The Cambrian: A Huge Problem for Molecules-to-Man Evolution

Evolutionists want us to believe that the small successive changes we see around us can be reversed to billions of years in the past so that all life has a common ancestor with a single cell.  Claiming that life is evolving right now and that all life evolved from a single cell organism are two different statements.  I call the former “evolution” and the latter “molecules-to-man evolution” (or “macroevolution” depending upon who I’m talking to).  They also claim that the fossil record absolutely supports this and the more fossils we find, the more molecules-to-man evolution is supported. 

This claim is false.  The fossil record absolutely does NOT support the molecules-to-man evolution claim.

What do we mean by “Evolution”?

Modern evolutionary theory states that the diversity of life we see around us a result of small successive changes over billions of years.  These changes come about as a result of genetic mutations that are selected or discarded based upon their ability to increase biological fitness.  That is, only mutations that help the organism survive in their particular environment are kept (neutral mutations may or may not stay around to turn into beneficial mutations later on, but are not selected for until they ARE beneficial).  The massive amount of biological material and information that we find ourselves studying today is accounted for by the massive amount of time it took to develop through these tiny genetic changes.

The problem with this? The fossil record states that it didn’t happen this way at all.

The Cambrian “Explosion”

The evolutionary “story” goes something like this; about 4 billion years ago, the first simple celled organisms appeared (prokaryotes).  They dominated the scene until about 2 billion years ago when complex multi-cellular organisms appeared (eukaryotes), these include simple plants, fungi, and sponges.  Then, about 530 million years ago, life exploded. 

In about a 5 million year period, most of the life as we know it suddenly appeared with no evolutionary ancestors.  As few as twenty and as many as thirty-five of the worlds’ forty phyla (the highest category of the Kindom Animalae) appeared out of no where (J.W. Valentine Development 126, 1999).  This means that entirely novel and highly complex body plans shows up in the fossil record with no ancestors.  If we compress all of the Earth’s history into twenty-four hours, the Cambrian explosion would last only about one minute.  Put another way, seventy-five percent of all life shows up in about .07% of the time the Earth has existed. 

The fossil record literally goes from fungi and simple worms to the trilobite with an articulated body, complicated nervous system and compound eyes, fully formed and novel, in the blink of an eye!  The most astounding thing about the Cambrian explosion is that it’s followed by stasis.  That is, zero new body plans have evolved in the 500 million years since the Cambrian. 

The “Top Down” Pattern

Neo-Darwinian theory predicts a “bottom up” pattern where small differences develop before the large differences in form and body plan are seen much farther down the line.  For instance, pre-Cambrian sponges should have produced a myriad of varieties and those varieties would then eventually lead to different species, forms and body plans. 

However, the fossil record from the Cambrian shows a completely different “top down” pattern.  Massive differences in form and body plan appear suddenly with nothing simpler preceding them.  Then, after the Cambrian, only minor variations arise within the framework of the body plans set down in the Cambrian.

The modern theory of evolution just plain can’t account for the Cambrian fossil record.

The Evolutionary Response

The knowledge of the Cambrian has been around for a long time, and yet, evolution is still going strong.  The Cambrian explosion must not be as big of a problem for evolution as I am saying it is.  Well, my position is that NOTHING is a big problem for the theory of evolution since the theory can easily be adapted to fit whatever evidence is found.  The thinking goes something like this, “Since evolution happened, there must be an evolutionary explanation for the Cambrian explosion.”  The theory will just “evolve” (pun intended) an explanation. 

Punctuated Equilibrium has been proposed as an explanation for the fossil record.  However, punctuated equilibrium is merely another form of gradual change, there is no evidence that even heightened mutation rates could produce the amount of novel body plans found in the Cambrian. The mutations rates would have to be amazingly fast in order to account for the fossil record.   Also, punctuated equilibrium predicts a “bottom up” approach so it cannot account for the “top down” fossil record as well.

To explain how life as we know it evolved from a single cell, evolutionary theory says, “It had billions of years to do it”.  The fossil record contradicts this by telling us it did most of the work in only 5 million years.  To explain the contradiction, Stephen Jay Gould comes up with punctuated equilibrium, which STILL doesn’t explain the fossil record.  Then to explain why life went into body plan stasis after the Cambrian, evolutionary theory goes back to “well, evolution IS really slow”. 

“Miracles”

This topic was brought up with a discussion I was having with Forknowledge and Penguin Factory on Forknowledge’s blog.  In the discussion, I was asserting that molecules-to-man evolution is unfalsifiable, not only because it is unobservable and untestable, but also because any new discovery can just be absorbed by the theory, no matter how contradictory to the previously accepted tenets of the theory the discovery is.  

Penguin countered by saying that the discovery of a mammal in the pre-Cambrian fossil record would be “a miracle” and would destroy evolution.  While I have no idea what academia’s reaction to a pre-Cambrian mammal would be, and neither does Penguin, I know that previous discoveries that directly contradict evolutionary theory, like the Cambrian explosion, were put on the shelf in the “we don’t know yet” section until a plausible theory, like punctuated equilibrium, explains the phenomena.  Now, punctuated equilibrium STILL can’t explain the “top down” formation of fossils, and the speed and magnitude of mutation required by the Cambrian, but evolutionists aren’t worried.  Why?  Because they’ll explain it someday.  In the mean time, molecules-to-man evolution is a fact, “miracle” Cambrian explosion or not. 

In the same discussion, Forknowledge said “It is common knowledge that the theory has undergone (and may soon undergo) dramatic changes.”  Exactly, Forknowledge.  Every time contradictory evidence is discovered, all the theory of evolution has to do is “change”.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: evolution, science

Tags: , , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

18 Comments on “The Cambrian: A Huge Problem for Molecules-to-Man Evolution”

  1. forknowledge Says:

    The Cambrian explosion and punctuated equilibrium? That’s what you were talking about?

    Ugh. Expect a full reply soon, although I’ve avoided covering this one because, as my response might indicate, it’s not all that exciting.

  2. penguinfactory Says:

    I call the former “evolution” and the latter “molecules-to-man evolution” (or “macroevolution” depending upon who I’m talking to).

    I object to the use of the phrase “molecules to man”. I’d consider it a straw man position, because this isn’t how scientists view evolution- it implies a linearity and anthro-centricism in evolution that no biologists actually envision. The other problem is that there isn’t any major distinction beween micro and macro evolution. Evolution occuring now and the evolution that occured in the distant past are the same process.

    They dominated the scene until about 2 billion years ago when complex multi-cellular organisms appeared (eukaryotes), these include simple plants

    Plants actually postdate the Cambrian explosion.

    In about a 5 million year period, most of the life as we know it suddenly appeared with no evolutionary ancestors.

    Most of life as we know it? Exactly what criteria are you using here?

    It’s true that a large number of phyla appeared in the Cambrian period, but almost none of the basic body plans that we recognize today show up in it. It can’t be repeated often enough that Cambrian life forms were for the most part very different to what we see today. Getting from them to more recent life forms requires exactly the sort of large-scale evolution that scientists are arguing in favour of.

    Furthermore, rather than throwing their hands up and declaring it a mystery, scientists do have explanations for the Cambrian explosion. During the Cambrian period hard body parts containing chitin first show up in the fossile record, and hard body parts are far more suited to fossilization than the soft bodied creatures that existed prior to this time.

    Also, early evolution could have been too small to see. Pre-Cambrian fossils are usually (although not always) tiny, bordering on microscopic in some cases, so this hypothesis is supported by the fossil record.

    And finally, there may have been a number of enviromental factors hindering evolution that ended at the Cambrian explosion, and factors promoting evolution that began at roughly the same time. For example, the beginning of the Cambrian coincides roughly with the end of “snowball Earth” ice age scenario.

    The most astounding thing about the Cambrian explosion is that it’s followed by stasis. That is, zero new body plans have evolved in the 500 million years since the Cambrian.

    Either we have very different ideas of what constitutes a body plan, or you’re talking nonsense. Even if we interpret this to mean the very basic body plans, you’re still left with explaining the vast diversification of those plans in the time since the Cambrian explosion. To call the 500 million years since the Cambrian “stasis” is utterly wrong.

    You’ve given various objections to th mainstream interpretation of the Cambrian Explosion. I’d like to hear your interpretation. What do you think happened during this period?

    Then, after the Cambrian, only minor variations arise within the framework of the body plans set down in the Cambrian.

    Minor variations?

    Let’s take a look at chordates. This group represents a vast amount of complex lifeforms. Every chordate in the Cambrian explosion was aquatic. Would you call the variation required to go from aquatic species to mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and everything that has a spine “minor”?

    The Cambrian explosion must not be as big of a problem for evolution as I am saying it is.

    Correct.

    Well, my position is that NOTHING is a big problem for the theory of evolution since the theory can easily be adapted to fit whatever evidence is found.

    You’re half right- nothing is a big problem for evolution because so far nothing has been found that casts major doubt on it’s veracity.

    However, punctuated equilibrium is merely another form of gradual change, there is no evidence that even heightened mutation rates could produce the amount of novel body plans found in the Cambrian.

    Puncuated equilibrium is an idea that gets mis-represented a lot. You’ve done a sterling job of it yourself.

    Firstly, PE was not created as a way of saving evolution from problems with the fossil record. The patterns that PE seeks to explain aren’t considered problems, because there’s already so much evidence from the fossil record supporting evolution. It’s not a case of “oh crap, look at all these gaps, let’s make something up to explain them” but rather “this is an interesting pattern- I wonder what caused it?”

    Secondly, PE has nothing to do with heightened mutation rates. It states instead that large, centralized populations inhibit evolution, and so evolution occurs mostly in smaller, geographically isolated populations. Isolated populations evolve “rapidly”, but only compared to their cousins in larger populations- mutation rates don’t magically kick into overdrive.

    Thirdly, PE was not created specifically to explain the Cambrian explosion because, again, the Cambrian explosion isn’t considered to be a probem to evolutionary theory.

    In closing, I note that you haven’t really addressed my claim that finding a mammal in the Pre-Cambrian would falsify evolution. The Cambrian Explosion wasn’t a problem because we can explain it fairly easily. There would be no way to explain the existence of rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian that wouldn’t involve throwing out evolution or changing it to the point where it would cease to be the same theory.

  3. Matt Says:

    I suggest you do a tad more research into the Cambrian Explosion before making such claims as you have. There are plenty of scientific theories and models which explain it rather nicely indeed; including increased oxygen levels allowing greater change (to put it very simply).

    Also the term ‘explosion’ tends to make people think the event happened pretty much overnight, when it probably took a period much more akin to 5-10 million years.

  4. Eric Kemp Says:

    Matt

    I love the responses that offer no counter-arguments yet suggest my knowledge is lacking. My second favorite are those that suggest that there are theories (theories mind you, not evidence) that contradict my position without telling what they are or HOW they contradict my position.

    As I suggest in my post, 5 million years is a VERY short period of time as far as evolution is concerned ESPECIALLY with how advanced and sudden that evolution was during the Cambrian.

  5. Eric Kemp Says:

    PenguinFactory

    “I object to the use of the phrase “molecules to man”. I’d consider it a straw man position, because this isn’t how scientists view evolution- it implies a linearity and anthro-centricism in evolution that no biologists actually envision.”

    The theory of evolution states that we all share a common ancestor with a single celled organism without a nucleus, hence “molecules”, and that we all eventually became what you are now, “man”. The phrase doesn’t imply linearity, it doesn’t say either way, you are reading into the phrase. The phrase also doesn’t suggest anthro-centricism; man is the highest form of evolution, you can add the phrase “for now” all you want, but man is the highest form of evolution we have evidence for. It’s obviously not a scientific definition, nor is it intended to be, but that doesn’t affect it’s accuracy.

    “The other problem is that there isn’t any major distinction between micro and macro evolution. Evolution occurring now and the evolution that occurred in the distant past are the same process.”

    No, you THEORIZE that it’s the exact same process. You have zero evidence that the evolution we see today, happened in the past. Why? Because the past is unobservable. You are literally trying to take something we can see and give it as evidence of something we can’t. Can’t you even be honest about what we can and cannot see? And THAT’S why I make the distinction between the two separate theories of evolution.

    “Plants actually postdate the Cambrian explosion.”

    Terrestrial plants yes, but I was under the impression that photosynthesis predated the Cambrian.

    “Most of life as we know it? Exactly what criteria are you using here?”

    Most of the phyla we see today, as I said.

    “It’s true that a large number of phyla appeared in the Cambrian period, but almost none of the basic body plans that we recognize today show up in it.”

    Please don’t say “a large number”, because it’s almost all of them, if not all of them. I was being generous when I said that it was between 20 and 35 of the 40 phyla, because many biologists, like Valentine, argue that it was ALL of them. I’m curious to know how almost all of the phyla show up in the Cambrian but yet “almost none” of the basic body plans are as we see them today.

    I think that you and I have different definitions of body plans. Cephalization, psuedo-ceolomates, and ceolomates, bi-lateral appendages, body cavities, body segmentation; the list goes on. The trilobite, for example, has it’s sensory organs on it’s head (cephalization), body cavity, body segmentation, has bilateral apendages, and a hard exoskeleton to name some of it’s most basic characteristics. It’s a very complex animal, with ZERO ancestory (popped out of no where). The characteristics of the trilobite described above basically describes almost any modern arthropod and insect. Like I said; body plan stasis.

    The question is; if body plans changed so drastically (from sponge to trilobite) in such a short period of time (relatively speaking, of course) why hasn’t that same type of dramatic change in body plans happened in the 500 million years since?

    “During the Cambrian period hard body parts containing chitin first show up in the fossile record, and hard body parts are far more suited to fossilization than the soft bodied creatures that existed prior to this time.”

    So these hard body parts came out of no where with no progressively hardening ancestors? Don’t you find that strange considering what evolution predicts? But, this is just helping to prove my point. The question is, “Why aren’t there any ancestors to the novel and complex animals found in the Cambrian?”, your answer stated above can be accurately restated, “Because they are too soft to fossilize, therefore we can’t find them”. It’s a perfect and unscientific answer. Perfect because it can’t be proven wrong since the answer itself states there can be no evidence for or against the answer. And unscientific because the answer itself states there can be no evidence for or against the answer.

    “Also, early evolution could have been too small to see.”

    Another perfectly unscientific answer. We can neither find proof for nor against this since the evolution is “too small to see”.

    “For example, the beginning of the Cambrian coincides roughly with the end of “snowball Earth” ice age scenario.”

    And exactly how would this account for an increased rate of evolution that would account for just how big the chasm is at the Cambrian and that would leave behind no simpler fossils? Also, how would this increase in evolution explain the “top down” phenomena that the Cambrian fossil record shows?

    “To call the 500 million years since the Cambrian “stasis” is utterly wrong.”

    I think you’re going to have to define what you mean by body plans.

    “I’d like to hear your interpretation. What do you think happened during this period?”

    That’s a great question. But I would never be able to do it justice here, I’d have to dedicate a post to it. Suffice to say right now that radiometric dating is based upon similar naturalistic presuppositions that I’m objecting to here.

    “Would you call the variation required to go from aquatic species to mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and everything that has a spine “minor”?”

    Fins turned into lobes which turned into legs which turned into legs with wings. The apendages changed drastically but the same basic body plan is static.

    “You’re half right- nothing is a big problem for evolution because so far nothing has been found that casts major doubt on it’s veracity.”

    Since you cannot observe molecules-to-man evolution, you cannot test it. If you cannot test molecules-to-man evolution you cannot verify it’s veracity at all! You made an interesting comment on forknowledge’s blog. I had said that studying the similarity of fossils only truly proves one thing, similarity. You agreed, yet you said that since we’ve found thousands of similar fossils that lends creedence to what evolution predicts. But penguin, what do we REALLY have if we study thousands of similar fossils? All we have are thousands of similar fossils!

    However, I agree with you, evolutionary theory would predict thousands of similar fossils. So by assuming that evolution is true, you could look at thousands of similar fossils as evidence for evolution. But if you take your evolutionary assumption away, you have to admit that thousands of similar fossils are also explained by a God that created thousands of similar animals.

    So it’s either that nothing can contradict molecules-to-man evolution because it is a fact. Or it could be because molecules-to-man evolution is a preassumed fact, that therefore nothing can contradict it. Do you see the difference there? How can you be sure it’s not the latter?

    “The patterns that PE seeks to explain aren’t considered problems, because there’s already so much evidence from the fossil record supporting evolution.”

    This statement is a matter of debate, especially among paleontologists. I will tackle this specifically soon. However, I showed in my post that the Cambrian shows a top-down approach to variation while evolution predicts a bottom-up one. How does the fossil record support evolution when the fossil record is top down?

    “Isolated populations evolve “rapidly”, but only compared to their cousins in larger populations- mutation rates don’t magically kick into overdrive.”

    As we all know, evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies over time. Evolution is powered by genetic mutations. If “Isolated populations evolve ‘rapidly'”, that means that their rate of genetic mutation and selection is greater than large populations. How can evolution be more “rapid” without an increase in mutation rates? And plus, you’re going to have a hard time showing that Cambrian consisted of very isolated populations that never existed before, and haven’t existed since.

    “Thirdly, PE was not created specifically to explain the Cambrian explosion because, again, the Cambrian explosion isn’t considered to be a probem to evolutionary theory.”

    You don’t consider it a problem, because you assume evolution to be true. As I’ve shown, and you haven’t formed a counter-argument against, the fossil record found in the Cambrian is NOT predicted by evolutionary theory (sudden and top-down). You have merely postulated theories that CANNOT have evidence to support them and that is exactly what I’m talking about.

    “In closing, I note that you haven’t really addressed my claim that finding a mammal in the Pre-Cambrian would falsify evolution.”

    And finding a sign somewhere in Galiliea that says, “Jesus: For All Your Carpentry Needs” would turn you into a Christian right? Come now, do you really want to waste this conversation on “what ifs”? Neither you or I know what would happen if a mammal was found pre-Cambrian. But I do have evidence that things previously thought impossible by evolution (large changes over a relatively short period of time and a “top down” fossil record) have been nicely explained away by “microscopic evolution” and “too soft to fossilize” and “evolution speeds up under circumstances that never happened before and haven’t happened since”. Actually, you haven’t tackled the “top-down” evidence yet.

    “The Cambrian Explosion wasn’t a problem because we can explain it fairly easily.”

    Yes, this much you’ve shown. Unfortunately, there is no physical evidence for your theorized explanations. In fact, your explanations themselves state there CAN’T be any physical evidence in support for or in contradiction to them. It’s all very scientific and convenient.

    Eric Kemp

  6. penguinfactory Says:

    The theory of evolution states that we all share a common ancestor with a single celled organism without a nucleus, hence “molecules”

    Single celled organisms without nuclei are called prokaryotes. You used the phrase yourself in your blog post. This makes no sense. Do you know what the word molecule means?

    The phrase doesn’t imply linearity, it doesn’t say either way, you are reading into the phrase.

    Yes it does. Humans aren’t at the apex or “top” of evolution and it therefore makes no sense to designate them as the current end point of the evolutionary process. It would be far more accurate to say “molecules to existing life”.

    The phrase also doesn’t suggest anthro-centricism; man is the highest form of evolution

    No. Just stop right there.

    Firstly, you blatently contradicted yourself by claiming no anthro-centricism and then immediately following it with a highly anthrocentric statement, and secondly this is completely false. Humans are not the “highest” form of life from an evolutionary perspective. Everything alive today- even bacteria- is just as highly evolved as everything else. In fact, from a stricly Darwinian vieewpoint you could see bacteria as being “better” than humans, because they can adapt to their enviroments much better than we can.

    No, you THEORIZE that it’s the exact same process. You have zero evidence that the evolution we see today, happened in the past.

    Wrong. We have enough evidence to be able to conclude that evolution has been occuring throughout the history of life on this planet. The fact that we can’t go back and literally see it happening doesn’t change that.

    Terrestrial plants yes, but I was under the impression that photosynthesis predated the Cambrian.

    The fact that something can photosynthesise doesn’t make it a plant.

    I think that you and I have different definitions of body plans. Cephalization, psuedo-ceolomates, and ceolomates, bi-lateral appendages, body cavities, body segmentation; the list goes on.

    Hang on. You’re listing extremely broad categories here and treating the vast amount of diviersification and complexity that’s appeared since then as irrelevant. Body cavities appear first in the Cambrian, but what about all of the organs that have evolved since? The trilobite has sensory organs on it’s head, but you’re forgetting that those sensory organs were extremely primitive, consisting of calcite rods. How do we get from them to modern eyes if not through evolution?

    Furthermore, the early appearence and consistency of very basic and broadly defined layouts doesn’t run counter to evolution. It’s actually an example of a bottom-up approach to life- basic, simple templates appear first before diversifying and becoming more complex. The reason we see this is explained by evolution- for an animal to completely re-invent it’s basic body plan would require the wholesale revision of all of the organs and appendages that had evolved since, and that almost certainly couldn’t happen without the organism becoming unfit. Or in other words, once life got going in a certain basic direction it couldn’t turn back.

    Your entire argument here is fallacious. You’re choosing one layer of complexity in organisms and arbitrarily declaring that this is the only one that counts. It would be as if I said that the automobile industry has been in creative stagnation for decades because no new variations on the theme of a chassis with four wheels has been made.

    The question is; if body plans changed so drastically (from sponge to trilobite) in such a short period of time (relatively speaking, of course) why hasn’t that same type of dramatic change in body plans happened in the 500 million years since?

    What makes you think sponges evolved into trilobites, rather than just evolving into different sponges? I don’t recall ever hearing scientists put forth this idea. Also, you’re assuming linearity again.

    And once again, there has been a vast amount of dramatic change- how about fish to birds (passing through amphibians and synapsids on the way)?

    So these hard body parts came out of no where with no progressively hardening ancestors?

    That’s not what I said.

    It’s a perfect and unscientific answer.

    Paleontologists didn’t just pull this out of thin air. It’s based on the observation that all Pre-Cambrian fossils are soft bodied.

    Perfect because it can’t be proven wrong since the answer itself states there can be no evidence for or against the answer.

    Actually, it could be proven wrong if we started finding hard-bodied fossils in older strata, mixed in with earlier soft bodied ones.

    Another perfectly unscientific answer. We can neither find proof for nor against this since the evolution is “too small to see”.

    Again, this is based on the observation that pre-Cambrian fossils are almost alway extremely tiny. And again, this hypothesis would fail if we found large fossils that pre-date the Cambrian explosion.

    And exactly how would this account for an increased rate of evolution that would account for just how big the chasm is at the Cambrian and that would leave behind no simpler fossils?

    It’s thought that ice ages have a dampening effect on evolution because the harsh conditions present encourage safer survival strategies and discourage innovation, while the periods after ice ages tend to promote evolution as populations reduced by the ice age spread to newly-inhabitable locations and diversify.

    Also, how would this increase in evolution explain the “top down” phenomena that the Cambrian fossil record shows?

    There is no top down pattern unless you arbitrarily look at phyla and nothing else.

    I think you’re going to have to define what you mean by body plans.

    To me, a tetrapodal (four legged) layout would be a body plan, as would an animal with wings. I would count mammals as a body plan due to their reproductive methods. What you’re talking about I would also classify as body plans, just broader ones. Going up another level, I’d consider unicellular and multicellular life to be even broader categories of plans, with cells- the most basic component of life- at the top.

    Suffice to say right now that radiometric dating is based upon similar naturalistic presuppositions that I’m objecting to here.

    a) what does that have to do with anything we’re talking about and b) how do you know that?

    Please don’t tell me you’re going to adopt Sirius’s strategy of answering everything with “You’re biased! That doesn’t count because you’re biased!”

    The apendages changed drastically but the same basic body plan is static.

    That means nothing unless you arbitrarily count phyla and nothing else as examples of progress.

    Since you cannot observe molecules-to-man evolution, you cannot test it. If you cannot test molecules-to-man evolution you cannot verify it’s veracity at all!

    We covered this extensively in forknowledge’s blog. I note for the record that all of my recent replies on the matter of whether evolution can be tested and observed went unreplied to- you just went off on a tangent about the Cambrian explosion and accused scientists of being biased.

    But penguin, what do we REALLY have if we study thousands of similar fossils? All we have are thousands of similar fossils!

    In chronological order. You’re forgetting that part. Of course a lot of fossils would prove nothing, but a consistent pattern of morphological advance from one species to the next proves quite a lot.

    This statement is a matter of debate, especially among paleontologists.

    What paleontologists are debating whether the fossil record is evidence for evolution?

    Evolution is powered by genetic mutations. If “Isolated populations evolve ‘rapidly’”, that means that their rate of genetic mutation and selection is greater than large populations.

    No it doesn’t. Did you read what I wrote or can you just not understand it?

    Here’s a simpler explanation: mutations rates are constant (more or less, anyway), but in large populations they don’t express themselves phenotypically as readily as in small populations. The small populations only evolve faster because their mutations can be expressed more often, not because more mutations are taking place.

    And plus, you’re going to have a hard time showing that Cambrian consisted of very isolated populations that never existed before, and haven’t existed since.

    As I already said, Puncuated Equilibrium was not created to explain the Cambrian explosion.

    You don’t consider it a problem, because you assume evolution to be true.

    No I don’t. You can charge me with bias wll you want, that isn’t going to make it so.

    And finding a sign somewhere in Galiliea that says, “Jesus: For All Your Carpentry Needs” would turn you into a Christian right? Come now, do you really want to waste this conversation on “what ifs”?

    You asked for falsification, and falsification is based on “what ifs”, hypothetical discoveries or experiments that would disprove a theory.

    Actually, you haven’t tackled the “top-down” evidence yet.

    I have, but I’ll reiterate it again: the top down pattern is not there if you don’t only count phyla as examples of evolutionary diversity and development.


  7. […] malleability in action. This recently came up in the comments section here, and has lead to this post by Eric […]

  8. krissmith777 Says:

    The Cambrian Explosion is one of the worse problems for evolution. The life forms that appear in the strata dated to about 530 million years ago appeared all of a sudden with out any aparent evolutionary ancestors.

    As a matter of fact, the same happens in various layers. Life forms always appear suddenly and fully formed.

    Harun Yahya, the Muslin creationist has a god documantary on that:

    http://www.living-fossils.com/pre/index.html

    Also, there is a new discovery just released this month that re-writes the history of the fossil record.

    Apparently, in the layers dating before the cambrian, there have been footprints found which show complex creatures existed even before the Cambrian:

    Quote “At approximately 570 million years old, this new fossil not only provides the earliest suggestion of animals walking on legs, but it also shows that complex animals were alive on earth before the Cambrian.”

    And Link: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/bugfoot.htm

    This is further proof that 1) there are problems with the evolutionary time line and 2) that life evolved from the simple to the complex.

  9. Matt Says:

    I suggested you do more research simply because your entry indicated a distinct lack of it. I’ll even point you in the right direction:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

    All rather nicely referenced, back by various scientific experiments and findings. Not so terribly hard now, was it?

  10. Eric Kemp Says:

    Matt

    You are using the fallacy called “Appealing to a Smarter Power”. This is where the atheist/evolutionist has no idea how to argue their position and so they just link to people who are smarter than them.

    In this case, Matt, you have completely missed the point of my argument AND I had already touched on three of CC300’s points there. I would elaborate further but you obviously have no desire to discuss and so it would be a waste of my time.

  11. Matt Says:

    The entire point of your post seems to be to try to use the Cambrian Explosion as some sort of rather odd evidence against the Theory of Evolution (or your own version of it).

    Which, of course, just doesn’t fly. Why? Because the research has been done into it, the evidence found and conclusions pretty much settled.

    As for my link? It’s called linking to the research which rather nicely and succinctly shows that you are wrong. What else is there to do? Type out a report sized piece of text for someone who seems unable to do basic research of their own? No, I have far better things to do than that. Instead, a pointer to proper and verified research is all that’s needed … and hopefully you’ll actually read and comprehend it.

  12. Eric Kemp Says:

    Matt

    You have just proved my point that you have no desire to discuss. You feel that merely linking something IS discussion, and you stand by your “Appealing to a Smarter Power” fallacy. You still missed the point of my article, and especially of my responses to Penguinfactory. My point is that evolution CANNOT be proven wrong and therefore is not science. As evidence for this, I showed how the Cambrian is contradictory to evolutionary theory and yet has been explained away nicely by perfectly unscientific explanations. Explainations that can have no evidence for or against them.

    I did read your bible, oops I mean talkorigins, article, I understand it, and it still doesn’t cut it. They offered three of the same explanations I’ve heard from forknowledge and penguin. But you wouldn’t know that because you’re not following the discussion. Your bible also didn’t even mention the “top down” fossil record that the Cambrian displays. In short, you had no idea wether or not your bible actually contradicted my position or how to explain the article, you merely believe that your bible has the anwers to all and therefore linking it will suffice. Well done.

  13. krissmith777 Says:

    Eric Kemp says “I did read your bible, oops I mean talkorigins, article, I understand it, and it still doesn’t cut it.”

    I love thsi statement.! 😛

    Talk.Origins is like the evolutionist Bible. Actually it’s an “apologist” site for Darwin. — Their real Bible is “Origin of Species.”

  14. Eric Kemp Says:

    Kris

    Yea, that WAS kinda snarky of me huh?

    Thanks

    Eric Kemp

  15. Matt Says:

    Of course Evolution can be proven wrong; as the old quote goes all it would take is to find rabbit fossils in the Pre-Cambrian. Then there’s a whole raft of other ways it could be brought down; just finding one example of irreducible complexity for the sake of another example.

    As for talkorigins.org being a bible? Don’t be daft. It’s a resource and nothing else, though one which is remarkably well referenced and actually backed up by scientific findings, peer reviews and actual evidence … which really does help a lot.

    You really don’t seem to have any actual grasp of the scientific method, which is rather sad. New evidence comes along all the time in all manner of fields of research and guess what happens with it? It’s studied. It’s catalogued. It’s examined. If it fits the existing model then everything is fine, if it doesn’t then the model gets changed.

    It just so happens that the Cambrian Explosion does fit the modern Theory of Evolution, just not how you seem to understand it – mainly because you’re not willing to accept the scientific models out there (which all fit the evidence and explain it rather nicely).

    And that rather makes it your problem, not that of science.

  16. krissmith777 Says:

    To Matt:

    Here is an answer to your Talk.Origins link:

    “Talk.Origins misses the point. The point is not the Cambrian explosion itself, but the total lack of any fossils between single cell life and complex multi-cellular life.

    “A few complex multi-cellular fossils found below the Cambrian explosion does not change the fact that there are no transitional fossils between single cell life and complex multi-cellular life.

    “Talk.Origins’ excuses do not change the fact that there are no fossils between single cell life and complex multi-cellular life.

    “The claim that early multi-cellular life was too small to be found and too soft to fossilize is bogus since fossil bacteria have been found in Precambrian rock despite being soft and smaller.

    “The claim that molecular evidence shows some animal phyla to be Precambrian assumes evolution and as such it can’t be used as evidence that it has occurred. It is still a fact that there are no fossils between single cell life and complex multi-cellular life.

    http://creationwiki.org/Cambrian_explosion_shows_all_kinds_of_life_appearing_suddenly_%28Talk.Origins%29

  17. Eric Kemp Says:

    Kris

    For some reason your comment on 10/17 found itself in my spam folder. I don’t know why it did so, you’ve commented many times on my blog without a problem. My apologies that it took so long for me to catch so that your argument will not even be seen. I will now be checking my spam folder everytime there is something in it.

    Eric


  18. […] a class on evolution, but you sure weren’t either paying attention, or did not understand it all. QV please. __________________ GOD DID IT — CASE […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: