Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 6:23 PM
152 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Theodoric (5 members, 147 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,698 Year: 2,735/19,786 Month: 817/1,918 Week: 104/301 Day: 22/54 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 1 of 199 (24435)
11-26-2002 1:47 PM


Ahmad,

Regarding IC:

Iím claiming victory, as I said I would in the last post if you yet again failed to produce positive evidence to back up your claim.

I have asked & asked & asked for this positive evidence that IC cannot evolve. You have provided nothing of the kind. Your ďargumentĒ seems to be that I have to show otherwise, or youíre right. I donít, & youíre not. Itís your claim, Iím not making one. If you canít provide positive evidence to back that claim up, then you have an argument from incredulity, like I said all along.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=17&m=23#23 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=17&m=23#23">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=17&m=23#23
{Note from Adminnemooseus: The above link is to the "NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation" topic, which I recently closed. There was a nice discussion going on there, but it was rather badly off topic, and deserved a better home. Thus, Mark started this new topic. I thank him.}

This was the first mention of IC in this thread, & YOU claim it refutes evolution.

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

All subsequent discussion has been about asking you to back up that claim that IC canít evolve, & that IC does, in fact, refute evolution. If you canít show that IC canít evolve, you donít have an argument.

Read & reread this next paragraph until you understand it:

You have no positive evidence that IC systems cannot evolve. Therefore, the irreducible complexity argument is moot. A non-sequitur. Without positive evidence, you cannot make a positive assertion.

OK so far?

I have never claimed that IC systems evolved. There is only one person making a positive assertion regarding IC, & thatís you. If you think Iím making it up, take a look back through the posts & see if you can find me making an explicit claim that IC definately evolved (in context). Given that this is the case, that you are making a claim & I'm not, it is for you to back up said claim. You canít? Well, I'm sorry, Ahmad, you therefore have no argument.

You made a claim, & I didn't. I have NOTHING I have to back up, but you do.

Regarding the Cambrian explosion:

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

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

Mark

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

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-26-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 11-28-2002 5:55 PM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Ahmad, posted 11-30-2002 1:04 PM mark24 has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 199 (24836)
11-28-2002 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
11-26-2002 1:47 PM


bump
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 11-26-2002 1:47 PM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Nic Tamzek, posted 11-30-2002 2:50 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 199 (25050)
11-30-2002 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
11-26-2002 1:47 PM


quote:
Iím claiming victory, as I said I would in the last post if you yet again failed to produce positive evidence to back up your claim.

I have asked & asked & asked for this positive evidence that IC cannot evolve. You have provided nothing of the kind. Your ďargumentĒ seems to be that I have to show otherwise, or youíre right. I donít, & youíre not. Itís your claim, Iím not making one. If you canít provide positive evidence to back that claim up, then you have an argument from incredulity, like I said all along.


I am going to use the examples of IC as the positive evidence. There are many examples of irreducible complexity which be found here.

To pick one: Bacterial flagella.

Because the bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts -- a paddle,a rotor, and a motor -- it is irreducibly complex. Gradual evolution of the flagellum, like the cilium, therefore faces mammoth hurdles. (Darwin's black box, page 72)

Behe summarizes the structure of the bacterial flagellum in these terms:

Some bacteria boast a marvelous swimming device, the flagellum, which has no counterpart in more complex cells. In 1973 it was discovered that some bacteria swim by rotating their flagella. So the bacterial flagellum acts as a rotary propellor -- in contrast to the cilium, which acts more like an oar.

The structure of a flagellum is quite different from that of a cilium. The flagellum is a long, hairlike filament embedded in the cell membrane. The external filament consists of a single type of protein, called "flagellin." The flagellin filament is the paddle surface that contacts the the liquid during swimming. At the end of the flagellin filament near the surface of the cell, there is a bulge in the thickness of the flagellum. It is here that the filament attaches to the rotor drive. The attachment material is comprised of something called "hook protein." The filament of a bacterial flagellum, unlike a cilium, contains no motor protein; if it is broken off, the filament just floats stiffly in the water. Therefore the motor that rotates the filament-propellor must be located somewhere else. Experiments have demonstrated that it is located at the base of the flagellum, where electron microscopy shows several ring structures occur. The rotary nature of the flagellum has clear, unavoidable consequences ... (pp. 70-72)

Behe concludes that such irreducibly complex systems were ultimately the result of intelligent design. (It should be pointed out that Behe has no objections to the concept of universal common ancestry as he is not a creationist himself. His objections to evolution are limited to the rejection of the neo-Darwinian mechanism as a sufficient explanation for the origin of all biological systems.)

