Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Steve Meyer: Cambrian gaps not being filled in

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Compare it to paint samples at the hardware, to see the problem.

Darwin's Doubt Further to Steve Meyer vs. hostile reviewer Charles Marshall, from Darwin’s Doubt:

Over th past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy hlds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, thy have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded ntermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) That interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space. (p. 70)

Comments
I understand.
I'm not so sure.Alan Fox
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Alan Fox: "It is unrealistic to expect to see a full record of all those individual organisms that fit into that pattern." More of that “not explaining away” the fossil record to which you alluded to earlier. I understand.Barry Arrington
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Charles Darwin: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.” Alan Fox: “What Darwin said, reasonable at the time, is not that relevant to evolutionary theory as it stands currently.” Are you suggesting that the fossil record now reveals the “finely graduated organic chain” that in Origin Charles Darwin predicted would be ultimately revealed as the fossil record was explored further? And you base that on a single fossil. Do you not understand how absurd that is? Does it not bother you that you rely on a single fossil to prove a point that could, in principle, only be proven by the existence of countless thousands of transitional fossils? I think it would bother me.Barry Arrington
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Just a point of clarification. If evolutionary theory is true there must of course be an unbroken chain of organisms from the first self-sustaining self-replicators to all organisms that survive today and to all those that have gone extinct. It is unrealistic to expect to see a full record of all those individual organisms that fit into that pattern. Fossilisation is a rare event, rarer still if an organism has no hard parts. The Cambrian has a proliferation of organisms, possessing shells and cuticles that did fossilise in an environment that favoured such fossilization. Nonetheless, there is no anomaly that falsifies evolutionary theory to my knowledge.Alan Fox
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
BTW, Alan, my above quote from Origin was about the Cambrian in particular. Regarding the absence of transitionals generally Darwin wrote:
But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
Barry Arrington
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
That a lawyer should accuse me of focussing on minutiae! I was making two points together. I'll separate them: 1. What you now quote from Darwin does not gel with what you were paraphrasing him as saying. 2. What Darwin said, reasonable at the time, is not that relevant to evolutionary theory as it stands currently. The fossil record, notwithstanding the fact that it is usually only hard parts such as bones, teeth and shells that tend to fossilize, has expanded hugely, without anomaly, with Tiktaalik, since Darwin's day.Alan Fox
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Alan Fox at 9:01 AM on why the fossil record does not show more than a handful of plausible intermediates allegedly linking a Precambrian ancestor to a Cambrian descendant wouldn’t instead of the overwhelming number of transitionals predicted by Darwin: “That we have any fossils at all is a very lucky happen-stance . . .” Alan Fox at 9:22 AM on what he just said: “I really don’t see any “explaining away” going on.” Doesn’t it bother you that in order to cope with your cognitive dissonance you have to deny what you did only 21 minutes after doing it? I think it would bother me.Barry Arrington
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
BTW Darwin does not use the word “predominate” [sigh] You’ve got me Alan. He did not use that exact word. This is what he wrote:
Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. Here we encounter a formidable objection; for it seems doubtful whether the earth, in a fit state for the habitation of living creatures, has lasted long enough . . . To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.
Does it not bother you that your arguments so often depend on focusing on irrelevant minutia instead of the main thrust of the issue under discussion? I think it would bother me.Barry Arrington
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Does it never bother you that Darwinists are constantly “explaining away” the fossil record instead of standing on it? I think it would bother me.
No. I find the seemingly endless rolling out of new discoveries absolutely fascinating. My problem is I have no preconceptions or incompatible beliefs that jar with the evidence. And I really don't see any "explaining away" going on. What anomalies do you think need "explaining away"?Alan Fox
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
“That we have any fossils at all . . .” Does it never bother you that Darwinists are constantly “explaining away” the fossil record instead of standing on it? I think it would bother me.Barry Arrington
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Alan Fox: “That’s an awfully slow explosion.” Seriously Alan? Dismissive hand waving is not an argument. Does it never bother you that so much of what you say on these pages amounts to just that? I think it would bother me. 80 million years. The most recent estimate of the length of the explosion is five million years. If the three billion years life has been on earth were a 24 hour day, all of the major animal phyla would have appeared in one minute of that day. That’s why they call it an “explosion” Alan (BTW, “they” in the previous sentence includes Darwinists back to Darwin himself). It is true that some Darwinian apologists try to stretch out the time available to 80 million years by adding events in the pre-Cambrian and late Cambrian that are not part of the explosion. OK, if that makes you feel better we can add time to the explosion that was not really part of the explosion. That gets you to 16 minutes out of that 24 hour day in which all of the major phyla appeared. Still think it was “awfully slow” Alan?Barry Arrington
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
BTW Darwin does not use the word "predominate" in chapter six of Origin of SpeciesAlan Fox
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
Uh, how about in Darwin’s Origin of Species? Darwin said that if his theory were correct transitional species should predominate in the fossil record. He admitted that they do not and he admitted that their relative absence was a powerful argument against this theory.
Well it's a matter of fact that can be easily settled whether Darwin wrote that "transitional fossils should predominate in the fossil record". It doesn't show up as an exact quote or quote-mine. Notwithstanding, evolutionary theory is no longer Darwin's theory. Darwin thought blending inheritence was an issue, being unaware of Mendel's work. Now we have genetics, molecular biology and evo-devo.Alan Fox
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
“thus, even the discovery of a handful of plausible intermediates allegedly linking a Precambrian ancestor to a Cambrian descendant wouldn’t come close to fully documenting Darwin’s picture of the history of life.”
That we have any fossils at all is a very lucky happen-stance, given the many ways which bodies (especially tiny ones) can disappear without trace or remain forever undiscovered. What would be a problem for evolutionary theory is anomalies within the fossil record. Haldane's Cambrian rabbit fossil, for example. A better explanation of the molecular and morphological nesting of extant and extinct species, such as a genuine theory of"Intelligent Design" would also be interesting to see.Alan Fox
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Uh, how about in Darwin’s Origin of Species? Darwin said that if his theory were correct transitional species should predominate in the fossil record. He admitted that they do not and he admitted that their relative absence was a powerful argument against this theory. He suggested the problem would be solved as the record was studied more extensively. It has not. Is this really news to you Alan? If so, that is astounding.Barry Arrington
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Wow, no one has even read point #2 of my post. It’s not about me, it’s about the Legg et al. 2013 study.
Surely this means Matzke will come back to readdress the comments made about point #2.
Does anyone read anything around here?!?!
I could ask the same of you, oh captain of the H.M.S. Literature Bluff.TSErik
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Alan Fox: "transitional fossils will be rare" So at least you admit they are rare. That's progress of a sort.Barry Arrington
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Where does the word “predominate” in discussions about transitional fossils.
Oops missed a word out. Where does the word “predominate” occur in discussions about transitional fossils.Alan Fox
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
BTW Nick, Meyer never says there are no fossils that might possibly be considered intermediate. Did you even read his book? His point is that intermediates do not predominate, and they do not. As for the handful of plausible intermediates that may exist, on page 12 he writes: “thus, even the discovery of a handful of plausible intermediates allegedly linking a Precambrian ancestor to a Cambrian descendant wouldn’t come close to fully documenting Darwin’s picture of the history of life." Nick, setting up straw men and knocking them down may by fun, but it does not convince anyone but your already-convinced BFFs over at the Thumb.Barry Arrington
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Transitional species do not predominate the fossil record, and if you say they do you are a liar.
Where does the word "predominate" in discussions about transitional fossils. It follows from evolutionary theory that initial populations of bifurcating species (or at least one of them) would be small and,stumbling upon a "green field" of a niche, initial evolutionary pressure for change would be greater than when adaptation has brought closer correlation between species and niche. Both processes would mean the raw material for transitional fossils will be rare.Alan Fox
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Matzke states,
"It’s not about me"
A little background as to why it is about you Matzke and the 'credibility bridge' that you burned long ago with ID proponents:
Nicholas J. Matzke is the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and served an instrumental role in NCSE's preparation for the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial,,, After the trial he co-authored a commentary in Nature Immunology,,, He wrote a lengthy paper about the evolution of flagella[8] and has challenged intelligent design claims that flagella are irreducibly complex.,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Matzke
And in regards to all that 'help' he provided in Dover as to supplying evidence, how did all that evidence pan out? The following podcast is very informative as to the theatrics orchestrated by Matzke and his cohorts:
"A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00
In careful study , of the 'literature bluff', there was not one piece of evidence that stood up to scrutiny. In this following podcast, Casey Luskin interviews microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his previous work as associate editor for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers being published were merely comparative studies that had nothing to do with evolution of the systems at all.
What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much - April 2011 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-04-06T11_39_03-07_00
The deception (literature bluff), from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology;
The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010 http://www.discovery.org/a/14251 Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information – Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/assessing_the_ncses_citation_b.html Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/hopeless_matzke075631.html
The same disingenuous presentation of evidence by Matzke is found for the flagellum
Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291
Of related note, the primary piece of evidence, at the Dover trial, trying to establish chimp human ancestry from SNPs (Single Nuecleotide Polymorphisms) evidence was overturned:
Dover Revisited: With Beta-Globin Pseudogene Now Found to Be Functional, an Icon of the “Junk DNA” Argument Bites the Dust - Casey Luskin - April 23, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/an_icon_of_the_071421.html
Thus perhaps Matzke can start to see why 'it is about him', and why people now severely question anything he has to say about ID? Also of interest is the blatant censorship of ID by neo-Darwinists (i.e. Darwinist apparently can present evidence against ID but a fair response by ID proponents showing why that evidence falls apart is not allowed):
ID theorist Mike Behe was refused a response in Microbe - September 22, 2013 https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/id-theorist-mike-behe-was-refused-a-response-in-microbe/
bornagain77
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Chapter 4 is devoted entirely to fossils supposedly supporting Cambrian biota and why they are not adequate to explain the Cambrian explosion.
The Cambrian period spans approximately eighty million years. That's an awfully slow explosion. It's longer than from the last major extinction event that saw off the dinosaurs till the present.Alan Fox
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
I followed your link and looked at your charts and arguments. Very interesting. I notice that you still call the Cambrian Explosion the “Cambrian Explosion.” I wonder why you do that. Since you believe it all worked out exactly as predicted by Neo-Darwinian theory, shouldn’t you start calling it the “Cambrian gradual expansion over vast expanses of time with species almost imperceptibly transitioning into other species just as we predicted”? You seem to be suggesting there is nothing anomalous about the Cambrian Explosion? (Like the cop at the traffic accident: “Nothing to see here folks. Move along”). This is, of course, absurd, as evidenced by the “explosion” metaphor itself. No matter how red-faced you get, no matter how many “Bams!” you interject into your polemics, the fact remains that if Darwin were correct transitional species would predominate in the fossil record. They do not. Darwin understood this and admitted it in Origin, and he suggested that the problem would be solved as the fossil record was studied more extensively. 154 years later, it has not been solved. Transitional species do not predominate the fossil record.Barry Arrington
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Wow, no one has even read point #2 of my post. It's not about me, it's about the Legg et al. 2013 study. There are pictures and everything. Follow the evidence where it leads, people. Mapou writes,
"I did not read the book yet (I will soon) but I doubt that the ID camp or Stephen Meyer is arguing that there are no intermediate fossils in the Cambrian"
What??????? From the opening post of this very thread, quoting Stephen Meyer:
Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space. (p. 70)
Does anyone read anything around here?!?!NickMatzke_UD
December 3, 2013
December
12
Dec
3
03
2013
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
NickMatzke_UD, I have Dr.Meyer's book. Chapter 4 is devoted entirely to fossils supposedly supporting Cambrian biota and why they are not adequate to explain the Cambrian explosion. It also shows how Sam Nobel Science Museum issued disclaimers and scheduled a official lecture to preempt the screening of documentary on Cambrian explosion.coldcoffee
December 2, 2013
December
12
Dec
2
02
2013
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT
Meyer, and you guys, are wrong. And apparently too lazy to even do the first basic research steps in checking the no-transitional-fossils claim.
LMAO! Hi Dr. Nick! Shamed Matzke back again, and shamed again. Thanks Dr. Nick! You're always great for a laugh.TSErik
December 2, 2013
December
12
Dec
2
02
2013
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
Darwin's Doubt (Part 3) by Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpGSH0JUGWI&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t Discussion of Stephen Meyer's new book continues with chapters 4 & 5, which includes non-missing links and genetic time scales. Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2aEoYDLzRU&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8tbornagain77
December 2, 2013
December
12
Dec
2
02
2013
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
I did not read the book yet (I will soon) but I doubt that the ID camp or Stephen Meyer is arguing that there are no intermediate fossils in the Cambrian but that it took a geological blink of an eye for new animal groups to appear, not nearly enough time for the Darwinian process to do its poof magic, punctuated equilibrium poofery notwithstanding. So-called "transitional fossils" do not falsify ID. On the contrary, intelligent design over time always result in an evolution of forms that can be organized hierarchically.Mapou
December 2, 2013
December
12
Dec
2
02
2013
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Meyer, and you guys, are wrong. And apparently too lazy to even do the first basic research steps in checking the no-transitional-fossils claim.
Hi Nick, In Darwin's Doubt, where does Meyer assert that "there are no transitional fossils?"Mung
December 2, 2013
December
12
Dec
2
02
2013
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
NickMatzke_UD, apparently too lazy to check fossil claims?: A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013 Excerpt: Matzke writes, “for the basic idea that the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms, and that this took something like 30 million years just to get to the most primitive forms that are clearly related to one or another living crown ‘phyla,’ and occurred in many stages, instead of all at once.” This is a view championed by Matzke in defiant isolation. The University of California’s Museum of Paleontology makes the obvious case to the contrary: When the fossil record is scrutinized closely, it turns out that the fastest growth in the number of major new animal groups took place during the as-yet-unnamed second and third stages (generally known as the Tommotian and Atdabanian stages) of the early Cambrian, a period of about 13 million years. In that time, the first undoubted fossil annelids, arthropods, brachiopods, echinoderms, molluscs, onychophorans, poriferans, and priapulids show up in rocks all over the world. Matzke is pursuing his PhD at the University of California. He is apparently indisposed to visiting museums. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_graduate_stud074221.html#sthash.Tml1rxnU.dpuf http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_graduate_stud074221.html It gets far worse for Matzke,,, A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/hopeless_matzke075631.htmlbornagain77
December 2, 2013
December
12
Dec
2
02
2013
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply