Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Cambrian explosion: Getting past the Darwin lobby to look at the facts

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Thumbnail for version as of 07:25, 9 December 2008
opabinia, approx 500 mya - Nobu Tamura

Or anyway, the latest attempt at it. The Darwin lobby promotes uniformitarianism (long, slow gradual change caused by natural selection acting on random mutation), which is at odds with the evidence of rapid bouts of change followed by long periods of stasis.

Over at Access Research Network, David Tyler discusses “The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism” (05/16/11), and new approaches in progress.

It has been recognised for some time that the uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell has hindered the development of geological science. It is perhaps less widely known that Charles Darwin perceived himself initially as a geologist and he drew heavily on Lyell’s uniformitarian agenda (for an example, go here). Later, as Darwin’s focus moved to biology, he retained his commitment to a uniformitarian methodology: evolutionary gradualism was Darwin’s attempt to apply uniformitarianism to biology. (For an example of it leading him astray in understanding inheritance, go here). Scholarly criticism of gradualism, however, has been muted because alternatives to Neo-Darwinism lack maturity and there are many hypotheses that await testing. Notwithstanding this, the data derived from a study of fossils has consistently pointed to discontinuity rather than gradualism.[ … ]

The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the abrupt appearance of animal phyla and classes in the fossil record. It has been much discussed by both critics and defenders of Darwinism. Apart from pleading the impoverishment of the fossil record, the defenders have sought to ‘spread out’ the Explosion, to make it appear that gradualism can still be discerned. An example of this approach was blogged here, where I noted that critics have never insisted on an instantaneous explosion, but have merely drawn attention to the numerous characteristics of the Explosion that are inconsistent with Darwinism. Stimulated by the iconoclastic approach of Stephen Jay Gould, the critics have shown themselves to be the true empiricists.

As usual, the Darwin lobby was wrong and the critics were right.

What’s most interesting is that new approaches are now seriously mooted, as Tyler observes – notably Douglas Erwin’s.

The logjam so far has been the amount of effort going into interpreting the Cambrian explosion so as to support Darwinism, rather than understanding the event for itself.

