Culture Darwinism News stasis

Why does defending Darwin increasingly remind one of defending communist economics?

Spread the love
1.8bya fossil-bearing rock/UCLA Center for of Evolution and OOL

Listen to this:

 The scientists examined sulfur bacteria, microorganisms that are too small to see with the unaided eye, that are 1.8 billion years old and were preserved in rocks from Western Australia’s coastal waters. Using cutting-edge technology, they found that the bacteria look the same as bacteria of the same region from 2.3 billion years ago — and that both sets of ancient bacteria are indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found in mud off of the coast of Chile.

“It seems astounding that life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years — nearly half the history of Earth,” said J. William Schopf, a UCLA professor of earth, planetary and space sciences in the UCLA College who was the study’s lead author. “Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained.”

Charles Darwin’s writings on evolution focused much more on species that had changed over time than on those that hadn’t. So how do scientists explain a species living for so long without evolving?

“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

So Darwin’s theory explains everything, anything, and nothing? Thanks for making it so clear.

Ah yes, that is what reminds one of communist economics.

Significance

An ancient deep-sea mud-inhabiting 1,800-million-year-old sulfur-cycling microbial community from Western Australia is essentially identical both to a fossil community 500 million years older and to modern microbial biotas discovered off the coast of South America in 2007. The fossils are interpreted to document the impact of the mid-Precambrian increase of atmospheric oxygen, a world-changing event that altered the history of life. Although the apparent 2-billion-year-long stasis of such sulfur-cycling ecosystems is consistent with the null hypothesis required of Darwinian evolution—if there is no change in the physical-biological environment of a well-adapted ecosystem, its biotic components should similarly remain unchanged—additional evidence will be needed to establish this aspect of evolutionary theory. – J. William Schopf, Anatoliy B. Kudryavtsev, Malcolm R. Walter, Martin J. Van Kranendonk, Kenneth H. Williford, Reinhard Kozdon, John W. Valley, Victor A. Gallardo, Carola Espinoza, David T. Flannery. Sulfur-cycling fossil bacteria from the 1.8-Ga Duck Creek Formation provide promising evidence of evolution’s null hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015; 201419241 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1419241112

11 Replies to “Why does defending Darwin increasingly remind one of defending communist economics?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    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 counterparts. “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/.....a014909330

    Odd Geometry of Bacteria May Provide New Way to Study Earth’s Oldest Fossils – May 2010
    Excerpt: Known as stromatolites, the layered rock formations are considered to be the oldest fossils on Earth.,,,That the spacing pattern corresponds to the mats’ metabolic period — and is also seen in ancient rocks — shows that the same basic physical processes of diffusion and competition seen today were happening billions of years ago,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....152520.htm

    Geobiologist Noffke Reports Signs of Life that Are 3.48 Billion Years Old – 11/11/13
    Excerpt: the mats woven of tiny microbes we see today covering tidal flats were also present as life was beginning on Earth. The mats, which are colonies of cyanobacteria, can cause unusual textures and formations in the sand beneath them. Noffke has identified 17 main groups of such textures caused by present-day microbial mats, and has found corresponding structures in geological formations dating back through the ages.
    http://www.odu.edu/about/odu-p...../topstory1

    Scientists find signs of life in Australia dating back 3.48 billion years – Thu November 14, 2013
    Excerpt: “We conclude that the MISS in the Dresser Formation record a complex microbial ecosystem, hitherto unknown, and represent one of the most ancient signs of life on Earth.”… “this MISS displays the same associations that are known from modern as well as fossil” finds. The MISS also shows microbes that act like “modern cyanobacteria,”
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/13/.....ient-life/

    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/...../19/9/1637

    “Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms — some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the “impossible” is true.”
    http://www.physicsforums.com/s.....p?t=281961

  2. 2
    ppolish says:

    Nearby pond scum turned into kangaroo but this guy stayed the same. Underachiever.

  3. 3
    Joe says:

    Geez News, we have told you repeatedly that evolutionism predicts change and/ or stasis. However the stasis isn’t real as the genetics have changed. However that is basically the problem- it doesn’t matter how much you alter the genomes of prokaryotes, if you get something that lives you will never get anything but prokaryotes as a result.

  4. 4
    Mapou says:

    “The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

    The only problem with this is that random mutations, the engine of change in Darwinian evolution, do not care whether the environment changes or not. Mutations keep occurring no matter what. You just got to love Darwinists.

  5. 5
    Joe says:

    Yes, mutations happen and the unlucky mutations get eliminated. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    That still isn’t a creative process.

  6. 6
    ppolish says:

    Evo Science can finally “prove” Darwin’s Null Hypothesis after thousands of cases disprove it. That’s not the way science is supposed to work sigh. Feynman would not be impressed with this Cargo Cult science. Bizarro World science.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    If the Null hypothesis of Darwinism is suppose to be that there should be no evolution if the environment remains unchanged, then what does that mean for the Null hypothesis when organisms also remain unchanged when the environment changes?

    Donald Prothero: In evolution, stasis was general, gradualism rare, and that’s the consensus 40 years on – February 2012
    Excerpt: In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. Rather than answers, we have more questions—
    Donald Prothero – American paleontologist, geologist, and author who specializes in mammalian paleontology.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ars-later/

    Should that not render the Null hypothesis void of any supposed explanatory power it had?

    Moreover, exactly why should organisms remain exactly the same even if the environment stays the same? Are unguided random mutations obligated to occur only in changing environments? i.e. There is no rigid logical foundation for the belief that this should be a strict null hypothesis for Darwinism and that there should be absolutely no morphological change for 2 billion years.

  8. 8
    Robert Byers says:

    If evolution is the glory behind complexity and diversity then the absence of it, after so mush alleged time, must be evidence that it doesn’t happen. if evolution did not happen one would find evidences of unchanged life from here/fossil record.
    truly that explain everything/nothing.
    Common sense must say its unlikely a billion years can make no difference in evolution for something while less turned bugs into buffaloes.
    Its just plain unintelligent thinking on biological origins.
    Its unimaginative .
    by the way a out could be its only been 6000 years or so.
    The actual truth.

  9. 9
    humbled says:

    These evo-waffle articles are nothing more than tabloid nonsense.

  10. 10
    awstar says:

    #4

    The only problem with this is that random mutations, the engine of change in Darwinian evolution, do not care whether the environment changes or not. Mutations keep occurring no matter what. You just got to love Darwinists.

    Wouldn’t this be a win for YECs?

    How many mutations would take place over 2,300,000,000 years in a line of bacteria?

    How many mutations would take place over 6,000 years in a line of bacteria?

    Which answer supports what is observed the best?

  11. 11
    ppolish says:

    Not sure about YEC, but the finding certainly supports OEC? All the “living fossils” support OEC?

Leave a Reply