposed to have originated. This opinion seems to have changed significantly in the past, and is continuing to change. We know that there was significant oxygen on the earth at that time bound up in the water and the rocks. There is also significant speculation that the atmosphere was actually oxidizing rather than reducing. There seems to be a lot of resistance to teaching this as an unknown. Is that an unanswered question or a scientific fact? Could you provide some of these numerous examples?It is getting late here. I will attempt to reply to the rest of your post later.Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

From the textbooks that I have examined, the origin of life does not seem to be separated from evolutionary biology. I am not sure that a high school student is going to understand that the chemical evolution related to abiogenesis, and the evolution of life after that process are entirely distinct. I am not sure if science even understands that yet. When did it progress from a chemical to a biological type of evolution? Can science draw the line? I am not sure that they can. This thread has nothing to do with God-did-it. That is my point exactly. There may have been, and there may not have been. If that is the case, then that is what we need to teach. I have been doing a lot of study about the primitive atmosphere and the implications of that atmosphere on different theories. It may prove to be an interesting topic for a different thread. There are a lot of factors that need to be considered including chemical weathering and photosynthesis, among others. As I said, I have been doing a lot of study on the primitive atmosphere so I am aware of some of the different research.You keep bringing up God. This has nothing to do with God. It has everything to do with teaching whether something is a scientific fact, or a hypothesis with many unanswered questions. I agree that abiogenesis and the biological “Theory of Evolution” are not dependent upon one another. I began this discussion with abiogenesis for two reasons. First, it was included on the website on the list of weaknesses for the “strengths and weaknesses” people. Second, it is included in high school biology textbooks, and taught in high school biology classes.I think that we are in agreement that abiogenesis should be taught in a way that students do not get the impression that scientists know more than they actually do. If the atmosphere was oxidizing the issue could be significant. I guess how much time you spend on it in class would depend upon how much time you spend on the hypothesis of abiogeneis. If you are going to propose that certain chemical reactions took place that led to life, then I believe you should inform the students of the type of atmosphere that would be necessary for those reactions to take place. In other words, teach the students about the weakness of the hypothesis.If you are going to teach that the origin of life is an area of science with many unanswered questions, and different hypothesis have been suggested for this process, and then you do not go into any of the details. Then, I do not think you have to discuss any of these things we are calling weaknesses. If you teach the strengths then teach the weaknesses (unanswered questions). Obviously, it makes a difference to some folks, or we would not be having this discussion. There you go again bringing up God. We are talking about science not God.I agree that students should be made aware that we do not know everything. I think we are both in agreement that the origin of life is a very speculative area of science that should be taught in that fashion.Therefore, if it is agreeable with you, I will move on to your other comments regarding the fossil record. (Probably tomorrow because it is past midnight here).

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Who made the decision that we were talking only about evolutionary biology? We are discussing what is to be included in biology textbooks. I have presented a list with four areas of weaknesses or unanswered questions that a group of people are suggesting should be presented to students in biology textbooks so that they will have a better understanding of the current state of knowledge that is present in these areas of science. The first area we have been discussing is the proposed chemical evolution that resulted in the origin of life. The next three areas will all deal with the biological evolution of existing life forms. Actually, you and others on this website have proven to me that there is a need for these people (zealots as you call them) to speak up. If there are teachers in the classroom that have a desire to give one sided views of these scientific theories such as I have seen given on this website then the only way we can be sure that students are presented with the entire picture is to make certain that biology textbooks present these theories clearly and fairly.You and others on this website are helping the case for these “weaknesses” people by proclaiming that science has answers where they do not, and by proclaiming that alternative theories are “contrary to fact” when the evidence supports those alternative theories also. Sometimes the evidence could support the alternative theory better than the one presently accepted by the scientific community.I agree with you that textbooks need to be improved. It is not a waste of time to engage in discussion in an attempt to achieve that goal. The well rounded education of our children could depend upon this exchange of ideas. If someone holds an alternative scientific view that is also supported by the evidence then that should not be considered nonsense. In the end, that may turn out to be the correct understanding. We have not begun our discussion of evolutionary biology. Our discussion to this point of the current list has been limited to abiogenesis. We can see that there are many unanswered questions in that field of science. I believe we will find many unanswered questions in the field of biological evolution also. The strength of a case does not rest solely upon how many questions are answered. Many times only a few unanswered questions can weaken a case substantially. It is my opinion that rather than getting into a detailed debate about what constitutes information at this time, it would be more beneficial to move on to the fossil evidence. In msg 95, I have given a short explanation of what is possibly meant by information. If we want to discuss that topic further it may be beneficial to start a new thread.I think that we are in agreement that the field of abiogenesis is an area of science where there are many unanswered questions. I also believe that we are in agreement that students should be made aware of the “strengths and weaknesses” of these various hypotheses. Since we cannot insure that the classroom instruction would include the full picture, we need to be sure that both sides are presented in the biology textbook.If we are in agreement, and you are ready to move forward, then I will begin to respond to the three fossil record weaknesses that were listed. There are seventeen items on this list of weaknesses (unanswered questions), and I do not want to attempt to debate all of them simultaneously. I feel it is better to deal with them in four smaller groups.Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

