Home
» Intelligent Design » Increased Oxygen = Increased Biological Information, Which Explains the Cambrian Explosion
Increased Oxygen = Increased Biological Information, Which Explains the Cambrian Explosion
| February 27, 2009 | Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design |
This is the kind of reasoning we can expect from “scientists” like Hillis, in an attempt to explain away the Cambrian explosion.
For more, go here.
Is there no shame left among Darwinists who propose such absurd ideas, or do they actually believe such transparent fantasies?
51 Responses to Increased Oxygen = Increased Biological Information, Which Explains the Cambrian Explosion
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Allen_MacNeill:
This is an interesting challenge.
As I am sure you are well aware, one of the theories within the ID meta-theory has been dubbed front-loading. (I wish that I had read “The Design Matrix” as this is the hypotheis of the infamous Mike Gene.) If front-loading is valid, then we should realistically see that organisms on the left branch of the phylogenic tree have DNA which is both preserved and useless to the organism. (This would be consistent with some of the conserved gene knock-out experiments that have been heavily discussed here.) If one were to find that these same sequences are integral parts of purposful structures in organisms which first appear on the right-hand branch of the tree, then I think we would have made a strong case that the DNA which is preserved but useless in the left-hand branch is in fact DNA which was foresighted to produce the structure that showed on the right.
I know that this is speculative. We do have, however, discoveries of DNA which appears to be both preserved and useless. Merely the confirmation that there is DNA which is both preserved and useless should, in itself topple neo-Darwinism, as far as I am conserned. If I were a scientist with a budget, I would be very interested in testing the long-term, competitive varacity of mice with the relevant highly conserved DNA knocked out.
Lets suggest another speculation. (I have a few facts, but not enough to know whether these questions have already been asked and answered.) I understand that recently an island was seeded with a population of lizzards. These lizzard’s progeny were examined some time later, and it was discovered that they had a fundimentally altered digestive tract. (I think that’s correct, and wish I had tighter information.) Now, It would be highly doubtful that the lizzard evolved a significant supply of new information in just a few generations. Therefore, the ability to produce the altered digestive tract must have been a latent ability in the lizzard’s genes. Ie, the altered digestive tract was purely the product of adjusting gene frequency.
However, I find it intriguing that an animal would have such a latent talent floating around. It would appear to me easier to interpret this as the lizzard having DNA because its designer foresees the day when the lizzard may need a modified digestive tract. If this is so, then one should be able to trace the DNA involved in the modification, and see if all of it offers benefit to the phenotype of the non-modified lizzard. If, however, we find that the DNA is preserved (beyond background preservation), but does not offer advantage to the non-modified lizzard, and if we can demonstrate that the lizzard has an extended lineage of non-modified digestion, I think this would be very strong support for DNA which is “foresighted” before that character becomes adapted to it’s “intended” purpose.” Again, if I were a research scientist with a budget, I would love to explore this lizzard further.
So, what have we got here:
1 – We have two separate examples where there is data which is unexpected in the neo-Darwinian model, and which point to possible strong support for ID.
2 – We have a call for real scientific research that is the natural outcome of the ID hypothesis.
3 – I think that this is a strong counter to your statement in #22:
Mr. MacNeill: “Precisely; rhetoric, and not logic or scientific argumentation. It’s all about rhetoric (and therefore politics), isn’t it? And not about things that can be empirically verified or falsified. Clearly, ID isn’t about science, it’s about rhetoric.”
I have carefully read Denton, Behe, Meyers, Demski, Wells, and other Darwin critics. I have also read several criticisms of their work by Darwinians such as Coyne, Miller, and Dawkins. The comparison is absolutely striking precisely because the former read like science–carefully thought out arguments that consider the data, anticipate objections and answer them, and in general reason carefully and soberly, while on the other hand, their critics never address the actual arguments that are made (except in straw man form), but instead rely entirely on rhetoric, principally in the form of ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority (“all genuine scientists” or some such), and, as mentioned, straw man arguments. In fact, it is this difference, which is virtually universal, that convinces me that Darwinism is finished. The opposition seems to be unable to answer the actual arguments presented by the critics. It’s just a matter of time.
When one reads Darwinist defense of the theory or attacks on ID, whether from scientists like Coyne and Miller or people posting comments, one gets the overwhelming impression that this is a group of people who desperately WANT the theory to be true, and at least some of them will use any means up to and including outright lies and the destruction of peoples’ careers to forward that cause.
It’s interesting to speculate why there is such a need for this theory to be true. In some cases, I am quite certain it is because Darwinism is THE scientific pillar supporting atheism, and the removal of that pillar would have unthinkable consequences for the viability of atheism. In other cases, perhaps it is a strongly held commitment to the proposition that the natural world must be explainable by entirely natural causes. I suspect that for some, it is simply an unwillingness to confront the possibility of being wrong.
Re. Allen_MacNeill @ #19
Firstly, if Hillis did argue that more O2 explains the Cambrian explosion, then yes he did make this assertion. Secondly, please can you link to some specific information on your blog, or write out the mechanisms here. I don’t have time to search through topic after topic. And finally, I still don’t see that you’ve provided an explanation. You said:
But the whole point is, where did this new information come from in the first place????
If all O2 does is provide a selection pressure to preserve a different subset of information, then it remains that O2 is causally irrelevant to the origin of biologically information. Hence Meyers point in the podcast.
Can we test this?
That is can we take some number of soft-bodied organisms, put them in a solution with increased calcium carbonate, and see if they “evolve” shells, bones and teeth?
I ask because without that all that one has is narrative gloss without any scientific support.
Bruce David:
The phenomenon you mention is ubiquitous and should be obvious to any unbiased observer. (It was obvious to me, even as a thoroughly biased and indoctrinated Darwinist.) And here is the great irony: Darwinists, while claiming scientific rigor, resort to storytelling and the tactics you mention, while ID proponents simply make an inference to the best explanation based on logic, data, and demonstrated causal capabilities of known phenomena. It is Darwinism that should be classified as pseudoscience, not ID.
–That is can we take some number of soft-bodied organisms, put them in a solution with increased calcium carbonate, and see if they “evolve” shells, bones and teeth?–
Maybe if you wait a few million years.
GilDogden:
Here is another great irony: Darwinists are fond of invoking the suppression of Galileo’s ideas as an example of Religion being anit-science when they are in exactly the same position as the medieval church–vigorously (and often ruthlessly) attempting to suppress a new scientific idea on theological grounds (although in this case what they are defending is atheism and they disguise their defense as science).
Bruce David,
We had a long discussion on Galileo here almost a year ago and came to the conclusion that Galileo was the bad guy in the Galileo affair and not the Church. It had nothing to do with science or religion or the oppression of ideas but politics and Galileo betrayed his long time friend and mentor and got squelched as a result of his betrayal.
So if Darwinists use the example of Galileo to attack religion they are using an argument from their ignorance.
jerry (#39),
I have concerns about writing off the Galileo affair that easily. I suspect that the Church, and Christianity in general, needed to learn some lessons as well as Galileo. However, I agree that the affair has been overblown and that certainly the lesson that should have been learned was not that mechanistic evolution should not be challenged.
I do agree with Bruce David (#38) on this one.
I am fascinated by the claim that increased oxygen leads to increased calcium carbonate which leads to teeth and shells. My experimentalist’s mind immediately asks the question, are there any large-scale deposits of limestone in the Precambrian? If not, it would seem to support the theory. If so, it would seem to falsify it. I ask as one who does not know.
Update: I googled “Precambrian limestone” and got this:
http://www.google.com/search?h.....=f&oq=
There does seem to be quite a bit of it. Where does that leave the theory?
Paul,
My guess is that you do not understand the Galileo affair. You probably have heard the conventional wisdom about it and it is extremely wrong. The Church did little to be ashamed of and was actually very supportive of Galileo’s science.
It was Galileo who is mainly to blame for the problems he created and they were all political and had nothing to do with either science or religion. There had been some petty religious squabbles years before but they had nothing to do with what happened. It had to do with war between Catholics and Protestants (30 Years War) and the fight between the two major Catholic powers in Europe at the time, France and the Hapsburgs. And Galileo with his arrogance stuck his nose into it and his thesis was a way of doing it. A thesis by the way suggested by the pope who he then betrayed. After Galileo betrayed the pope, the pope struck Galileo down and the Inquisition under the directive of the cardinals sentenced him to house arrest. In England he would have certainly have lost his head in days for what he did. In Florence he got the comfy chair.
Atheists like to cite the Galileo matter as an example of how Christianity is somehow opposed to science. The truth, however, is that it is the atheists who have the record of murdering the great scientists
Well, whatever the truth about the actual historical event (and I accept that it was more complex than is commonly believed), the version the Darwinists like to present is the one in which Galileo, the great scientist, was suppressed by the church because his ideas conflicted with Christian doctrine. They then portray “Creationism/ID” as religion attacking science (Darwinism), thus identifying ID with the medieval church. The irony is that in this controversy, it is the Darwinists themselves who have taken on the role of suppressing a new scientific idea precisely because it conflicts with their faith (atheism, in most cases, or at least the faith that the natural world can be fully explained by natural causes).
That is can we take some number of soft-bodied organisms, put them in a solution with increased calcium carbonate, and see if they “evolve” shells, bones and teeth?–
Thank you for admitting the premise is not objectively testable.
That is all I wanted to know- that the position is nothing but throwing time at every issue.
The way natural selection and father time are worshipped the theory of evolution is a religion.
Bruce David or any else interested,
If you are interested in learning the truth about what happened with Galileo, then go to the following thread over a year ago:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-you-know/
Search for the term Galileo and follow the thread to the end. You will get a good feel for what happened.
If you want to understand more about it go to your local library system and see if they can get the following Teaching company courses:
Science and Religion which has two 30 minute lectures on this topic
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/Co.....x?cid=4691
and
Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It which has a thirty minute lecture on the topic
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/co.....8;cid=1235
How the average person acquired their erroneous perceptions of Galileo and the Church is an interesting phenomenon in itself.
I just re-read something I wrote a year ago and it rang a bell. A lot of the fossils in the Cambrian were soft body fossils. So I am not sure that the calcium carbonate wold explain this.
Jerry,
Ok, thanks. I’ll follow your link.
There is an excellent review article on the subject of the Cambrian “explosion” and its relationship with the topics discussed in this thread in:
Vrba, E. & Eldredge, N. (2005) Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency; Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould, published by The Paleontological Society (ISBN 1891276492).
The article is:
“Tempo and mode of early animal evolution: inferences from rocks, Hox, and molecular clocks”, by Peterson, K., McPeek, M., and Evans, D. pages 36 to 55.
Professor MacNeill,
Do you just come to this website to dissuade students from looking further into ID? That is the impression I’m getting.
I apologize if I seem rude, I am notoriously abrasive at times, but I mean this is an ID website.
Platonist the moderation rules have changed and Prof MacNeil is providing valuable insight into how evo-theorists are actually thinking these days. And if you consider him the enemy, remember the ancient proverb, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. (No offense, Prof.)
Hi JT, good enough.
I was just worried that lurkers might get the wrong idea about ID.
No disrespect or bad feelings were intended.