Comments
I’m excited about the Mavs this year too, but let’s keep it on topic.
Too late! MAVS are in the Finals! Go MAVS!Mung
May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
Mung,
MAVS win Game 3 in OKC!
I'm excited about the Mavs this year too, but let's keep it on topic.Clive Hayden
May 22, 2011
May
05
May
22
22
2011
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
MAVS win Game 3 in OKC!Mung
May 22, 2011
May
05
May
22
22
2011
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT
I'll be in Seattle in 2 weeks...my first time to the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately won't have a ton of time for exploration, just one weekend and a wedding. And I'm a Lakers fan...boo Mavs...actually I'm pulling for Dirk now that LA is out.uoflcard
May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
mung, I'm supposed to officiate a wedding this saturday. might be one short ceremony huh? Lol ;)MedsRex
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
In case people are wondering what I'm talking about: Judgment Day! May 21, 2011 Here's Why The World Is Going To End On May 21, 2011
It turns out the theory comes down to two numerological proofs
And therein lie the rub. Predicting the end of the world requires at least seven numerological proofs. And here's the numerological proof that proves it. Amateur numerologists. Sheesh.Mung
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
Rats. My wife has a bunch of things for me to do around the house, and I was kind of hoping to get out of it . . .
LOL! Your wife does not have her priorities straight!Mung
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Mung: "The world is not going to end this Saturday, and I’m willing to wager all I own on it." Rats. My wife has a bunch of things for me to do around the house, and I was kind of hoping to get out of it . . . :)Eric Anderson
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
David Tyler @ 8, "This is not the issue." Actually, the amount of time (millions of years) is the main issue, when someone argues that the Cambrian "explosion" was sudden or abrupt. "The evidence is that diversity appeared abruptly in the fossil record. Darwinism does not predict this" The ToE definitely allows for "abrupt" diversity, especially when that abruptness takes millions of years. The available evidence isn't all in yet either. As more discoveries are made the time frame of the Cambrian "explosion" is found to have taken longer than originally thought many years ago. More fossil finds and better technology are helping to improve determinations about the Cambrian and the Pre-Cambrian, and all of Earth's history. Just so everyone knows, I submitted another post to this thread shortly after the thread was started and it still hasn't appeared. Selective censorship?Astroman
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
You’re tough to figure out, Mung.
lol Well, I do leave a good deal of room for interpretation. But people who have seen me post over the years have a much better frame of reference to be sure. I've done a lot of posting over at ARN as well. Walter ReMine's book The Biotic Message opened my eyes to the bait and switch tactics of the evolutionists. He calls evolutionary theory a smorgasbord. He likens it to how a magician works by misdirection. Interestingly, he puts forth a case for a single designer who purposely introduced difficulties for any materialistic evolutionary theory. I'm not a young earther. I think the evidence is strongly against it. It also appears that a very good case can be made that life has been around a long, long time as well. Is all life related by descent with modification? I'm open minded about it, or at least I think i am. But I've never found the evidence all that compelling and can hardly find anyone who can even put forth a coherent case in favor of that proposition. I'm not a Biblical literalist. I do believe that men were inspired by the Holy Spirit. I reject dispensationalism and the related end times fiction that's popular in some circles. The world is not going to end this Saturday, and I'm willing to wager all I own on it. I think Obama was born in the USA. I think Osama is dead. I'm a Dallas Maverick's fan. Go MAVS! I love the weather in Seattle, except when it rains. Which is most of the time. But not today! 70' I think people need Jesus. I do joke around alot. But if someone asks me straight up I do try to be as honest as possible.Mung
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
You're tough to figure out, Mung. :)nullasalus
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
But we also don’t witness random mutations creating anything close to the sophistication or elegance found in nature, yet it has been assumed for decades that it created everything, including human consciousness.
Two wrongs don't make a right. :)
Dawinism emphasises gradualism, because that is what we see today.
I think that's part of it, but not all of it. The theory itself seems to demand great periods of time (except when it doesn't).
The theory predicts that variation results in diversity – over long periods of time.
Except when it doesn't. Then the theory predicts that too.
The Cambrian Explosion contradicts this: diversity exists in the hard-bodied animal fossil record from their earliest appearance.
Right. But evolution can happen in jumps, too quickly for us to see. It can also happen too slowly for us to see. Or it can even not happen at all. And Darwinian theory explains it all. Isn't it wonderful!?
Darwinists need to admit they are wrong about the fossil record and recognise that their theoretical approach makes the wrong predictions.
But the theory explains it all. How can it be wrong?Mung
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Mung (1)
They don’t see new phyla and body plans appearing suddenly as if by magic today, so they don’t assume they did so in the past either. What’s wrong with that?
But we also don't witness random mutations creating anything close to the sophistication or elegance found in nature, yet it has been assumed for decades that it created everything, including human consciousness. If you are asserting that Darwinists don't assume some very important things to be true, you are making a hopeless assertion. Methodological naturalism asserts that all scientific endeavors should reference only material principles, but most Darwinists go a step further to metaphysical naturalism, that nature is all that there is. This essentially requires Darwinism to explain everything in biology. It is true, we just need to figure out how it's true. a.k.a., dogma.uoflcard
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Astroman: "Do you realize that the so-called “explosion” took millions of years? Have you ever really tried to picture just how long that is and how much can happen in that much time?" Uh, yeah. How about you, have you ever looked at the math? If so, you'll quickly see that although Darwinists are easily awestruck by the thought of millions of years -- opening their arms wide and religiously entoning each syllable as they pronounce the word "millions" -- it turns out the time available is but a rounding error in the probability calculations for what is required for a naturalistic evolutionary scenario, whether we are talking about the initial origin of life, or large developmental steps, like the Cambrian.Eric Anderson
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Astroman (4)
Do you realize that the so-called “explosion” took millions of years? Have you ever really tried to picture just how long that is and how much can happen in that much time?
It's all relative. It was an "explosion" relative to the rest of evolution's timeline. Everyone who studies it agrees that it was a period of "rapid" Phyla development; Denyse O'Leary did not coin the phrase. And a vacuous appeal to "deep time" is tired and unconvincing to ID advocates who have honestly spent time reasoning this debate. Millions of years is plenty of time for a mouse to find a hunk of cheese in a room-sized maze, but is it enough time for filtered random mutations to unlock the millions or billions of chronologically-specific, theoretical genetic states that created the magnificent sophistication and genius found in nature after the Cambrian? Don't bother looking to mainstream science for anything but a dogmatic truism regarding this question, as it has "known" the answer to it since decades before DNA was even discovereduoflcard
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Astroman @ 4: "Do you realize that the so-called “explosion” took millions of years? Have you ever really tried to picture just how long that is and how much can happen in that much time?" This is not the issue. The evidence is that diversity appeared abruptly in the fossil record. Darwinism does not predict this - see comment 7. There is no gradualist 'tree of life' leading to diversity - rather we have a 'forest of life' springing up in the Cambrian seas. To grapple with the empirical data, we have to discard Darwinism.David Tyler
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Mung @ 1: "They don’t see new phyla and body plans appearing suddenly as if by magic today, so they don’t assume they did so in the past either. What’s wrong with that?" It's very simple. Dawinism emphasises gradualism, because that is what we see today. The theory predicts that variation results in diversity - over long periods of time. The Cambrian Explosion contradicts this: diversity exists in the hard-bodied animal fossil record from their earliest appearance. That is why it is irrelevant that a sequence of first appearances can be discerned. Douglas Erwin's paper shows that non-uniformitarianism applies to the first appearance of both phyla and classes. He's now working on orders. Darwinists need to admit they are wrong about the fossil record and recognise that their theoretical approach makes the wrong predictions.David Tyler
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Mung, if my observation of Darwinists serves, they are always trying to minimize the impact of the explosion, as I think Tyler notes. The process has limited value except or defending Darwinism.
One has to learn how to appreciate the developmental plasticity of the theory.
Here we are in the 21st century still having to fight against some guy’s musings from the 18th century. Is this really science?
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1839) Maxwell's DemonMung
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Bang on. Biblical creationists , YEC, always have said the presumptions behind evolutionary change as indicated by the fossil record are based wrongly. indeed this cAmbrian stuff from both sides always presumes there was a cambrian age. What if this is wrong? What if this sediment/casts of life within was not formed in some long age thing relative to the overlying layer? What if these formations were simply laid or covered over suddenly and the above/below layers also laid suddenly a few days before? It would ruin everyones talk. Darwin said somewhere that a reader should not pick up his book unless he already agreed with geological presumptions of slow deposition and so accurately catching the ages in biology. AMEN CHUCK. All this talk of cambrian explosion and all the rest is not based on biological evidence mainly but mainly is geological evidence from whence biological conclusions are made. Evolution or critics of it are not doing biology fair and square. Without the geology the whole subject is meaningless. Is it certain that these formations are accurately dated? If these formations were made just a few thousand years ago would not this destroy claims of evolution? Biology conclusions must be founded on the study of biology. NOT geology. Geology has been allowed for too long to be the proof of biological evolution. That was the great flaw in the logic. No more pickaxes in biology class.Robert Byers
May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT
O'Leary @ 2, Do you realize that the so-called "explosion" took millions of years? Have you ever really tried to picture just how long that is and how much can happen in that much time? Exactly what "process" are you referring to?Astroman
May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Both Lyell and Darwin were students of Hutton at Univ. of Edinburgh, who preached an eternal earth that slowly built things up = uniformitarianism. Here we are in the 21st century still having to fight against some guy's musings from the 18th century. Is this really science? Or is it no more than dogmatism?PaV
May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Mung, if my observation of Darwinists serves, they are always trying to minimize the impact of the explosion, as I think Tyler notes. The process has limited value except or defending Darwinism.O'Leary
May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
The Darwin lobby promotes uniformitarianism (long, slow gradual change caused by natural selection acting on random mutation), which is at odds with the evidence of rapid bouts of change followed by long periods of stasis.
If you ask me, they promote the same sort of thinking that ID does. We look to known causes and effect to make inferences about past events. They don't see new phyla and body plans appearing suddenly as if by magic today, so they don't assume they did so in the past either. What's wrong with that?Mung
May 17, 2011
May
05
May
17
17
2011
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply