Priapulids challenge the cone of increasing diversity concept
| October 11, 2012 | Posted by David Tyler under Intelligent Design |
Darwin’s solitary illustration of evolutionary branching has left a lasting impression in the minds of readers. From an ancestral form, speciation occurs and the diversity of descendants increases. This can be visualised as a cone of morphological variation, extending from the source. However, the Cambrian Explosion provides empirical evidence against this concept, as a large number of organisms appear abruptly. (For more, see here) Yet it has been tempting for Darwinists to interpret the Cambrian species in terms of a number of cones of increasing diversity that all have their origins deeper in the Precambrian. This was something Stephen Jay Gould attempted to counter by proposing an “inverted cone” model. But there is a need for a third model to be on the table for consideration. For some years, it has been recognised that two groups of animals have very similar disparities in the Cambrian and the Recent. These are the arthropods and the priapulid worms.
“Both are reported to have comparable morphological disparity in the Cambrian and the Recent. This is important for our understanding of the manner in which metazoans radiated, because it implies that Cambrian animals had already explored a variety of ‘design’ options similar to that realized by their present-day counterparts. [. . .] This challenges the traditional ‘cone of increasing diversity’ (or, more precisely, it shifts this evolutionary model back in time) in favour of an approximately cylindrical model of bodyplan diversity from the Cambrian to the Recent. It also implies that the magnitude of Cambrian morphological diversity requires some form of explanation: whether in terms of Pre-Cambrian evolution at a small size, the gradual Pre-Cambrian differentiation of internal bodyplans decoupled from the appearance of external (and fossilizable) characters in the Cambrian, or some other mechanism.” (p.2057)
For more, go here.
19 Responses to Priapulids challenge the cone of increasing diversity concept
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What is your best estimate of the time over which the Cambrian explosion occurred?
Of related note:
verse:
also of note:
Bornagain77: thanks for the post.
What is your best estimate of the time over which the Cambrian explosion occurred?
also of note:
The ‘real work’ of the beginning of the Cambrian Explosion may in actuality be as short as a two to three million year time frame (Ross: Creation as Science 2006) which is well within what is termed the ‘geologic resolution time’. ‘Geologic resolution time’ simply means the time frame for the main part of the Cambrian Explosion apparently can’t be shortened any further due to limitations of our accurately dating this ancient time period more precisely.
It is amazing the level of denial that evolutionists will display when confronted with this evidence for a complete lack of transitional fossils to the Cambrian explosion, yet Dr. Wells points out that, even if we grant the most generous assumptions for time to evolutionists (up to allowing billions years), we still run into insurmountable problems from the information perspective:
And, despite what many evolutionists believe, recent discoveries are only amplifying this ‘suddenness of novelty’ problem for them:
Bornagain77: thanks again for your post, but can you answer the question:
I am asking for your estimate of the time involved in the Cambrian explosion.
Why in the world are you asking for my personal estimate??? Like you I am at the mercy of the estimates given in peer review (which I cited the best I know of for you!)! My personal opinion coupled with the price of a postage stamp will get you exactly one postage stamp!
Bornagain posted this:
Because I want to know what you think about the length of time of the Cambrian explosion. How long do you think was involved?
My ‘personal opinion’ (postage stamp!) is that God created, much like the creation of the universe, each individual ‘parent kind’ fairly instantaneously, complete with ‘front loaded’ information for a fairly rapid diversification from that initial parent kind into groups, or ‘strains’, of sub-species into particular environments, with loss of diversity over long periods of time for the entire ‘kind’ of species with the more extreme divergences going extinct more quickly than the main body,,, (which is exactly what we see in the fossil record) My ‘estimate’ for how long God took in this method of introducing all the different lifeforms in the Cambrian period is 5 to 15 million years with error bars, due to the problem of ‘geologic resolution, of 5 million years.
Bornagain77 posted this:
Have I got it right? You are claiming that the Cambrian explosion occurred in 5 million years?
Actually my ‘postage stamp’ timeframe for the Cambrian explosion, including the geologic resolution error bars, is 0 to 20 million years.
Do you have trouble reading what I wrote or are you, more likely, just playing games trying to catch me on a minor mistake I may have made??? without truly looking, in unbiased fashion, at the state of evidence as it sits?,,, The point being, regardless of any mistakes in the time-frame I, in my very unqualified knowledge on the subject, may have made, is that neo-Darwinists have ZERO compelling evidence as to the transitional forms they need to explain the sudden appearance of all the different, and distinct, phyla in such a short time! Nor do they have any demonstrated mechanism to explain the appearance of just one novel protein during that time (or even one novel protein appearing during the entire history of earth!)
i.e.:
This following paper is interesting for the authors try their level best to ‘stretch the runway’ for the Cambrian explosion to 20 million years, which even if true (which I would have no problem with) as to the duration of the Cambrian explosion, is still far too short of a ‘runway’ for neo-Darwinism to make a successful ‘takeoff’ as a valid scientific theory in explaining the origination of such massive amounts of biological information in the Cambrian (Darwinism has yet to demonstrate the appearance of even one novel protein!). Furthermore, the authors resorted, at one point in their paper, to pointing out that other anomalies (i.e. miracles) of sudden appearance and rapid diversity occurred for different lifeforms in the fossil record. It seems that their ‘rationalization’ in all this is this, ‘if other ‘miracles’ happened in the fossil record then the Cambrian explosion is not really all that ‘miraculous’ to explain’. Unfortunately for them science does not work by pointing to other unexplained mysteries as an explanation for the unexplained mystery one is currently working on.
further notes:
of note:
I don’t think any of you appreciate the artistic contribution to science vouchsafed by the Darwinists. For them, science is as much an art as a science – only just not representational art.
In short, they are to empirical science as Picasso is to the Old Masters. Where is your imagination?!?!
Bornagain77 posted this link:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc…..#038;hl=en
These graphs are fascinating. What are the sources of the Darwinian predictions that they illustrate (meaning what data are they based upon)?
Well, Darwin’s prediction for the Cambrian fossil record is here:
Darwin’s Dilemma in Darwin’s own words:
Of related note:
Guys help me out here;
This find finally falsifies the Darwinian account that Natural selection, random mutation and genetic drift has the capability to take a simple organism to a complex one. If anything these findings prove that NS, RM and drift does just the opposite.
If this is the case I’m sure it means Darwinian evolution is now debunked.
I’m not sure if I have just lost my marbles but it clearly indicates to me that complexity is not from them!
Andre @ 16: Falsify is too strong – on the basis of this particular research. However, showing that Darwinism is irrelevant is not too strong. This conclusion is drawn from the Cambrian Explosion and subsequent diversity trends.
The research warrants an extensive discussion of alternatives to Darwinism, something that appears to be firmly resisted by leading educationalists and numerous vocal scientists.
You have not lost your marbles!
bornagain77: thanks for your sterling efforts to set out the extensive evidence, and weight of scholarly opinion, to justify the uniqueness of the Cambrian Explosion.
timothya @ 4: you have had an honest response from bornagain77. My blog draws on observed diversifications – in the Cambrian and the Recent. The evidence base is the best we have. The issue of timescales is bypassed. No doubt the duration of the “Explosion” is an interesting question, but the argument of the blog does not rest on any specific figure assigned to the timescale. What worries me is that there are still numerous darwinist die-hards who are reluctant to acknowledge that the “Explosion” is real and they do not accept that it provides evidence that Darwinism is irrelevant as a causal mechanism.
BA77, I have been interested in exploring this particular subject of late. As always your links are appreciated.
While YEC does not accept the premise behind the cAmbrian explosion, geology ideas, still diversity is a great clue.
YEV would see diversity was created instantly or could happen quickly to fill up the earth.
The amazon is the true state nature. Where diversity is fantastic in kinds and types etc. elsewhere poverty rules and misleads investigation.
The cichlid fishes of africa is the truth of diversity being quick and great.
yes mechanisms are needed but its reasonable to see diversity was greatest at any earliest point we can get evidence for and later attrition leaves what is now here.
Yes complexity of that diversity belies ideas of primitive to smart.
I remember they tried to say marsupials were more primitive then placentals.
A intermediate type almost.
Upon further recent investigation they are as complex as anyone.
they are not in between reptiles and mammals after all.
Of coarese this YEC insists marsupials are just placentals with pouches and so explains their biogeography and spot on look alikeness to other creatures on earth.