Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

No fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, but what about complex cells?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Asked what might disconfirm their theories about how speciation occurs, Darwinian evolutionists reply, “fossil rabbits in the Cambrian”. How about Precambrian? Dave Coppedge (yes, him) observes that

No such fossil has ever been found, partly because any stratum containing a rabbit fossil would never have been labeled Precambrian in the first place. – “Precambrian Rabbit or Evolutionary Transition?” (05/25/2011)

That said,

… evolutionists would be surprised at finding complex non-marine multicellular eukaryotes in Precambrian strata, and this has just been announced in Nature.A team led by Paul Strother of Boston College with help from Oxford University and University of Sheffield has announced “Earth’s earliest non-marine eukaryotes.”1 “Direct evidence of fossils within rocks of non-marine origin in the Precambrian is exceedingly rare,” they said. In Arizona, they found not only ambiguous traces, but oodles of clear evidence for freshwater eukaryotes:

Here we report the recovery of large populations of diverse organic-walled microfossils extracted by acid maceration, complemented by studies using thin sections of phosphatic nodules that yield exceptionally detailed three-dimensional preservation. These assemblages contain multicellular structures, complex-walled cysts, asymmetric organic structures, and dorsiventral, compressed organic thalli, some approaching one millimetre in diameter. They offer direct evidence of eukaryotes living in freshwater aquatic and subaerially exposed habitats during the Proterozoic era. The apparent dominance of eukaryotes in non-marine settings by 1?Gyr ago indicates that eukaryotic evolution on land may have commenced far earlier than previously thought.

The date of one billion years is nearly twice as long ago as the Cambrian explosion. More

Hmmm. NO, they’re not rabbits, but they certainly render Darwinism more doubtful. It might be wiser to bet against Darwin than against dat dastardly wabbit. Or at least, realize that this is a time for exploration, not dogma.

Comments
The teacher didn’t mean all the possible genomes had been tried of course. Silly. She meant that lots and lots of different ways of making a living had been tried.
So she was speaking metaphorically, or poetically?
…as a very good biology teacher once told me: nature has pretty much tried out everything you can think of at one time or another.
But you seem to have taken it literally. Why was your teacher teaching non-science in a science class!? The horror! I'm just trying to understand the science behind that statement, if there was any. Then I'm trying to understand how you could take it and use it as an argument against what was stated in #19.Mung
June 1, 2011
June
06
Jun
1
01
2011
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Mung: Yes, I know, I used to teach combinatorics. The teacher didn't mean all the possible genomes had been tried of course. Silly. She meant that lots and lots of different ways of making a living had been tried.ellazimm
June 1, 2011
June
06
Jun
1
01
2011
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Nope. I’m stubborn.
Is there a cure for that? Combinations and Permutations
...as a very good biology teacher once told me: nature has pretty much tried out everything you can think of at one time or another.
Actually, no, it hasn't had near enough time to even begin to do so. The possibilities are just too enormous and the resources too few. We humans have not even begun to write all the books that can be written, or the post on blogs all the possible posts that could potentially be written and posted. Your teacher was giving you an opinion which had nothing to do with science. Probably lacked a math background. Probably wanted to give you a child's reason to believe that "evolution did it" was a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. Take the genome of the simplest organism that you know of. Given that genome, how many possible combinations/permutations are there of the 4 bases for a length og genome of that size. How long would it take to "try out" each of those possible genomes?Mung
May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Mung: I am more than willing to accept your definition of ID, and I haven't knowingly not accepted it! I'm not quite sure why we are at cross-purposes here. It's possible that I haven't properly understood you (but I assure you I read your post). So let me try to paraphrase what I think you are saying (and then you can correct me if I'm wrong): I think you are saying that ID is the science of figuring out whether a given object has been designed or not. And that the task of figuring out how or who is outside its domain. Perhaps you could confirm whether or not I've understood before we go any further? Thanks :)Elizabeth Liddle
May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT
Mung: "But now you understand your teacher was wrong, don’t you? And what you were hearing was religion, not science." Nope. I'm stubborn.ellazimm
May 30, 2011
May
05
May
30
30
2011
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT
Asked what might disconfirm their theories about how speciation occurs, Darwinian evolutionists reply, “fossil rabbits in the Cambrian”.
I will say, I think the OP is mistaken in this regard. How speciation occurs is a separate question from where rabbits are expected to appear in the fossil record.Mung
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
For example, having inferred a designer, one might develop a hypothesis regarding the time-scale of the design process, and the mechanisms by which the design was implemented.
Where are you getting your ideas about Intelligent Design? Here's the link again. Please read the material, it's not that long: https://uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ Where does it mention "having inferred a designer"? If you are not willing to accept this definition of ID, please tell us why it is not acceptable to you. Then please re-read my post at @50. I try to keep my posts short, so there's no reason not to have read it. Where does it mention "having inferred a designer"? In software development, it's possible that there are multiple people who produce the design and multiple people who implement the design. It's also possible that one person does both. Some possibilities: One designer multiple implementers. Multiple designers multiple implementers. Multiple designers a single implementer. One designer, one implementer. ID theory doesn't even pretend to have identified "a designer." So what are you talking about? Where are you getting your ideas about Intelligent Design?Mung
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Ah, cross-posted, Bornagain77 :) I think my post below yours at least partially addresses your post to me:
Elizabeth you state; ‘I’m not terribly surprised that 1 billion year old pond-scum is quite similar to modern pond-scum’ Well that sure is special, neo-Darwinism predicts change except when its predicts extreme stasis. Man that is some kind of flexible scientific theory you got there Elizabeth,,, a theory that allows you to ‘predict’ completely opposite findings. ,,, Very special and bogus indeed!
No, because we are not actually talking about a static theory, but one which, like all scientific theories is only ever provisional, and subject to continued modification in the light of new data. Although in fact I don't think Darwin predicted either change OR stasis; what he proposed was adaptation, and even the most simple evolutionary models (e.g. the kind you can program fairly easily) result in local optima - fitness peaks on which populations come to rest and go no further. So no, not bogus :) Fitness landscapes with local maxima are very much part of standard evolutionary theory,and indeed, reflect field data, including, for example, the galapagos finch beaks, and feature movement towards peaks followed by relative stasis, at least along that dimension. Anway, I do appreciate the conversation :)Elizabeth Liddle
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
It may be worth pointing out, however, that science doesn't, in fact, proceed by falsification. It proceeds by fitting models to data, and discarding, generally, the less-well fitting models in favour of better fitting models. But all models are, almost by definition, false, in some sense, and indeed, many useful models remain in use despite actually being falsified. Newtonian physics, Einsteinian physics and quantum physics are all in regular use, even though they each contradict each other, and can only be used over a limited range of data. Perhaps that's science's dirty little secret :) So to return to the rabbit in the pre-Cambrian: if a rabbit was found in the pre-Cambrian, modern evolutionary models would struggle to accommodate that data point, and would have to be severely tweaked, and possible even discarded. Similarly, modern looking pond-scum from 1 billion years ago certainly entailed tweaks to existing models. That doesn't, however, I submit, mean that "Darwinism is infinitely flexible". What it means is that biological models are in a continuous state of revision, as are all scientific models. They are not so much flexible as plastic - and once moved they can't just flex back into place at a whim. That pond-scum data won't go away. Current scientific models have to accommodate it. However, it doesn't strike me as being a particularly difficult challenge.Elizabeth Liddle
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Elizabeth you state; 'I’m not terribly surprised that 1 billion year old pond-scum is quite similar to modern pond-scum' Well that sure is special, neo-Darwinism predicts change except when its predicts extreme stasis. Man that is some kind of flexible scientific theory you got there Elizabeth,,, a theory that allows you to 'predict' completely opposite findings. ,,, Very special and bogus indeed!bornagain77
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
bornagain77: I'm not terribly surprised that 1 billion year old pond-scum is quite similar to modern pond-scum - as I've said, Darwin attempted to explain diversity ("on the Origin of Species") not complexity, and if pond-scum worked well 1 billion years ago, then there would have been strong conservative selection pressures on it. However, as current estimates of the age of the earth stand at about 4 and a half billion, with the first life-forms appearing about 3.8 billion years ago, then there's still 2.8 billion years for the optimal pond-scum format to evolve.Elizabeth Liddle
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Elizabeth you state: ' “Darwinism” predicts that early unicellular organisms would be simpler than modern unicellular organisms.' But what do we find for as far back as we can look? Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330 The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 million year old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 Enzymes Complex from the Get-go Excerpt: “Given the ancient origin of the reconstructed thioredoxin enzymes (a vital enzyme found in all living cells), with some of them predating the buildup of atmospheric oxygen, we expected their catalytic chemistry to be simple," said Fernandez. "Instead we found that enzymes that existed in the Precambrian era up to four billion years ago possessed many of the same chemical mechanisms observed in their modern-day relatives.”,, Further examination of the ancient enzymes revealed some striking features: The enzymes were highly resistant to temperature and were active in more acidic conditions. The findings suggest that the species hosting these ancient enzymes thrived in very hot environments that since then have progressively cooled down, and that they lived in oceans that were more acidic than today. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/enzymes-complex-from-the-get-go/ etc.. etc.. "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist Elizabeth, I really don't think you want to go down the path of failed Darwinian Predictions, for it is not pretty for the committed neo-Darwinists to look at: Darwin’s Predictions - Cornelius Hunter http://www.darwinspredictions.com/ Here is a article, and audio interview with Dr. Hunter, summarizing Darwinism's refusal to submit to falsification as all other robust theories of science do: Arsenic-Based Biochemistry: Turning Poison Into Wine - Cornelius Hunter - December 2010 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/arsenic-based-biochemistry-turning.html Failed Predictions of Evolutionists - Cornelius Hunter - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2009-11-09T15_20_49-08_00bornagain77
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
bornagain77: yes, I agree, that was my point, and is why I queried Mung's Point 3. Yes, it should be possible, and clearly is, to derive testable hypotheses from ID. I think I made the mistake of calling these "ID theories".Elizabeth Liddle
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Kairofocus: I wasn't implying criticism when I suggested that ID proponents varied in how they regard common ancestry. I was just pointing out that evidence for common ancestry is not evidence against ID, as I'm sure you'd agree. Well, at least Michael Behe would :) I don't share your view that Darwinism is a "worldview", but I'm happy to agree to disagree on that. Nor do I agree that "Darwinism" is "dying", except in the sense that all scientific theories start to die as soon as they are proposed because no theory is ever complete. We now know that even common ancestry is wrong, and that the tree of life is far bushier than we imagined. We also know that genetic drift is in many ways as important as natural selection, and indeed,that natural selection is best viewed as a biasing factor in genetic drift. We also know that evolution (as in "microevolution") is measurable from generation to generation, as opposed to thousands or millions of generations, and that it oscillates. So "Darwinism" as Darwin conceived it, is indeed dying, as are quantum mechanics and relativity. However, I know that is not what you meant, and this probably isn't the thread (or the place) to challenge your view that
Why the design inference is hugely controversial is that it is underscoring the significance of something that is often overlooked. There is no movement from simple to complicated in life. That is because the so-called simple cell, ain’t.
As I said to Mung, "Darwinism" doesn't so much predict simple to complex as homogeneous to heterogeneous - it predicts radiation of species rather than a journey towards complexity along any one lineage. But clearly, if life started simple, then mean complexity will tend to increase over time, even though some organisms remain relatively simple. But to the extent that complexity works better than simplicity, even modern "simple" organisms, such as unicellular organisms, will tend to be more complex now than our (postulated) common ancestors. So yes, "Darwinism" predicts that early unicellular organisms would be simpler than modern unicellular organisms. It doesn't predict that modern unicellular organisms won't be complex! Not does it predict that the cells of modern multicellular organisms will not be complex. Furthermore, I'd argue that not even ID predicts that ancestral organisms will be as complex as modern ones - after all, most intelligently designed artefacts have simpler prototypes. So while I accept that the ID position is that the complexity of life leads to the inference of an Intelligent Designer, I don't see that the lack of extant simple organisms supports one inference or the other. Both theories are consistent with simple ancestral "prototype" beginnings, are they not?Elizabeth Liddle
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Elizabeth you state: 'Normally, in science, once you have a theory you then go on to develop testable hypotheses, so I’d have expected that ID would generate testable hypotheses.' Intelligent Design, contrary to what many evolutionists will say publicly, does in fact make solid predictions for science that we can test: A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010 Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions: (1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information). (2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. (3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms. (4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - March 2011 - several examples of cited research http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html In the last part of this following audio, Casey Luskin lays the evidence out for a Professor of evolution, who who has the audacity to challenge his students to come up with 'ANY' evidence for Intelligent Design: Evidence for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - July 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-07-16T13_26_24-07_00 Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) - updated regularly http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 Is Intelligent Design "Creationism in a Cheap Lab Coat"? - Casey Luskin - September 2010 http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/09/is_intelligent_design_creation.html I found this following paper particularly interesting for broadly outlining how evolution misses the mark for a true science and is, in reality, a pseudo-science: Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other?pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudosciencebornagain77
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
sorry, that should read: I've mentioned "front-loading" a few times,...Elizabeth Liddle
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Thanks. I don't understand number 3,though. Normally, in science, once you have a theory you then go on to develop testable hypotheses, so I'd have expected that ID would generate testable hypotheses. For example, having inferred a designer, one might develop a hypothesis regarding the time-scale of the design process, and the mechanisms by which the design was implemented. I've mentioned "front-loading a few times", and I know that at least some ID supporters have cited non-coding DNA as a prediction from front-loading. That's not about detecting design per se, it's to do with figuring out how the design process works, isn't it? Maybe you don't want to call them "ID theories" but they are hypotheses arising from ID theory are they not?Elizabeth Liddle
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Lizzie, Please visit the following page: https://uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ and then let me know if you still don't understand: 1. What is the theory of intelligent design (ID). 2. What Intelligent Design is, broadly speaking. 3. Why speculations that have nothing to do with detecting design are not ID theories.Mung
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Re: I have met at least some ID proponents who posit that the Intelligent Designer created a variety of living forms ab initio on the earth, and thus do not accept universal common ancestry. Others of course have a different model (Michael Behe, for instance) and I had understood that the “front-loading” model posited an ancestral genome that was pre-coded with the information necessary to ensure that subsequent generations unfolded in an adaptive manner. Bottomline: people have worldviews, but the design inference is not a complete worldview. Instead, it is an inference from empirically reliable sign to its best explanation. That is, it is a constraint on reasonable worldviews, as opposed to a worldview itself. This makes it different from Darwinism, which from the days of Darwin, has been a complete worldview. Remember, too, there is a whole other side to the design inference that infers to signs of design in the cosmos and in the evidence pointing to its origins. Similarly, the design inference connects into information theory, and into the area of technology development. Even, cryptanalysis. Different things in science have different contexts and significance. Why the design inference is hugely controversial is that it is underscoring the significance of something that is often overlooked. There is no movement from simple to complicated in life. That is because the so-called simple cell, ain't. Instead, we are looking at something that is an automaton, with metabolic ability to interact with the environment and make key components from basic sources. And, that is joined to a self replicating facility. And then, the embryogenesis of multicellular organisms points beyond, to a capacity to move from general to even more integrated complicated things, with information requirements that are orders of magnitude beyond. This blows up the whole context on which Darwinism rested, as a C19 theory that started in the days when the cell could be seen as a relatively undifferentiated blob of "protoplasm." Darwinism is dying in the face of the discoveries of the information systems in the heart of life. But it is not slipping away quietly, due to the worldview and culture agenda issues connected to the dominant school of thought. So the elites are in resistance mode. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
ellazimm @20:
I don’t think common descent with modification is infinitely elastic but, as a very good biology teacher once told me: nature has pretty much tried out everything you can think of at one time or another.
But now you understand your teacher was wrong, don't you? And what you were hearing was religion, not science.Mung
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Such theories are not ID theories. I hope you understand why that is the case.
No, I don't, I'm afraid! Can you explain?Elizabeth Liddle
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Mung, I'm sorry if I was unclear, but I did not intend to equate ID with creationism, but I am aware that there is a subset of ID which does hold to creationist, or quasi-creationist models, and I have met at least some ID proponents who posit that the Intelligent Designer created a variety of living forms ab initio on the earth, and thus do not accept universal common ancestry. Others of course have a different model (Michael Behe, for instance) and I had understood that the "front-loading" model posited an ancestral genome that was pre-coded with the information necessary to ensure that subsequent generations unfolded in an adaptive manner. I could well be wrong, of course, but that was my understanding, my impressions from people I have talked to here is that this is indeed the range - bornagain77 does not accept universal common ancestry, but agrees that Michael Behe does. So I was not trying to "cariacature" ID, not is what I was trying to portray a straw man, although I accept that it appeared that way to you. As for the patterns - yes, I agree that those patterns can be detected, and I agree that they mean something.Elizabeth Liddle
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
However, ID theories that propose that an Intelligent agent continuously nudged what we naive Darwinists call “mutation” in a desired direction from the year dot to the present are obviously compatible with the gradual morphological changes we see in the fossil record.
Such theories are not ID theories. I hope you understand why that is the case.Mung
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Liddle, e:
I do understand that ID is not creationism...
Did you not understand that before you made your post in which you essentially equated ID with Creationism? What was the point of the straw man caricature of ID?
...however, I know of very few theories as to how ID might actually have been implemented ...
Consider, please, that there is good reason for this. ID is not a theory of design implementation. ID is not a theory of "how" but rather a theory or "whether." We don't know the "how" of it and we (I) don't know how the how question can be answered scientifically. Do you perhaps have some thoughts on that? Consider the software engineering process. One methodology is known as the "waterfall" model. Analysis -> Design -> Implementation -> Testing. Implementation is a completely separate "step" from Design. One may not know who the designers were. One may not know who the developers were that implemented the design or how they went about doing so. But that does not prevent one from looking at the finished product and recognizing "design patterns." All ID does is claim that these patterns can be identified scientifically and attempts to formalize the method or methods by which that may be accomplished. RegardsMung
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Mung: you write:
Darwinism seems to require a progression from simple to complex. But if Darwinists had to accept a “complexity first” view of life, they would. And I doubt it would bother them in the slightest.
