Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

Hi BeagleBob, Your ecological hypothesis is only one of numerous alternative hypotheses. The Cambrian explosion appears to be an unanswered question at the present time.Here is what one scientist says about your ecological solution.

quote:

---

We do not know why the Cambrian explosion could establish all major anatomical designs so quickly. An "external" explanation based on ecology seems attractive: the Cambrian explosion represents an initial filling of the "ecological barrel" of niches for multicellular organisms, and any experiment found a space. The barrel has never emptied since; even the great mass extinctions left a few species in each principal role, and their occupation of ecological space forecloses opportunity for fundamental novelties. But an "internal" explanation based on genetics and development also seems necessary as a complement: the earliest multicellular animals may have maintained a flexibility for genetic change and embryological transformation that became greatly reduced as organisms "locked in" to a set of stable and successful designs.

​

The Evolution of Life on Earth

---

Do you notice what he says? "We do not know why ..." You may say that you know why, but other scientists say they do not know why. They are examining the same evidence (or lack of evidence) and trying to use the same arguments. Therefore, I conclude that this question is unanswered.I think we are in agreement Beagle. You have stated that "the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion doesn't fit evolutionary models." I agree. All I want is for high school students to be informed about what we have discussed on this forum. The only way we can be sure of that is to include this information in high school biology textbooks. We need to teach students the facts about the Cambrian explosion. The divisions appeared suddenly, the fossil record is not complete, and it does not fit into the current evolutionary model.How can we honestly teach evolutionary theory, and leave out this portion of evolutionary history?

---

"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

Dr Adequate,It seems that you are misunderstanding the point of the “strengths and weaknesses” people. The point is that the FOSSIL RECORD (evidence) does not exist to support traditional evolutionary models leading up to the Cambrian explosion. There is no evidence in the Fossil Record connecting multi-cellular life with single-celled life. There is no evidence in the Fossil record linking to this explosion of animal phyla. I do not believe there is any disagreement among scientists about these facts. Reading through your post, it seems that even you agree that the evidence does not exist in the Fossil Record.

---

Maybe our problem is a matter of wording.Let us look at the quote:

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.

---

I do not know if you are arguing against my sources, or if you are arguing against the wording. I do not want to get bogged down in a long discussion over which terms are correct to describe what happened. Let us see if we can agree on wording.

---

Do you have a problem with the use of “basic body structure” verses “general body plan?” Either term works for me. You pick one, and we will use it.Are you arguing against the use of the word all? I have no problem with the wording being “virtually all” or “essentially all” or “practically all” or something similar. This is the wording that I have seen in many of the scientific journals that I have been reading regarding this historical event.Can we come to an agreement on the use of terms?

---

Is it possible that you are trying to deny that the Cambrian explosion took place at all? If so then you are making this assumption based upon evidence that does not exist, and you are contradicting the majority of the scientific world.

---

The question is: should high school students be made aware of the evidence that exists or does not exist in the fossil record to support the theory of evolution as it relates to the Cambrian explosion? Do you not think we should teach students what exists and does not exist in the fossil record?I don’t believe that the “strengths and weaknesses” people are saying that science should not teach the different hypotheses regarding how this great disparity of life came into being. They are only saying that if you are going to teach that this fits into traditional evolutionary theory, then you need to teach that there is no evidence in the fossil record to support that statement.

---

"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 think we are in agreement that there are questions about the Fossil Record leading into the Cambrian explosion, and that this lack of fossil evidence should be discussed in biology textbooks along with the different theories of science attempting to explain this event.I am now going to present the second point under the fossil record “weaknesses” on the list for discussion.

quote:

---

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.

---

Message 78 or Scientific Weaknesses of Evolution

---

Let us look at the first half of the quote:

quote:

---

Many life forms persist through large expanses of geologic time with essentially no change.

---

I think everyone should agree with this statement. This is a fact of the fossil record.

---

Now let us look at the second half of the quote:

quote:

---

Evolution theory suggests that mutations occur randomly over time and are selected to produce continuing change as the environment continually changes.

---

I agree that this is a simplistic definition. However, I believe the point is that the traditional evolutionary model suggests gradual change over time that eventually leads to significant changes. The “strengths and weaknesses” people seem to be saying that this is not what we are always seeing in the Fossil Record. The Fossil Record is showing the passage of significant periods of time for some organisms with essentially no change. I believe that is why theories such as punctuated equilibrium have been proposed by some scientists. What scientists need to understand is that science itself is critiquing the “theory of evolution.” It is science itself that has noticed that certain organisms in the fossil record can go through significant periods of time with essentially no change. It is science itself that is trying to come up with explanations or theories that explain this fossil record. All the “strengths and weaknesses” people are asking is that the truth of the fossil record be put in high school biology textbooks. This includes the fact that the fossil record shows some organisms going through great expanses of geological time with essentially no change. Obviously the different theories to explain this fact of the fossil record would be included in the textbooks also.

---

"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