Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
280 online now:
Coragyps, Diomedes, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (7 members, 273 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,676 Year: 21,712/19,786 Month: 275/1,834 Week: 275/315 Day: 31/77 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Chen's work pose a problem for ToE?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3233 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 84 (290169)
02-24-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
02-24-2006 5:00 PM


Re: what are you saying?
The Cambrian explosion entailed as much variety of life as we see today. The idea that it is just "one instance" is laughable. If ToE cannot account for the Cambrian explosion, it is well-nigh useless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2006 5:00 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2006 5:35 PM randman has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6827
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 17 of 84 (290170)
02-24-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by randman
02-24-2006 2:50 PM


Re: what are you saying?
quote:
...considering all major phyla appeared at that time.

Actually, the genetic evidence seems to point to most major phyla having separated from one another about 500 million years before the Cambian.


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 2:50 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:35 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 84 (290171)
02-24-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
02-24-2006 5:27 PM


Re: random mutation and natural selection
But do not random mutation and natural selection consist of the bulk of evidentiary claims for ToE, and moreover, haven't evos (perhaps even yourself) argued that ToE can be falsified by whether natural selection and random mutation can account for macroevolution, or are all those claims that microevolution is macroevolution and really all the evidence you need just so much hot air?

See my Message #3.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:27 PM randman has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 84 (290172)
02-24-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by randman
02-24-2006 5:29 PM


Re: what are you saying?
The Cambrian explosion entailed as much variety of life as we see today.

Substantiation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:29 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:40 PM crashfrog has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3233 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 84 (290173)
02-24-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Chiroptera
02-24-2006 5:29 PM


Re: what are you saying?
What genetic evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 02-24-2006 5:29 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 02-24-2006 5:41 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3233 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 21 of 84 (290175)
02-24-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
02-24-2006 2:11 PM


it's not clear crash
The criticism of ID is that it never happens

What never happens? Please explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2006 2:11 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2006 5:39 PM randman has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 84 (290176)
02-24-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
02-24-2006 5:36 PM


Re: it's not clear crash
What is this, a David Ives play? See message 6.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:36 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:42 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2006 7:55 PM crashfrog has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3233 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 23 of 84 (290177)
02-24-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
02-24-2006 5:35 PM


Re: what are you saying?
Interpreting the fauna of the Cambrian explosion raises two deep and distinct issues, often confused in Conway Morris's commentary but providing a good framework for exemplifying our differences. First, a question of origins: How could so much anatomical variety evolve so quickly? In particular, must novel evolutionary mechanisms be proposed for such a burst of activity? Second, a question of consequences: How many distinct lineages arose in the Cambrian explosion? How many survived to leave modern organisms as descendants? Why have no new animal phyla (with the single exception of Bryozoa) evolved in more than 500 million years since the Cambrian explosion?

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/naturalhistory_cambrian.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2006 5:35 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2006 5:48 PM randman has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6827
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 24 of 84 (290178)
02-24-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
02-24-2006 5:35 PM


Link.


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:35 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:48 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3233 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 25 of 84 (290180)
02-24-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
02-24-2006 5:39 PM


Re: it's not clear crash
Crash, all major life forms and more creatures than exist today appeared in the Cambrian explosion. To dismiss this as "one instance" is patently absurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2006 5:39 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2006 6:02 PM randman has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 439 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 26 of 84 (290181)
02-24-2006 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
02-24-2006 5:27 PM


Re: random mutation and natural selection
But do not random mutation and natural selection consist of the bulk of evidentiary claims for ToE,

They are the biggest elements of evolutionary theory, and the easiest to describe. However, plenty of other mechanisms have been discussed on this board. I'm not au fait with them all, but things like horizontal transfer and epigenetics are among them as well as recombination.

and moreover, haven't evos (perhaps even yourself) argued that ToE can be falsified by whether natural selection and random mutation can account for macroevolution

Not that I'm aware of. If such an argument was used, I imagine it was a simplification.

or are all those claims that microevolution is macroevolution and really all the evidence you need just so much hot air?

I don't think the claim that microevolution is macroevolution holds particular water...I suspect that this argument is put forward as an illustration that the mechanisms are the same and there isn't a line between them.

I don't know which EvC debate you've been reading but that is certainly not the extent of the evidence for macroevolution. I have two threads open that discuss in some way the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:27 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:53 PM Modulous has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 84 (290182)
02-24-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by randman
02-24-2006 5:40 PM


Re: what are you saying?
Fascinating, but that's not what I asked for. Did you forget what you were supposed to be supporting?

quote:
The Cambrian explosion entailed as much variety of life as we see today.

Or am I just wasting my time asking you to support your assertions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:40 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:50 PM crashfrog has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3233 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 84 (290183)
02-24-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Chiroptera
02-24-2006 5:41 PM


in your own words?
The reason I ask is such analysis must be based on belief that the molecular clock is valid, which seems to me that evos like to employ at times and other times reject.

But it doesn't matter. The fact the genetic "evidence" contradicts the fossil evidence is to be expected if ToE models are wrong. The genetic evidence suggests a huge span of time was involved, you claim 500 million years, but the fossil evidence indicates only a 2-3 million year window for all of this to take place, and so the genetic evidence is actually very strong evidence against current evolutionist explanations here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 02-24-2006 5:41 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3233 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 84 (290184)
02-24-2006 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
02-24-2006 5:48 PM


Re: what are you saying?
Why have no new animal phyla (with the single exception of Bryozoa) evolved in more than 500 million years since the Cambrian explosion?

I think crash you just aren't that aware of how diverse life was at the Cambrian era. You not only had many extinct dinosaurs, but even semi-aquatic mammals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2006 5:48 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 02-24-2006 5:55 PM randman has responded
 Message 32 by Asgara, posted 02-24-2006 5:56 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2006 6:06 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3233 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 30 of 84 (290185)
02-24-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Modulous
02-24-2006 5:45 PM


Re: random mutation and natural selection
I don't think the claim that microevolution is macroevolution holds particular water...I suspect that this argument is put forward as an illustration that the mechanisms are the same and there isn't a line between them.

But you suspect microevolution based on natural selection of mutations and variation cannot explain all the data, right? It cannot explain the macroevolution of the Cambrian explosion, right?

Basicaly, if ToE cannot explain the Cambrian explosion, it is useless. Clearly, there is something else involved creating such an explosion of life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2006 5:45 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2006 6:00 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019