My time is at a premium today, so I am going to limit this post to the Cambrian explosion. I believe there will be enough detail to keep us occupied for a while. It also may be that this is another area that would definitely need a separate thread to discuss adequately.Let us remember that the point of this thread is to make a determination as to whether there is merit to these statements made by the “weaknesses” folks that may require additional information to be included in high school biology textbooks.The first weakness that is listed in the fossil record is:

quote:

---

The Cambrian explosion quickly produced all of the basically different body structures, and some of these have since become extinct. This is very different from the evolutionary tree of life, which suggests a slow and gradual increase in body structures.

---

This quote can be found at Message 78 or This linkBased upon my research, this is a statement of fact supported by the fossil record. Let us look at the responses by some on this forum.

---

The question is not simply how quickly this explosion took place, but whether the appearances of all of these different multi-cellular body structures at this one point in “geological time” accurately depicts the traditional “tree of life” that is presented in high school biology textbooks. That is what these "weaknesses" people are saying. The fossil evidence is not sufficiently explained by the traditional “tree of life.”Let us first look at your concept of time though. This appears to be where you are getting your number. It would really help me if you guys would provide more sources to where you get your information.

quote:

---

Then, apparently very suddenly, starting at the beginning of the Tommotian Age (~530 Ma), almost all of the animal phyla known today appear in the fossil reocrd in rapid succession.

---

quote:

---

This abrupt appearance of a diverse and highly derived fauna in the brief Tommotian and Atdabanian Ages of the Early Cambrian is widely known as the 'Cambrian Explosion.'

---

quote:

---

A span of 40 million years embraces the appearance of the first small, simple shells that may have been secreted by metazoans and the subsequent exuberant diversity of Chengjiang and the Burgess Shale. This is not so short a time for an evolutionary ”explosion.’ However, the proliferation of animals with well-differentiated hard parts characteristic of specific metazoan phyla was largely restricted to the last 15 million years of this interval" (Thomas et al. 2000, p. 1239).

---

Cambrian ExplosionThis article uses the words “abrupt appearance” and “very suddenly” so I think the term "quickly" would accurately represent what has taken place in this period called the Cambrian explosion. We also see that even though there is some fossil evidence spanning over 40 million years, the phyla we are talking about is restricted to a much shorter period of 15 million years. I would also question how they came up with these dates. One article comments on how difficult it is to work out the chronology of this time period.

quote:

---

Difficulty of dating the Cambrian

​

It has been difficult to work out the chronology of the early Cambrian. . Therefore dates or descriptions of sequences of events should be regarded with caution until better data become available.

---

Cambrian explosion - WikipediaAnother study indicates that the time period of the explosion could have been as short as 1 million years.

quote:

---

The researchers say their dates for the start of the explosion appear to be accurate to within less than a million years either way. But in combination with other researchers' dates for the conclusion, the dates allow for the possibility that it may have been longer or shorter than five million years. Dr. Bowring said that it could conceivably have been as short as 1 million or as long as 12 million years.

---

Link to ArticleAnother source indicates that the period lasted no more than 5 million years, and I saw that number repeatedly during my research. Therefore, a time period of 1 million to 5 million years would probably be acceptable for this sudden appearance. The maximum period of time would not be conceivably greater than 12 million years. In any case, it happened "quickly" and "suddenly" just as the statement indicates when looked at from the standpoint of geological time.

---

The statement does not hide anything. It is much more scientifically accurate than these critical statements. Do we really want our children to understand the complexity of multi-cellular life? Do wormy things and buggy things give a good description of what we are talking about? It seems to me that some are discounting the importance of the extensive breadth of the fossil record that came into being at this time because they do not want others to question any theory that has been accepted by the scientific community.The “weaknesses” people said:

quote:

---

produced all of the basically different body structures

---

And, the critics say that we got from wormy things to buggy things and then to wormy things with legs. Do you not see why these people want this information in the textbooks? This is a big deal to many people! They want to make sure that we understand what we are seeing in the fossil record. They are concerned that the facts of the fossil record will not be taught in the classroom. Your comments confirm that there are those who do not want to teach the scientific facts regarding the fossil record related to the Cambrian explosion. First, you maximize the dates and now you minimize the change. Let us look at what scientists say about this explosion.The quote above tells us what exploded:

quote:

---

Then, apparently very suddenly, starting at the beginning of the Tommotian Age (~530 Ma), almost all of the animal phyla known today appear in the fossil record in rapid succession.

---

Almost all of the animal phyla known today appear in the fossil record in “rapid succession.”What do we mean by phyla?

quote:

---

Phyla represent the largest generally accepted groupings of animals and other living things with certain evolutionary traits, although the phyla themselves may sometimes be grouped into superphyla (e.g. Ecdysozoa with eight phyla, including arthropods and roundworms; and Deuterostomia with the echinoderms, chordates, hemichordates and xenoturbellae). Informally, phyla can be thought of as grouping animals based on general body plan;[1] this is morphological grouping. Thus despite the seemingly different external appearances of organisms, they are classified into phyla based on their internal organizations.

---

Phyla is a grouping of animals based on a general body plan. Once again the statement made by the “weaknesses” people is correct. During this period, basically all of the different body structures that are in existence today quickly came into the fossil record. That is the evidence that we have available to support the “theory of evolution” during this period of history. The question that we asked above is does this agree to the “tree of life” that is being used in biology textbooks to diagram the “theory of evolution.”What does the fossil record show?Here are some different diagrams. Let us see which one agrees to the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion.

---

WHAT THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT SHOW!

quote:

---

Phyletic gradualism

​

Through the continuously gradual transformation of species this model predicts that the increasing diversity of the lower taxa should precede the disparity of the higher taxa.

---

quote:

---

Punctuated Equilibrium

​

Under this model evolutionary change is confined to shorter time spans and small isolated populations in order to account for the lack of transitional forms among the lower taxa. Lower taxon-level punctuations, however, require numerous transitional steps to produce the disparity of the higher taxa. This model also predicts that the increasing diversity of the lower taxa should precede the disparity of the higher taxa.

---

The fact of the matter is that the fossil record does not support either the theory of “phyletic gradualism” or the theory of “punctuated equilibrium” during the period of the Cambrian explosion. It seems that all of these different phyla came into being without the common ancestor that we see in the traditional “tree of life.” This seems to be another significant unanswered question. How did this great disparity of life come into existence without any significant fossil evidence that supports the traditional “theory of evolution.”So what does the fossil record support?

---

WHAT THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES SHOW!

quote:

---

The Fossil Evidence: Disparity precedes diversity.

​

"We may acknowledge a central and surprising fact of life's history - marked decrease in disparity followed by an outstanding increase in diversity within the few surviving designs." -- Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life, 1989, p. 49.

---

quote:

---

The origin of the phyla: the fossil evidence

​

Contrary to both Darwinian gradualism and punctuated equilibria theory, the vast majority of phyla appear abruptly with low species diversity. The disparity of the higher taxa precedes the diversity of the lower taxa.

---

The fossil record shows that at the Cambrian explosion almost all of the phyla known today came into existence. Since that time some of these phyla have become extinct. This is in direct contrast to the traditional “tree of life” that is placed in biology textbooks to explain the “Theory of Evolution.” I believe that we need to teach high school students what the fossil record actually shows. We need them to understand that there could be alternative theories to explain this disparity of life that came into existence. This could lead to much work in this area to discover new scientific truths.Let us look at a contrast between the fossil record and Darwinian theory.

---

CONTRAST BETWEEN DARWINIAN THEORY AND THE FOSSIL RECORD.

quote:

---

Darwinian Theory vs. the Fossil Record

​

Darwinian theory attempts to explain the common ancestry of all species through the gradual transformation of major body plans. This theory is in opposition to the fossil evidence and the pervasive patterns of natural history.

​

An estimated 50 to 100 phyla appear explosively at the base of the Cambrian. Fossil evidence suggesting their common ancestry is not found in Precambrian rocks. A General Theory of Macrostasis is needed to explain the fossil data and the stability of the higher taxa.

---

All of these images along with the text can be found at this link: Evolution Images

---

These “weaknesses” folks are not asking anything to be put into the biology textbooks other than the truth. The fossil evidence supports their original statement. The fossil record of the Cambrian explosion does not seem to support the traditional “tree of life.” It is a fact that almost all of the phyla that exist today suddenly appeared into the fossil record over 500 million years ago. The real question is “what does this mean?” Science attempts to answer these questions from a naturalistic view. We need to help our children to understand the truth found in the fossil record. If we want science to move forward we must keep our minds open to alternative theories that can be used to explain the evidence if existing theories do not seem to be adequate in that regard.Here is a quote from Darwin:

quote:

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and such other facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which most justly excites our admiration. (Darwin, 1859, p. 3).

​

Darwin, C. R. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 1st edition, 1st issue. The Origin of Species online book

---

We need to be careful that we are being led by the evidence, and not by the theory.For now I am going to limit myself to this discussion about the Cambrian explosion. I feel there is enough detail in this post that I would muddy the waters if I moved on to the next point. I will be traveling again tomorrow so please allow me time to respond.Edited by Wumpini, : Add link to articleEdited by Wumpini, : Add and fix link for Darwin quote - Origin of SpeciesEdited by Wumpini, : Add link

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Hi Straggler, I think your conclusion may be a little narrow minded. What you need to realize is that most of the world that believes in God and creation are not affiliated with one of these groups. It seems the major focus of this website is upon a small group of scientists who are attempting (in your opinion) to introduce religion into the scientific method. Most of the people I know do not have those motives. I do not have that motive. We would like to reconcile science to our personal beliefs, but we have no desire to turn science into something other than a search for naturalistic truths.I would like scientists to carefully examine the evidence and interpret it correctly. I am not sure that is consistently taking place. I can definitely see that objectiveness seems to have been sacrificed on both sides because of this controversy. The purpose for my participation in this thread is not to develop a list of “weaknesses” that should be included in biology textbooks. My purpose is to help people open their eyes and understand the fact that scientists do not have all the answers in these fields of science, and that is the way it should be taught. There are many unanswered questions where children could devote the rest of their lives searching for these answers. However, that is not going to happen if we do not spark their interest in high school by allowing them to understand that there are alternatives to the theories and hypotheses that have been proposed. I have attempted to move the discussion from abiogenesis into evolutionary biology (Message 149), so I guess we will see.It is a win, win situation for me. I am only interested in the facts, and the truth.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I tried to go back and add any missing links. Please let me know if there is another source that you need. I wonder if the source you are looking for is the original quote that is being discussed.

quote:

---

The Cambrian explosion quickly produced all of the basically different body structures, and some of these have since become extinct. This is very different from the evolutionary tree of life, which suggests a slow and gradual increase in body structures.

---

Since the link was originally posted in message 78 and this quote is the basis for the current discussion, I did not repeat the link in message 149.Here is a link to the message and to the quote. Message 78Scientific Weaknesses of Evolution I agree completely! That is the purpose of this entire discussion. We want to insure that biology textbooks accurately teach what the fossil record reveals.Below, I deal briefly with the numerous theories that you have supplied to attempt to explain why the fossil record for the Cambrian explosion does not fit into the traditional “theory of evolution.” This is exactly what the "strengths and weaknesses" folks are trying to say.The fossil record of the Cambrian explosion is very different from the traditional evolutionary “tree of life.” If you look at the diagrams that I have supplied in Message 149, you will see that is exactly what they show. The evidence is not reliable until after the Cambrian explosion. However, that also means that the evidence is not available to support the various theories that you have presented to explain this explosion. I have come to understand that theories explain the facts or the evidence. Theories are not intended to supply the evidence when that evidence does not exist, or is not reliable. I completely agree. There are definitely holes in the fossil record.As you have stated above, “the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion does not fit evolutionary models.” The models of "phyletic gradualism" and "punctuated equilibrium" do not adequately explain the fossil record.That is the point that the “strengths and weaknesses” people are attempting to make in the quote above. I wish all scientists could see this as clearly as you do.Edited by Wumpini, : missing word

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

It seems that you are telling the wrong person to make up their mind. The “strengths and weaknesses” people say nothing about the Cambrian containing fish or mammals. They say that basically all of the different “body structures” or plans quickly came into the fossil record.It seems that other scientists agree with this statement.

quote:

---

With exceptions of two animal phyla, Porifera and Coelenterata, which made slightly earlier appearances, nearly all other extant animal phyla sprang into almost simultaneous existence within 6 to 10 million years. The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome was advanced to explain various evolutionary consequences of this Cambrian explosion.

---

The reason for as well as the consequence of the Cambrian explosion in animal evolution.

quote:

---

Looking at this Tree of Life, biologists realized that phyla are deep branches where at the very beginning of the branch ancestral organisms developed a fundamentally new and different body plan. They concluded that all the descendants of this ancestor, living and extinct, form a group that can be called a Phylum.

---

The Animal PhylaYou are entirely correct. Both the “phyletic gradualism” and the “punctuated equilibrium” trees should show these “deepest taxonomic divisions” coming into existence suddenly during the Cambrian explosion. The problem is that neither theory explains why these divisions come into existence in the first place. That is the point! It is a major unanswered question! It should be taught as such. Since you are contradicting me and my sources, I suggest that you provide the evidence showing this "common ancestry." You have given nothing in this post to indicate anyone is being bamboozled other than children and yourself. They are being taught as scientific fact something that lacks support in the fossil record. The fossil record does not support the traditional “tree of life.” If you believe that it does then provide the evidence.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce