Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand

Hi everyone.I'm a new guy to this forum (so go easy on me, please). I have enjoyed reading a number of posts, some which relate to a current debate I'm having with a friend of mine. One area in particular, relates to this Cambrian Explosion topic, and before I continue to talk out of my butt with him, I'd like to have some help with better explanations. I wish I had time to paraphrase his arguments, but I don't. So I'll be a useless lurcher and post his arguments verbatum. By the way, I do have a B.S. in Biology, but I'm in a completely different field now and haven't given the topic it's due attention in order to have an effective debate (so maybe I did talk a little too much out of my butt with this guy, oh well). Rather than answer them with my amateur voice, I'd like others to take a crack at it. Thanks for any help.His argument:As many as 41 animal phyla appear during a time period of
at most 40 million years (some studies conclude it lasted only 5 to 10 million years). This presents problems with ToE:1.It shows great disparity before any evidence of
gradual speciation and growth in diversity, which is contrary to
evolutionary predictions. The major body plans representing the
different phyla exhibit considerable morphological isolation from one another. The number of different ancestors connecting organisms displaying this much disparity should be vast, but there is little if any evidence that they existed.2. Consider at a sub-organism level just what would have to occur for all of these phyla to emerge - in any fashion, not just suddenly. Think of the number of novel cell types that would be required to create these phyla. After all, more functionally complex require more cell types to perform those diverse functions. Cascading down, each new cell type on its own would require many new novel proteins, and when taken as a whole, the number of new, novel proteins required for this explosion is astounding. What's more is the specificity required for functional proteins. Cassette mutagenesis experiments
show that proteins can tolerate amino acid substitutions at one or two sites, but more than that usually results in loss of function. In other words, they indicate that the set of functional amino acid sequences is an exceedingly small portion of the total number of possible sequences. Then there's the matter, even if all of the proteins "evolved", of coordinating the functions and structures and new organs, etc. of these vastly different body plans and organisms.The Pre-Cambrian fossil record is notable for its composition of algae and bacteria, and not much else. It's important
to note also that the fossil record has preserved very well (in the
lower Cambrian in fact) delicate tissues such as eyes, sensory organs, mouths, epidermis, and even sponge embryos (these can all be found in the Chengjiang region in China).I would grant the most optimal atmospheric, geological, and environmental conditions possible for such an event. But that has no bearing whatsoever on the task of creating this vast array of new proteins, new cell types, new organ systems, new body architectures, etc. - and that in an extremely short period of time by a process that can't coordinate anything unless it fortuitously falls into its lap. Given even a generous mutation rate, the chances of this explosion resulting from blind evolutionary processes (while natural selection is said to be non-random, mutation - which must come before natural selection - is driven purely by chance) is so highly unlikely that it is implausible - at least to someone who doesn't assume that evolution is responsible for it in the first place.

I haven't asked his position specifically, but I gather from our earlier conversations that he is more or less just a skeptic of evolution in general. He has studied Behe and Dembski's IC systems to a pretty good extent, and feels very strongly with his assertions in this area. I gather that it is his strong support of IC is where his skepticism of ToE in general comes from. We haven't even begun our conversation in IC yet (I personally can't wait - I'm a little more comfortable debunking that one), and we're just starting from the beginning, so to speak. It doesn't appear that he believes in the literal sense of Biblical teleology (that's a step), rather he's just more or less skeptical of ToE in general.To everyone else, thank you very much for your replies and links. I'll continue my reading - I've got a lot of catching up to do here!

Hehe, good one.Nothing wrong with a little toilet humor!

"2. Consider at a sub-organism level just what would have to occur for all of these phyla to emerge - in any fashion, not just suddenly. Think of the number of novel cell types that would be required to create these phyla. After all, more functionally complex require more cell types to perform those diverse functions. Cascading down, each new cell type on its own would require many new novel proteins, and when taken as a whole, the number of new, novel proteins required for this explosion is astounding. What's more is the specificity required for functional proteins. Cassette mutagenesis experiments
show that proteins can tolerate amino acid substitutions at one or two sites, but more than that usually results in loss of function. In other words, they indicate that the set of functional amino acid sequences is an exceedingly small portion of the total number of possible sequences. Then there's the matter, even if all of the proteins "evolved", of coordinating the functions and structures and new organs, etc. of these vastly different body plans and organisms."This question I'm having a little trouble with. On the surface it seems rather vague with no substance to support it, though I'm completely unsure. His statement on cassette mutagenesis, for example, doesn't seem to be entirely accurate, but I'm not versed enough to refute. Anyone care to further enlighten me here on his #2 problem? Thanks again.

*bump*Any help from microbio. folks would be greatly appreciated.Thanks again.

Well my debate with my ID buddy continues. I gave him a long reply that was primarily based off of your answers given to me previously (thank you for your contribution), and he gave me a long reply below. The first part of his reply pertains to our small discussion on prokaryotic evolution to eukaryotic organisms (am I correct in that assumption?), and the rest deals with the Cambrian Explosion in general. If anyone would like me to post my original reply to him, I will do so. Otherwise, I would like to ask, once again, for any help in a rebuttal on any or all his points.Thanks for any help in advance. Here's his reply:

quote:

---

"Regarding bacteria, while I understand you're not an expert in the field (nor am I), your explanation of why they haven't changed is full of hand waving. I claimed that through millions of generations of controlled experiments, in which the goal is explicitly to induce significant change in bacteria, we have failed. You responded by stating "Only way back in Precambrian times was it necessary, for some reason or another, to become linked to other cells, through symbiotic relationships or otherwise, did Eukaryotes come forth". For some reason or another? Become linked? Is there any evidence that this happened, or does it just fit the theory? I'm aware of Margulis' theories on symbiotic evolution, but they are a far cry from explaining entire cells joining together. Phagocytosis (one cell engulfing another or becoming linked) has never been observed (from a 1997 paper in "Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews"). In addition, the transition from prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells requires a host of new innovations that must be coordinated and regulated. The problems with material causes for that transition are numerous, and we can get into that if you wish.

​

But here's my point. It is truly interesting that through millions of generations of study (by brilliant minds no less), and through rigorous artificial selection pressures (sure to create an environment in which bacteria are NOT successful), we continually reproduce only bacteria. This is one of the simplest organisms ever known, and we can't get it to change significantly. What this indicates to me, as one who isn't committed to evolutionary processes, is that living systems are highly resistant to significant change. This makes sense given the internal proofreading mechanisms that exist within cells (to reduce errant proteins and such). It also makes sense given the intricate and tightly integrated nature of cellular activity. Such tightly integrated systems do not tolerate much change, as one change affects not only the single component directly, but other components that interact with it. This sort of behavior is seen continually in engineering. When I design a system, then change one component, it almost always requires numerous changes throughout the system as a whole - both from a structural standpoint and a performance standpoint. And once again I emphasize that this is a single cell. Given what bacteria have taught us, I think my skepticism about evolution's ability to create all the novel cell types associated with Cambrian explosion is well grounded. So, on to the Cambrian.

​

Before trying to explain away the evidence (in part) on the grounds of an incomplete fossil record, you seem to focus on natural selection's role in the "evolutionary radiation" (you site favorable environmental conditions, lack of competition, open niches left by mass extinctions, etc.). I have no problem with natural selection "selecting" things and preserving them, my point is that natural selection can only act AFTER selectable changes are apparent. Without rehashing my previous arguments about protein and cell type emergence, let me just say a few things. Cytochrome c and Hemoglobin may tolerate more change than other proteins, but those are a drop in the bucket in comparison to everything that would be needed - simply as raw materials - for creating all of the novel cell types. And as I said, even if the raw materials did exist, ASSEMBLING them into intricate complex cells which then are integrated into larger systems themselves is a staggering task to pull off successfully (especially via only material processes on the scale of different PHYLA!). Keep in mind that there is no evidence of cells that were "soupy" in nature, just built with things sort of floating around willy-nilly inside. All evidence indicates cellular function characterized by precision from the very start, and to get that precision you offer changes in regulatory genes. I think you drastically marginalize and understate the complexity and intricacy of cellular function. Experiments have shown time and again that random changes in tightly integrated systems almost always have negative results - which make sense. In "The Origin of Animal Body Plans", published by Cambridge University Press in 1997, Wallace Arthur writes:

​

"Those genes that control key early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are ALWAYS SO." (emphasis in original)

​

If you have evidence of random changes (in regulatory genes or others) producing directional, beneficial, and significant changes in an organism, cell, or system, I'd be interested in reading it. You also touch on co-opting a bit when discussing different functions for actin and myosin, and imply that such activity may be used to explain the emergence of IC systems. There are severe flaws with that reasoning, but I'm sure they'll come out in detail if the discussion gets there.

​

I'd like to rephrase the above in slightly different terms. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex cell would require somewhere between 320 and 550 kilo base pairs of DNA to sustain itself (i.e. from the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 93 (1996)). That's for one cell. To build and sustain organisms we find in the Cambrian would require genomes orders of magnitude greater. For example the genome of a fly is 120 million base pairs. We're talking about a quantum leap in genetic information, and not just for one species, but for different phyla. Genetic information is obviously highly specific in nature (in a similar way to amino acid sequences). An analogy can be drawn between nucleotide base sequencing and the sequencing of letters in our alphabet. Neither is governed by necessity (i.e. there is no physical law responsible for the order of bases in DNA or of letters in sentences - indeed, if there were, they would not have the tremendous information storage capabilities that they do). On the other hand, the space of functional or meaningful sequences of either the DNA alphabet or the English alphabet is a minute portion of all possible sequences. While none of this information renders evolutionary pathways for the Cambrian impossible, they could certainly be thought of as highly improbable, and consequently implausible.

​

Now, let's move from "sufficient causes" to the actual paleontological evidence. You questioned my claim of 40 new phyla in the Cambrian (which is A-OK), and thought that might be outdated. That number comes from a variety of primary papers and paleontology texts, none of which were published before 1987, and the most recent of which was 1999. Even if the number is scaled back, it makes little difference. The bottom line is that neither Darwinism nor MET (modern evolutionary theory) would expect nor predict the appearance of widely disparate phyla before slow diversification of species. Organisms representing different phyla simply shouldn't come first according to evolutionary theory (and you acknowledged this in a previous email when you stated that speciation eventually produces new genera, families, orders, etc. until different phyla are represented).

​

Now, I agree that soft bodied organisms and parts would not fossilize as frequently as hard and skeletal parts. I also agree that it is important to note as much when considering the cause of the Cambrian explosion. However, claiming that there is a paucity of fossil sites from the time and that we're calling it an explosion because we're extrapolating too much from too little data is going too far. While soft bodied life doesn't fossilize as frequently, it does fossilize, and we have many excellent specimens in both the Cambrian and before (embryos, guts, single celled algae, etc.). Postulating a poor sampling of Precambrian life in the fossil record as a general solution to the Cambrian explosion is just a bit too ad hoc.

​

Darwin recognized the problem of the Cambrian when he wrote his first book, and rather than "softening the edge" of the explosion with 150 years of collecting fossils, the problem is now even more acute. Writing in "Paleobiology" in 1997 ("Sampling, Taxonomic Description, and Our Evolving Knowledge of Morphological Diversity"), Michael Foote writes that new fossil discoveries repeatedly fall into existing taxonomic groups. Despite the fervent search for morphologically intermediate forms, the gaps remain real and large. The more fossils fall within existing phyletic groups, the less likely it is that the absence of Precambrian fossils leading to the Cambrian reflects a bias in sampling.

​

To me, the problem of the lack of Precambrian fossils, and the problem of claiming incompleteness in the fossil record, is re-emphasized to me when I remember this: what requires explanation is not the sudden appearance of a good number of different species, but of different PHYLA. And these different phyla are represented by extremely complex life (like trilobites). The number of intermediate forms that should have left an evolutionary path in the Precambrian is huge, yet we find very little. What we do find
Is copious DISPARITY at the beginning of the Cambrian (once again completely unexpected and unpredicted by MET). As Jan Bergstrom writes in "Ideas on Early Animal Evolution", in EARLY LIFE ON EARTH, Nobel Symposium No. 84 (1994):

​

"There is absolutely no sign of convergence between phyla as we follow them backwards to the Early Cambrian. They were as widely apart from the beginning as they are today. Hierarchal levels apparently include a biological reality, not only classificatory convention. In fact, the overwhelming taxonomic difficulty is to recognize relationships between phyla, not to distinguish between them."

​

One of the papers you site, and quote from, states the following in reference to their method of dating divergence times using molecular data:

​

"...The data are not compatible with the Cambrian explosion hypothesis
as an explanation for the origin of metazoan phyla, and provide additional support for an extended period of Precambrian metazoan diversification."
- Bromham, Rambaut, Fortey, Cooper, & Penny (1998)
Just a moment...

​

So they're saying that because the data doesn't fit their theory, the data must be wrong or incomplete. This is a perfect statement demonstrating the sheer arrogance of evolutionary theory. It is simply assumed. We know evolution is responsible for the Cambrian, and because the molecular divergence data isn't compatible with that sudden "evolutionary radiation", we now have good evidence that Precambrian diversification did indeed occur. Of course there isn't any significant record of that in the geologic column, but nevertheless, it must have happened. To me, that just seems like bad science. Maybe I'm wrong.

​

My conclusion is that evolutionary processes, whether they be gradual, rapid, focused on regulatory genes, or any other twist, do not plausibly explain the data regarding the Cambrian.

---

You're correct Paul, and that's one of the first things I saw. It seems fairly obvious that he didn't read the article, just the intro. where this is stated. It was a misrepresentation on his part, and I will give mention on this point. Now as to the rest of his rebuttal - anyone see some other points to note?

*bump*litttle help anyone?

Thanks for the input W. King. Any other discrepencies?

Still needing some help from the knowledgeable folks out there. I'll break down the parts I'm having a little trouble with.

quote:

---

Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex cell would require somewhere between 320 and 550 kilo base pairs of DNA to sustain itself (i.e. from the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 93 (1996)). That's for one cell. To build and sustain organisms we find in the Cambrian would require genomes orders of magnitude greater. For example the genome of a fly is 120 million base pairs. We're talking about a quantum leap in genetic information, and not just for one species, but for different phyla.

---

There seems to be a flaw with this argument, though I can't pin it down. It seems that he's dancing on the argument from incredulity here, saying how unlikely it is for organisms to be created based on how many base pairs are required for existance and maintenance of life. If there are articles that show beneficial random changes in regulatory genes (which I've seen), would that likely suffice in this particular situation? Anything else required possibly?

quote:

---

The bottom line is that neither Darwinism nor MET (modern evolutionary theory) would expect nor predict the appearance of widely disparate phyla before slow diversification of species. Organisms representing different phyla simply shouldn't come first according to evolutionary theory

---

Okay, again he appears to have a flaw with this argument, though I can't exactly pinpoint it. Is he confusing a timeline of events here by chance? I thought MET predicts rather well what occurred with diversification? Is this not true?

quote:

---

Michael Foote writes that new fossil discoveries repeatedly fall into existing taxonomic groups. Despite the fervent search for morphologically intermediate forms, the gaps remain real and large. The more fossils fall within existing phyletic groups, the less likely it is that the absence of Precambrian fossils leading to the Cambrian reflects a bias in sampling.

---

Again, the conclusion here seems not to follow the premise, though I'm not completely sure. Classification of fossils into existing phyletic groups seems only a means of our need of association, though from what I've read lately much of early forms of life have little similarities morphologically to our modern phyletic groups. How far off am I here?

quote:

---

what requires explanation is not the sudden appearance of a good number of different species, but of different PHYLA. And these different phyla are represented by extremely complex life (like trilobites). The number of intermediate forms that should have left an evolutionary path in the Precambrian is huge, yet we find very little. What we do find
Is copious DISPARITY at the beginning of the Cambrian (once again completely unexpected and unpredicted by MET).

---

again, why is he so hung up on phyla diversification? Does his question here have merit?Thanks for any help.

Excellent response and links Quetzal and W.King. Many thanks! With such a wealth of info. presented (and disinformation from my friend's sources), I felt it vital that I sit and read a little more thoroughly before I respond to him. Not only do I feel it necessary to know more of the topic at hand, but I certainly feel more comfortable knowing exactly what I'm discussing when I present my arguments and counterarguments. I've also found that he is beginning to blur the lines a bit with the CE and abiogenesis somewhat, which are two completely different topics (and one has nothing to do with evolution anyhow) and must be separated. I will keep you posted. Thanks again.