Cambrian explosion News

Adelaide researchers claim to have resolved Darwin’s dilemma re the Cambrian

Spread the love
Centipede on trilobite fossil/Michael Lee

It’s so simple. Life forms just evolved faster back then:

“These seemingly impossibly fast rates of evolution implied by this Cambrian explosion have long been exploited by opponents of evolution. Darwin himself famously considered that this was at odds with the normal evolutionary processes.

“However, because of the notorious imperfection of the ancient fossil record, no-one has been able to accurately measure rates of evolution during this critical interval, often called evolution’s Big Bang.

“In this study we’ve estimated that rates of both morphological and genetic evolution during the Cambrian explosion were five times faster than today — quite rapid, but perfectly consistent with Darwin’s theory of evolution.”

Darwin didn’t think so; he was very much the gradualist. That was the point of his idea. This new suggestion is more like with Stephen Jay Gould’s punk eek (punctuated equilibrium).

This is probably Darwin’s followers’ version of “The rocks aren’t really that old; God just put them there to fool ya.” In this case, it’s “Life just happened faster back then, that’s all.”

Nice try. An interesting facet is the intrusion of a note about “opponents of evolution” into the discussion. That is, one guesses, in part a way of sidelining people who are just plain dubious by slyly implying that they must be “opponents of evolution.”

Here’s Science on “Evolution’s Clock Ticked Faster at the Dawn of Modern Animals”:

The fact that genes and anatomy evolved at roughly the same rate suggest that pressures to adapt and survive in a world of new, complex predators drove both, the authors speculate. Innovations such as exoskeletons, vision, and jaws created new niches and evolution sped up to fill them. Wills agrees that the new research makes this explanation for the Cambrian explosion “look a lot more probable now.”

Here’s the abstract.

31 Replies to “Adelaide researchers claim to have resolved Darwin’s dilemma re the Cambrian

  1. 1
    turell says:

    I’d reviewed this article yesterday. The authors are looking only at phenotype and morphology. These animals developed eyes, livers, kidneys, intentines, etc. How do you calculate the specified complexity required by those organs. The preceeding organisms did not have those organs. This is one piece of scientific junk with bogus estimated rates of mutation not accounting for the development of specialized organs.

  2. 2
    AVS says:

    Welp, just another nail in the UD coffin. Sorry guys.

  3. 3
    OldArmy94 says:

    The ever-elastic theory of Darwinian evolution. Just bend it a bit here, a bit there, and all is good as new. AVS, I hope that is sarcasm.

  4. 4
    TSErik says:

    Welp, just another nail in the UD coffin. Sorry guys.

    Hah! Oh, AVS. Look at that golden statement.

    I do wonder. You never contribute to discussions in a meaningful way. If your posts are any indication your understanding of the topics presented is cloudy, at best, and generally “copypasta” from other places on the internet, that generally are lacking. When your lazy or questionable posts are discussed you generally lob a logical fallacy and disappear to the next thread. You present insults so even if you had something intellectual to offer this board, you’d not do so in good faith.

    It is interesting. You are not here to actually discuss anything, and probably lack the understanding to do so. That means the only reason for you being here is to troll. Now this is the interesting part as, if you know your being here bears no fruit, why do you show up?

    Is it some pathetic sense of validation when you think you have “one-upped” a perceived rival group? If so you are more sad than originally thought as you only betray your ignorance and cause us to roll our eyes.

    It makes me wonder how little one would value their time that they can spend a whole Saturday in a failed attempt to embarrass a group on the internet in order to validate oneself.

    If you are trying to proselytize for the Darwinian side, then you are not only terrible at it, but you’re not all that intelligent for picking UD as your point of focus.

    Finally, if you are honestly intending to engage in discussions of merit, well, you’ve failed horribly and made yourself look a fool. I would direct you to Lizzie for some help with that.

  5. 5
    AVS says:

    Not at all. I’m unsure why you guys are so nonchalant about this paper actually. They demonstrated that while rates of evolution seem to have been unusually high during this period, they are still congruent with evolution’s timescale.

    I guess it must be a thing here at UD to post science that you don’t understand and then laugh it away with a twist of words here and a quote-mine there.

  6. 6
    AVS says:

    Congrats Erik, I think you were wrong about every single thing you mentioned.
    1. I’ve copy and pasted once, maybe twice during my time on here
    2. “Cloudy” heh, I dont think so. I know more about biology probably than most of your friends on here combined
    3. I have remained on each thread I post until your friends disappear, take for example the last thread I was on with BA
    4. I would love to discuss biology on here, but when I try I find that no one on here has the training to do so

    The list goes on Erik.

  7. 7
    johnp says:

    AVS, how did they demonstrate anything? The article itself says that “no-one has been able to accurately measure rates of evolution during this critical interval” and “The fact that genes and anatomy evolved at roughly the same rate suggest that pressures to adapt and survive in a world of new, complex predators drove both, the authors speculate.”

    If the rates of evolution haven’t been measured, and the authors are basing their findings on speculation, I fail to see where anything at all has beeb “demonstrated”.

  8. 8
    johnp says:

    Make that BEEN “demonstrated”.

  9. 9
    AVS says:

    You should read the article again, john.
    This time, for understanding.
    Hey, maybe even read the paper, or would that be too much to ask of your typical UD reader?

  10. 10
    TSErik says:

    I’ve copy and pasted once, maybe twice during my time on here

    Ok cowboy.

    2. “Cloudy” heh, I dont think so. I know more about biology probably than most of your friends on here combined

    That certainly has not been demonstrated.

    3. I have remained on each thread I post until your friends disappear, take for example the last thread I was on with BA

    Lingering back to spout more fallacies and insults doesn’t count.

    4. I would love to discuss biology on here, but when I try I find that no one on here has the training to do so

    Once again, this is highly doubtful. Your ignorant responses do not lead me to agree with you on this. Further, others have succeeded in having many discussions, so it seems you are either a liar or too incompetent to succeed. This item smacks of projection to me.

    So which option I presented is it? Funny enough, even if I relegate your points, which I don’t, my conclusions stand. I’m going with my prediction of pathetic validation.

  11. 11
    AVS says:

    I don’t need to copy and paste, I am pretty well read when it comes to biology.
    Try me.
    BA ran out of things to repeat and realized he had backed himself into a corner.
    Im on here trying to discuss biology, am I not? And you are on here doing what exactly? Discussing how I discuss with others?

    Youre entitled to your own opinion, no matter how wrong it is.
    =)

  12. 12
    AVS says:

    Ill take it as a compliment that you think I copy and paste much of what I post though, so thank you erik.

  13. 13
    TSErik says:

    I am pretty well read when it comes to biology.

    If you keep repeating it, perhaps it will come true.

    Im on here trying to discuss biology, am I not? And you are on here doing what exactly? Discussing how I discuss with others?

    No, you’re not. Indeed I am discussing how you discuss because, when you aren’t making a fool out of yourself, it is a highlight of the typical sad internet troll who seeks validation for a sad life.

    Ill take it as a compliment that you think I copy and paste much of what I post though, so thank you erik.

    If that’s what you takeaway, and the only means of trying to squeeze some meaning out of your empty life, then I’m more than happy to help.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    To say that their assumptions in their model are overly optimistic is to be very, very, charitable to the sheer disconnect this study demonstrates to any real world empirical evidence. What does the empirical evidence tell us to expect for rates of molecular evolution?

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
    Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

    A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
    The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155).
    http://creation.com/review-mic.....-evolution

    “The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”
    – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146

    Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution
    “Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell–both ones we’ve discovered so far and ones we haven’t–at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It’s critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing–neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered–was of much use.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....20071.html

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....t-collide/

    God by the Numbers – Charles Edward White
    Excerpt: “Even if we limit the number of necessary mutations to 1,000 and argue that half of these mutations are beneficial, the odds against getting 1,000 beneficial mutations in the proper order is 2^1000. Expressed in decimal form, this number is about 10^301. 10^301 mutations is a number far beyond the capacity of the universe to generate. Even if every particle in the universe mutated at the fastest possible rate and had done so since the Big Bang, there still would not be enough mutations.”
    http://www.christianitytoday.c.....ml?start=2

    Dr. Sanford calculates it would take 12 million years to “fix” a single base pair mutation into a population. He further calculates that to create a gene with 1000 base pairs, it would take 12 million x 1000 or 12 billion years. This is obviously too slow to support the creation of the human genome containing 3 billion base pairs.
    http://www.detectingtruth.com/?p=66

    HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION
    Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.
    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_e.....hist12.htm

    Dr. Durston elaborates on how futile an evolutionary search is to find a single functional protein:
    Excerpt: From this, we can come up with a very rough estimate for the total number of stable, folding 3D sequences in 300 residue sequence space … roughly 10^74 sequences that will give stable 3D folds (this is very rough, but it will illustrate my point and help one see why scientists don’t search for novel stable 3D folds from a library of random sequences). One might think that 10^75 sequences is an enormous number, however, it is miniscule in comparison with 20^300, which is the total number of sequences in 300 –residue sequence space. This is why the theory that an evolutionary search, even if it involved all the planets in all the galaxies of the known universe, is utterly implausible.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-466489

    In Barrow and Tippler’s book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God.
    William Lane Craig

    So just as long as one is not concerned in the least that their computer model actually reflect reality, then I guess this is the model for you. But if one is concerned for truth one might check out Sanford’s work:

    Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:
    Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.
    http://bioinformatics.cau.edu......aproof.pdf

  15. 15
    AVS says:

    Once again you are wrong on all counts, erik, and once again I will ask: do you have anything intelligent to add?

  16. 16
    TheisticEvolutionist says:

    Please forgive me for slightly going off topic, but has anyone read the book In The Blink Of An Eye: How Vision Sparked The Big Bang Of Evolution by Andrew Parker. I know the book is old news now and you may have covered it on this website somewhere. I am interested in his “Light Switch Theory” how did it hold up? It is the only book that I have seen that attempts to tackle the mysteries of the Cambrian explosion… I understand the Darwinists were not fond of it.

  17. 17
    News says:

    AVS is no longer with us.

  18. 18
    Jerad says:

    AVS is no longer with us.

    On what grounds?

    On another thread I’ve been called a liar, deluded, brain-dead and a few other things. What is the line beyond which commenters are banned?

  19. 19
    Axel says:

    Nothing wrong with technical descriptions, Jerad.

  20. 20
    Jerad says:

    So, if you agree with a sobriquet then it’s okay?

    Do you think AVS should have been banned? If yes then for what reason? If no then will you speak out against the move?

  21. 21
    AVS says:

    Wow, without even a warning. Thanks for showing how childish you guys are. You have no problem silencing your opponents, but you put the Ball State events in the spotlight? What a bunch of fucking hypocrites you are.
    Good bye and good riddance.

  22. 22
    Brent says:

    AVS @ 21,

    f***ing hypocrites

    I think that exhausts all of his biological knowledge.

  23. 23
    AVS says:

    Funny you say that Brent, because I come on here and try to talk science, and the closest I come to having an intelligent conversation is with the copy-and-paste-bot BA. Just as I said to Erik, if you have anything intelligent to add, be my guest.

  24. 24
    Brent says:

    AVS, first, please know that what I said was just a joke, but I’m not advocating or cheering for your banning.

    From what little I’ve noted from your moniker here, most of the points about you above seemed to fit. But, I come and go much like the wind on this site, so my sample size is small.

    What I can tell you is that I see many have real discussions of the sort you say you are desiring, so I’m baffled as to why you seem to have difficulty getting anywhere in them yourself. I’ll admit frankly, it seems like the problem is with you.

  25. 25
    AVS says:

    Well, that is interesting because the closest thing I see to a scientific discussion on the homepage is one of BA’s recent copy-paste jobs on sugars. Hardly a conversation.
    Other than my pseudo-chats with BA, I have run into nothing but posts about how ignorant, stupid, and trollish I am. And I find it funny that someone with my background in science is considered a troll on here. Doesn’t surprise me though.
    Anyways, let me know if you see someone have a scientific conversation on here. That would be a nice change.

  26. 26
    TSErik says:

    And I find it funny that someone with my background in science is considered a troll on here. Doesn’t surprise me though.

    Hah! Another pathetic jab in lieu of anything intelligent. Needed another validation fix? This is even more worrisome than I originally thought. You may have a serious problem there AVS.

    Our issue with you isn’t your imaginary qualifications. It’s the supercilious tripe, and well, everything else. You’ve nothing to add. Perhaps why you’ve never found the discussion you’re looking for is your own doing? I’ve never seen a post by you that wasn’t condescending. A way to pathetically to elevate oneself among the hoi polloi, which is probably why you react with your imaginary qualifications so quickly.

    “Go(AVS!)” back to “Yahoo! Answers” where your pseudo-intellectual remarks are doted on by rebellious teenagers and basement dwellers. 😉

  27. 27
    News says:

    If News (O’Leary on desk) hasn’t succeeded in banning you for insulting the intelligence of others, AVS, it is simply lack of technical know-how. It turns out I have to ban all your posts.

  28. 28
    News says:

    There are many sites people can post at. One mod here gets annoyed by supercilious insults.

  29. 29
    Mung says:

    Well thank News my insults are not supercilious!

  30. 30
    Jerad says:

    Well thank News my insults are not supercilious!

    Watch your back, even court jesters sometimes get shot.

  31. 31
    Jerad says:

    If we are in fact on the right track with reality, it is not unreasonable that a higher standard is expected of us, including charity.

    Who wrote that then?

    The same person who wrote:

    There are many sites people can post at. One mod here gets annoyed by supercilious insults.

Leave a Reply