So there you have it. A positive evidence from the example of bacterial flagella and its apparent irreducible complexity. Ofcourse there are many... but this should suffice to serve as the positive evidence.

quote:
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.

As I said before, the abrupt appearance of almost all animal phyla, save the bryozoans, including some very weird and highly complex ones (trilobites, Ottoia etc which are now said to be extinct) in a geologically short period of time (~5-10 million years) poses a surmountable amount of problems for the ToE to explain. In fact, investigations done in the Yunnan province now reduces the period of time taken for the appearance of organisms to 2 YEARS!! I would call them mammoth hurdles for evolution to explain and give a descriptive valid evidence for the occurence of evolution in the cambrian era.

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

I have several times outlined my own assertion and explanation for the cambrian explosion. Cambrian explosion is strong evidence for creation. Creation theory offers reasonable explanations for both the Cambrian Explosion and the origin and ubiquity of the genetic code that evolution can't. The taxonomic diversity seen in the Cambrian Explosion may be simply the result of preservation of various communities of marine organisms living on or near the floor of the sea. The basis for the association of the fossils is ecological rather than genealogical. The absence of ancestors in the underlying strata is not due to a faulty fossil record, but reflects separate origins of the various groups. This proposition applies whether one reads the fossil record as extended history or as complex catastrophe. Design may be the best explanation for the origin and ubiquity of the genetic code. Common design seems eminently reasonable as an explanation of similar features in organisms that appear genealogically unlinked. That is my opinion about it.

Regards,
Ahmad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 11-26-2002 1:47 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 11-30-2002 7:32 PM Ahmad has responded

  
Nic Tamzek
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 199 (25068)
11-30-2002 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by mark24
11-28-2002 5:55 PM


[QUOTE]In fact, investigations done in the Yunnan province now reduces the period of time taken for the appearance of organisms to 2 YEARS!! QUOTE

2 years? Really? That's pretty good resolution for radiometric dates...

nic

PS: Even if you meant 2 million years, as I expect, this is:

(a) not true and
(b) even if it were 2 million years, this is a gob-smacking lot of time

See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/default.htm#cambrian-explosion

...especially the links provided therein. E.g., paleontologist and evangelical Keith Miller:

quote:

There is much confusion in the popularized literature about the evidence for macroevolutionary change in the fossil record. Unfortunately, the discussion of evolution within the Christian community has been greatly influenced by inaccurate presentations of the fossil data and of the methods of classification. Widely read critiques of evolution, such as Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Denton, and Darwin on Trial by Johnson, contain serious misrepresentations of the available fossil evidence for macroevolutionary transitions and of the science of evolutionary paleontology. [...] The implication of much of the evangelical Christian commentary on macroevolution is that the major taxonomic groups of living things remain clearly distinct entities throughout their history, and were as morphologically distinct from each other at their first appearance as they are today. There is a clear interest in showing the history of life as discontinuous, and any suggestion of transition in the fossil record is met with great skepticism. The purpose of this short communication is to dispel some of these misconceptions about the nature and interpretation of the fossil record.

Link: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html



This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 11-28-2002 5:55 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 199 (25087)
11-30-2002 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Ahmad
11-30-2002 1:04 PM


Ahmad,

Thank you for your response.

Now, please read the original post again, & please try to answer the specific questions. I NEVER said that IC never existed, but I DO ask you to show it couldn't have evolved, however, in order for you to have an argument that goes beyond "I'm SURE pink fairies exist" type stuff, that is.

Please answer the second question, specificaly quoting the ToE's absolute refutation regarding the Cambrian explosion. "Evolution was a bit quick" isn't doing the business, mate.

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

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

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Ahmad, posted 11-30-2002 1:04 PM Ahmad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Ahmad, posted 12-01-2002 6:03 AM mark24 has responded

    
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 199 (25116)
12-01-2002 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by mark24
11-30-2002 7:32 PM


Mark, this may be my last post for the weekend, as I will be away for a while. So don't expect any immediate response

quote:
I NEVER said that IC never existed, but I DO ask you to show it couldn't have evolved, however, in order for you to have an argument that goes beyond "I'm SURE pink fairies exist" type stuff, that is.

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

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

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

Regards,
Ahmad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 11-30-2002 7:32 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 12-01-2002 7:42 AM Ahmad has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 7 of 199 (25119)
12-01-2002 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Ahmad
12-01-2002 6:03 AM


Ahmad,

quote:

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

NO!!! I repeat:

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

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

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

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

What I am asking is how the Cambrian explosion is relevant to your own world view? Do you maintain that animals were created at the phyla level (possibly with a ďmultipurpose genomeĒ that allows new structures to evolve because the information was created in the genome with evolution in mind), & subsequently evolved into the various extant orders & classes, or; were species created as is, or; were families the basic unit of creation? If none of the above, then what?

This question is really for clarification. Since most metazoan phyla appeared in the Cambrian, but (Iím guessing) no extant families appear in the Cambrian. How do you rationalise that? If the Cambrian explosion represents an act of creation, why do the sub-taxa appear later in the fossil record?

Thanks,

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Ahmad, posted 12-01-2002 6:03 AM Ahmad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Ahmad, posted 12-01-2002 11:46 AM mark24 has responded

    
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 199 (25140)
12-01-2002 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mark24
12-01-2002 7:42 AM


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

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

"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.

Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned."

Now thats the basic definition backed up by the biological examples that are IC, as I have shown in previous post. If you disagree, don't just dismiss it by saying its an argument from incredulity but point it out to me exactly where the incredulity lies. By definition, as well as by numerous biological examples... its evident that any system that is IC (aka Behe's definition) could not have evolved by the serial direct darwinian evolution. If you disagree, provide YOUR argument or pick faults from mine and I will respond. I have done my part.

quote:
What I am asking is how the Cambrian explosion is relevant to your own world view? Do you maintain that animals were created at the phyla level (possibly with a ďmultipurpose genomeĒ that allows new structures to evolve because the information was created in the genome with evolution in mind), & subsequently evolved into the various extant orders & classes, or; were species created as is, or; were families the basic unit of creation? If none of the above, then what?

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

Perhaps polyphyly is an idea that deserves greater consideration by the scientific community. The idea has been mentioned a few times as I remember, but does not seem to have been seriously discussed within the mainstream scientific community.

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

quote:
This question is really for clarification. Since most metazoan phyla appeared in the Cambrian, but (Iím guessing) no extant families appear in the Cambrian. How do you rationalise that? If the Cambrian explosion represents an act of creation, why do the sub-taxa appear later in the fossil record?

Now remember, it is not quantity that made their appearances thats significant (although there is a high quantity too) but the quality of the organisms taking in account the widely varying anatomical designs, or novel body plans. When almost all the animal phylas made their appearance at that time, save bryozoans, why is it that you ask for the sub-taxas? Is there a "Law of creation" that you know of that states that God should create all living organisms at the same time? He gave rise to the phylas... family, genera, and species took their toll, may be sometime later. But how does that invalidate my claim? This what my actual argument against evolution and for creation really is: How is it that evolution predicts the gradual step-by-step cumulative progression of complexity in organisms while the cambrian explosion turns out to be diametrically the opposite? The wide mosaic variety of living organisms (that comprised almost all the animal phylas) with an equally highly complex anatomical design of the novel body plans, made their appearance more than 500 years during an explosion that lasted only ~5-10 million years. What alternative does evolution suggest to explain this explosion? Furthermore, some Chinese scientists even believe that time period for the cambrian explosion is more like 2-3 million years (Chinese National Geography 467 Sept 1999)!! Believe it or not, but this big bang has really blown the socks of evolution and I reckon they will have one hell of a time justifying this explosion and hanging on to their flimsy thread of materialism

Regards,
Ahmad

[This message has been edited by Ahmad, 12-01-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 12-01-2002 7:42 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by edge, posted 12-01-2002 1:24 PM Ahmad has not yet responded
 Message 10 by nator, posted 12-01-2002 4:01 PM Ahmad has not yet responded
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 12-01-2002 8:10 PM Ahmad has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 9 of 199 (25143)
12-01-2002 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Ahmad
12-01-2002 11:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:
Now remember, it is not quantity that made their appearances thats significant (although there is a high quantity too) but the quality of the organisms taking in account the widely varying anatomical designs, or novel body plans. When almost all the animal phylas made their appearance at that time, save bryozoans, why is it that you ask for the sub-taxas?

We ask because most creationists place the formation of all life in a 6-day period. That surelly doesn't give much time for speciation.

quote:
Is there a "Law of creation" that you know of that states that God should create all living organisms at the same time?

Actually, there is. Or are you going extra-biblical on us?

quote:
He gave rise to the phylas... family, genera, and species took their toll, may be sometime later.

Why? Why did an omnipotent creator have to wait for days or weeks or decades?

quote:
But how does that invalidate my claim?

Because the Cambrian Period is 50 million years long! Whe not even one mammal fossil? Or even a single shark tooth?

quote:
This what my actual argument against evolution and for creation really is: How is it that evolution predicts the gradual step-by-step cumulative progression of complexity in organisms while the cambrian explosion turns out to be diametrically the opposite?

And the actual argument we make is: 'Why don't you discuss modern evolutionary theory?' You go ahead and whack that strawman all you want, it really has nothing to do with what any of us here believe.

quote:
The wide mosaic variety of living organisms (that comprised almost all the animal phylas) with an equally highly complex anatomical design of the novel body plans, made their appearance more than 500 years during an explosion that lasted only ~5-10 million years.

500 years? Where the heck do you get that number? Moreover, where do you get the 5 to 10 million year number?

And you really call 5-10 million years an explosion? LOL!

quote:
What alternative does evolution suggest to explain this explosion?

You have been given an explanation several times. I am not going to repeat it here.

quote:
Furthermore, some Chinese scientists even believe that time period for the cambrian explosion is more like 2-3 million years (Chinese National Geography 467 Sept 1999)!!

This is not really supportable by any evidence.

quote:
Believe it or not, but this big bang has really blown the socks of evolution and I reckon they will have one hell of a time justifying this explosion and hanging on to their flimsy thread of materialism.

Not at all. Have you ever heard of PE?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Ahmad, posted 12-01-2002 11:46 AM Ahmad has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 199 (25151)
12-01-2002 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Ahmad
12-01-2002 11:46 AM


quote:
Believe it or not, but this big bang has really blown the socks of evolution and I reckon they will have one hell of a time justifying this explosion and hanging on to their flimsy thread of materialism


My goodness, when will we see all of this amazing scientific information published in the scientific journals, then?

Considering that we have known about the Cabrian "explosion", or "slow burn" as it is more accurately called, for decades, and so far the ToE shows no sign of going away, what you are left with is a religious fundamentalist's fantasy of science and reason toppling in favor of a literal interpretation of your preferred religious text.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Ahmad, posted 12-01-2002 11:46 AM Ahmad has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 199 (25174)
12-01-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Ahmad
12-01-2002 11:46 AM


Ahmad,

quote:

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

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

ďIN-THE-WORDS-OF-BEHEĒ IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!

Behe has NOT demonstrated that IC cannot evolve. It is an argument by definition. Because Behe asserts that IC canít evolve, therefore it canít. SHOW that IC cant evolve, or hush, now. Been here, done that, got the T-shirt. Youíre going around in circles. POSITIVELY back up your assertion with positive evidence. The say so of the definition of an IDíist ainít good enough.

quote:

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

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


Thank you. So given polyphyletic origins are a truth, at what level, roughly? Families, orders, class? And WHEN? What are the descendants of say, early mammals? Or early reptiles?

I repeat, again:

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

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Ahmad, posted 12-01-2002 11:46 AM Ahmad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-02-2002 2:19 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Ahmad, posted 12-02-2002 6:38 AM mark24 has responded

    
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 199 (25210)
12-02-2002 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mark24
12-01-2002 8:10 PM


Say, if he sees it like that (polyphyletic origin of phyla / one phylum equals one created kind, one 'creative act'), then I would expect Ahmad having no problems about evolution within each phylum. Sure, the ancestor of vertebrates did appear fully-formed one fine Cambrian evening by a miraculous act of creation; during the next 500 million years, they gave rise to bony fish, amphibians, dinosaurs, australopiths, and us through conventinal macroevolutionary processes.

Hey, come to think of it, I don't have a problem with that kind of creationism...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 12-01-2002 8:10 PM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Ahmad, posted 12-02-2002 6:48 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 199 (25223)
12-02-2002 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mark24
12-01-2002 8:10 PM


quote:
Behe has NOT demonstrated that IC cannot evolve. It is an argument by definition. Because Behe asserts that IC canít evolve, therefore it canít. SHOW that IC cant evolve, or hush, now. Been here, done that, got the T-shirt. Youíre going around in circles. POSITIVELY back up your assertion with positive evidence. The say so of the definition of an IDíist ainít good enough.

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

IC is evident as I many times said before. IC describes a system whose function is dependent on the interaction of multiple components, such that the removal of even one component results in the complete loss of function. Consider the following equation:

A + B + C + D ~~~> F

where A,B,C, and D represent specific components (gene products) and F represents the function that is elicited by the interaction of these four parts. From this observation, it is evident that F could not possibly evolve by the darwinian evolution, as F requires the presence of all four components. In other words, there would be no selective advantage of having parts A, B, and D compared to an organism having only parts A and B. Why? Because both combinations fail to elicit the function!! So you tell me: HOW CAN SUCH A SYSTEM EVOLVE, in the first place??

quote:
Thank you. So given polyphyletic origins are a truth, at what level, roughly? Families, orders, class? And WHEN? What are the descendants of say, early mammals? Or early reptiles?

Firstly, polyphyletic origins is still a theory, IMO. Secondly, I think polyphyly implies at almost all levels. Thirdly, as I said before, polyphyly implies that the genetic code had multiple independent origins, and is not the result of common ancestry. In light of that, species of mammals always remained as mammals. Reptiles always remained as reptiles. Birds always remained as birds. Now if you want to discuss their origins, that would be an entirely different subject.

quote:
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.

ToE predicts "gradual" progressive evolution from simple to complex. This is where it contradicts evolution. Not only there. Now are you denying that "limit" does not exist? Ofcourse, you may postulate alternative theories like modern synthesis or punctuated equilibria part of the noe-darwinism movement. If you do postulate them, I suggest you explain exactly how the alternative theories sufficiently explain the cambrian explosion.

Regards,
Ahmad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 12-01-2002 8:10 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 12-02-2002 8:25 AM Ahmad has responded

  
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 199 (25224)
12-02-2002 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Andya Primanda
12-02-2002 2:19 AM


Now now brother Andya, don't jump to conclusions. If bony fish, amphibians, dinosaurs, australopiths, humans descended from a single vertebrate ancestor, then that represents the blurry darwinian monophyletic tree. How is that polyphyly? Polyphyly is an important tenet of creation theory. In the case of cambrian explosion at least, creation theory appears to provide the explanation that is most in accordance with the evidence from nature.

Regards,
Ahmad


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-02-2002 2:19 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 12-02-2002 7:51 AM Ahmad has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3241 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 15 of 199 (25228)
12-02-2002 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Ahmad
12-02-2002 6:48 AM


Ahmad,

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

Mark

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Ahmad, posted 12-02-2002 6:48 AM Ahmad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by tsjok45, posted 02-05-2003 3:46 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019