I'd modify that a bit: What "Darwinism" (I'm going to retain my scare quotes :)) requires is not so much progression from simple to complex, but from homogeneity to heterogeneity. If simple works, simple will survive, but if complex works, complex will also survive. So what Darwinism predicts is a branching tree, the twigs of which will include the comparatively simple (e.g unicellular organism) to the hugely complex (e.g. a human brain) Now you could well argue (and probably will :)) that modern unicellular organisms are also highly complex (they are). But Darwinism doesn't rule out simple surviving. However what it does predict is a series of radiations punctuated possibly be huge pruning events in which many entire branches are lost. And this is, mostly, what we see. If, instead, what we saw a pattern that was bushy and entangled, that would indeed cast doubt on Darwinism. And, interestingly, there is also growing evidence for bushiness, so we know that the simple common ancestry picture is indeed wrong. But the big picture appears broadly in line with Darwin's original concept. But it's also, of course, consistent with some ID scenarios.Elizabeth Liddle
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Mung, you rightly pointed out, above, that ID is not creationism, and that it is compatible with common descent (i.e. does not require ab initio creation of a variety of life-forms at a particular point in earth's history), and I would entirely agree. In that sense, both "Darwinism" and "ID" have considerable flexibility in explaining what I see as the "explanandum" - what looks very much like evidence that life can be mapped on to a vast family tree, and is therefore likely to be, literally, a family, sharing common ancestry. But neither are so flexible that they can explain "anything" (and here I diverge from some of my fellow non-IDists) - both are capable of generating differential hypotheses amenable to testing against data. Yes, indeed, Darwinism could live with the discovery that eukaryotes preceded prokaryotes, and so could ID. But not all specific Darwinian theories are supported by data (biologists are, for example, constantly tweaking their phylogenies in the light of new data) and nor are all specific ID theories supported by data (for example, I personally think the "front-loading" theory is infirmed by data, but I freely admit that I don't know a great deal about the specifics of the theory so I may be wrong. Where I diverge strongly from most IDists is in the notion that the standard biological model is infirmed by the data, or that is is so woolly it can never be infirmed by the data. A Pre-Cambrian rabbit would indeed be a huge challenge to Darwinian theory, which predicts, strongly, that a set of characters that has been shown to have emerged at a given time in the geological time-scale will not be found any earlier. IF a rabbit-like fossil was found in pre-Cambrian strata, Biologists would, I imagine, take three approaches: 1) is it really a contemporaneous fossil, or is it a modern rabbit who delved too greedily and too deep...oops wrong script...and got stuck? 2) what detailed characters does it share with the mammalian clade, or is the resemblance merely superficial? 3) is it a fake? And, if the answer to all of these indicated an actual pre-cambrian rabbit, they would be forced to conclude either an extraordinary case of either convergent evolution (which would predict both precursors and descendents, for which they would immediately search in higher and lower strata), or - Darwinism is wrong. And they would rightly be extremely reluctant to come to that last conclusion, not because they are closed-minded bigots so wedded to their theory that they cannot countenance its demise, but because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and pretty well all the rest of the picture fits common ancestry so well. It would be less of a problem for ID (after all, why shouldn't the postulated Intelligent Designer have a bit of a sense of humour?), but it would still be odd, and force, I suggest, ID theorists to revise (just as Darwinists would have to revise) their ideas as to how living things have come to take the form they did and do.Elizabeth Liddle
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
nul lasalus: “You take common descent to be making a statement about theology? By all means, do so. That comes with a price tag you know.” ellazimm: Did I? I certainly didn’t mean to. I think null asalus mistakenly read your "design intervention" as "divine intervention." He still struggles with sounding out words :) Cheers.Mung
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
ID is a big tent – individuals can disagree. You can endorse common descent, you can reject it. You can affirm macro-evolution, or you can deny it.
I can't sit on the fence? I can't both affirm and deny? Now I don't know what I am going to do :(Mung
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Perhaps the lesson to take away from it – and away from the cambrian explosion – is that, come hell or highwater, whatever data is found, it can be fit within Darwin’s theory. Because Darwinism is just that elastic. Whether you find a complex organism 1 second or 1 billion years after the OoL, for example.
I see I am not alone in my opinion. Darwinism seems to require a progression from simple to complex. But if Darwinists had to accept a "complexity first" view of life, they would. And I doubt it would bother them in the slightest.Mung
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
p.p.s. What is the point of your use of "nulla salus" as opposed to nullasalus?Mung
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply