But should we be talking about a “Big Bang” of birds?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 13, 2014

Evolution, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Does the idea of an “explosion of organisms” reinforce a misleading perspective?

The evidence for intelligent design just keeps getting stronger. It’s long been known that the Cambrian explosion isn’t the only explosion of organisms in the fossil record. There’s also something of a fish explosion, an angiosperm explosion, and a mammal explosion. Paleontologists have even cited a “bird explosion,” with major bird groups appearing in a short time period. Frank Gill’s 2007 textbook Ornithology observes the “explosive evolution” of major living bird groups, and a paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution titled “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse” explains:

A literal reading of the fossil record indicates that the early Cambrian (c. 545 million years ago) and early Tertiary (c. 65 million years ago) were characterized by enormously accelerated periods of morphological evolution marking the appearance of the animal phyla, and modern bird and placental mammal orders, respectively.

Now, a massive genetic study published in Science has confirmed the fossil evidence that birds arose explosively. According to an article titled, “Rapid bird evolution after the age of dinosaurs unprecedented”: More.

Okay, it all happened really fast, and so do explosions. (If it happened really slow, we would call it evolution.)

See the problem? Explosions aren’t just very fast, they are usually destructive. Yes, they can be constructive, but only if controlled for a constructive purpose like blasting a subway tunnel (intelligent design).

What actually happens, whether it’s the origin of the universe or the origin of birds most fits the pattern of a scheduled rollout.

You can often see antecedents, to be sure, as in the dinosaurian traits of birds. But the antecedents do nothing to account for later developments like the “enormously accelerated periods” or “unprecedented” rapidity of constructive change.

Don’t forget, Fred Hoyle called it the Big Bang theory to make fun of it. In doing so, he implanted an idea that fits what we are required to believe, but not what we see. Thoughts?

See: Big Bang exterminator wanted, will train

Comments

Axel @ 96
Well you see, I would contend that Godel’s incompleteness theorem constitutes mathematical proof that mind precedes matter by default: the divine mind.
Goldel's theorem is about mathematical logic. It simply states that in consistent system of axioms, some statements about natural numbers can't be proved within the system.It is an answer to Hilbert's second problem. Goldel can be proved to be wrong if transfinite induction is used.
That is one example I would proffer, but a less elliptical one would be one explicated by BA77 where a particle sets out on a path on one or other side of an object – can’t remember the details – before the observer decides which one he wants it to follow.
Double slit experiments (even delayed choice experiment) has nothing to do with mind. When they say 'observer', it doesn't mean the literal person. It means the instrument that makes measurement. Obviously you can't observe a photon without instrument.If you think the instrument has a mind, or the person observing the instrument changes the instrument's mind, then I am with you, but you have to prove instrument has a mind.Me_Think_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

@ Me_Think #61 'If your idea of Macro QM effects is a phonon movement of less than an electron width in a Quantum ground state in a isolated system,in below one-tenth of a kelvin, then I agree!' Good. It's a start in both senses, although I have to concede you are substantially right. 'What mathematical equation are you talking about ? There is no maths proving ‘mind’ precedes matter. Can you even define ‘mind’ in terms of a equation ?' Well you see, I would contend that Godel's incompleteness theorem constitutes mathematical proof that mind precedes matter by default: the divine mind. That is one example I would proffer, but a less elliptical one would be one explicated by BA77 where a particle sets out on a path on one or other side of an object - can't remember the details - before the observer decides which one he wants it to follow. Do you remember it? Or is my description too vague. I believe it concerned entangled photons, but I'm not sure.Axel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic,
Silver Asiatic: He [Zachriel] refers to himself as “we” so it makes it harder to pinpoint what is really going on.
"He" even refers to Berlinski as "they" ...
Zachriel #87: That’s a funny article. For instance, they quote-mine Wikipedia, (...)
Box_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Yes, it seems either he can’t read or False dichotomy. We didn't read it because we weren't sure why we were being called upon to defend Matzke's statement, or its relevance to our own comment. However, as we pointed out Berlinski mischaracterized Matzke. A transitional to an evolutionary biologist is not necessarily a direct ancestor.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Box
You have no idea? Can’t you read?
Wiki: "there do not seem to be any transitional or ancestral forms" Matzke: “These are transitional forms!” Box: The wiki quote contradicts Matzke’s claim Zachriel: Have no idea Yes, it seems either he can't read or he's just lying. But apparently he can read well enough to know if something has been quote-mined.
You are a deeply disturbed person.
He refers to himself as "we" so it makes it harder to pinpoint what is really going on.Silver Asiatic_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Box: Can’t you read? David Berlinski: Matzke is persuaded that whatever is trilobite-like must be trilobite-lite, and so ancestral to the trilobites themselves. That is false, as we explained above. Can't you read?Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Zachriel,
Box: The wiki quote contradicts Matzke’s claim, about the presence of transitional forms.

Zachriel: Have no idea. You can take that up with Matzke.
You have no idea? Can't you read? Berlinski quotes Matzke! In #88 I quote Berlinski quoting Matzke! And although you have no idea what it is all about, you still have the nerve to accuse Berlinski of quote-mining; as you did in #87?? You are a deeply disturbed person.Box_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Box 88
The wiki quote contradicts Matzke’s claim, about the presence of transitional forms, conclusively.
Thanks for making that clear. What does that tell us about other undocumented claims we've heard from him? (I ask myself). More literature bluffing? More quote mining? Ok, I know what that tells me.
This is not the first time I caught you red-handed bluffing and/or twisting phrases.
After a while, when you've caught him more than once (and I caught the same thing just earlier on this thread), trust and credibility come into question.Silver Asiatic_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Box: Matzke is persuaded that whatever is trilobite-like must be trilobite-lite, and so ancestral to the trilobites themselves. A transitional is an organism with primitive and derived traits, not necessarily a direct ancestor. The fossils are ambiguous enough that no strong conclusions can be drawn. Box: The wiki quote contradicts Matzke’s claim, about the presence of transitional forms Have no idea. You can take that up with Matzke. This is Zachriel's comment: Anomalocaris are thought to be closely related to arthropods, a family of organisms which includes trilobites. As life is generally characterized by branching descent, and as there is evidence of more primitive metazoans including bilaterians, with ichnofossils supporting the existence of primitive arachnomorphs, it’s a reasonable fit with the theory of evolution.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Zachriel on the Berlinski article:
Zachriel: That’s a funny article. For instance, they quote-mine Wikipedia, leaving out the part immediately after which says “Evidence suggests that significant diversification had already occurred before trilobites were preserved in the fossil record, easily allowing for the “sudden” appearance of diverse trilobite groups with complex derived characteristics (e.g. eyes).”
The only thing that is funny is that you are twisting words. The wiki quote contradicts Matzke's claim, about the presence of transitional forms, conclusively. If Berlinki would have followed your suggestion and would have also quoted the next sentence, "However, it is still reasonable to assume that the trilobites share a common ancestor with other arthropods before the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary", he would have missed the point. That sentence is about another subject. Read again:
Berlinski: “What is often missed,” Matzke argues, “is that deposits like the Chenjiang have dozens and dozens of trilobite-like and arthropod-like organisms ....” There follows a burst of exuberant thunder: “These are transitional forms!” Matzke is persuaded that whatever is trilobite-like must be trilobite-lite, and so ancestral to the trilobites themselves. The party line is otherwise:
[Wiki] Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; there do not seem to be any transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods). Morphological similarities between trilobites and early arthropod-like creatures such as Spriggina, Parvancorina, and other “trilobitomorphs” of the Ediacaran period of the Precambrian are ambiguous enough to make detailed analysis of their ancestry far from compelling.
[my emphasis]
This is not the first time I caught you red-handed bluffing and/or twisting phrases.Box_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Box: which has been torn apart by Berlinski here. That's a funny article. For instance, they quote-mine Wikipedia, leaving out the part immediately after which says "Evidence suggests that significant diversification had already occurred before trilobites were preserved in the fossil record, easily allowing for the "sudden" appearance of diverse trilobite groups with complex derived characteristics (e.g. eyes)."Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

it’s a reasonable fit with the theory of evolution.
That is impossible as there isn't a theory of evolution. Whoops...Joe_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

In fact, the problem of the Cambrian Explosion is the rate of evolution,...
In fact, the problem of the Cambrian Explosion is mo one knows what makes an organism what it is so so one knows what mechanisms are required for the CE.Joe_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Zachriel #83, This is Nicky Matzke talking - which has been torn apart by Berlinski here.Box_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Box: The first trilobite is all trilobite. The first Anomalocaris is all Anomalocaris. Anomalocaris are thought to be closely related to arthropods, a family of organisms which includes trilobites. As life is generally characterized by branching descent, and as there is evidence of more primitive metazoans including bilaterians, with ichnofossils supporting the existence of primitive arachnomorphs, it's a reasonable fit with the theory of evolution.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Evolutionnews on Lee at al.
The paper assumes that speeding up natural selection solves all the problems and brings the Cambrian diversification safely back into Darwin's fold. What they fail to acknowledge is that each phylum appears abruptly in the fossil record, with no transitional forms. The first trilobite is all trilobite. The first Anomalocaris is all Anomalocaris. The Cambrian explosion is not just a matter of brevity of time. It's a gap between microbes (or bland multicellular colonies, if one considers the Ediacaran animals) and fully integrated body plans with jointed legs, complex eyes, guts, brains, nervous systems, and a whole new ecology. Speeding up the evolutionary clock, therefore, doesn't solve the real problem Meyer emphasized in his book: where did the information come from to build all these new body plans? If you doubled or tripled the time interval, it wouldn't change that issue. The absence of transitions and the sudden appearance of complex tissues, organs, and systems cry out for explanation, however one might quibble about the duration of the explosion.
Box_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Box: And BTW Zachriel’s article, on the rates of evolution, has been taken apart at evolutionnews. Evolution News: If you doubled or tripled the time interval, it wouldn't change that issue. So, according to your citation, we can dispense with the issue of the rate of evolution. It's just the standard "it's complicated" argument. Evolution News: Suppose that the mythmaker then claims that it was really 10 seconds, if you consider the lead-up and the aftermath. Then he boasts that he can even compress that interval by half to 5 seconds, and his natural model of the explosion still holds. Would the MythBusters accept that story? No; they would laugh the guy off the set. The essence of the explosion was its suddenness. The suddenness is millions of years. Evolution News: Evolution itself is the issue! So, according to your citation, we can dispense with the issue of the rate of evolution. It's just the standard "it's complicated" argument. Evolution News: In essence, Lee and team are simply saying, "They evolved because they evolved faster." That's not the challenge the fossil record poses. In fact, the problem of the Cambrian Explosion is the rate of evolution, which is limited. If the changes occurred within a year or even a millennium, then known evolutionary mechanisms would not be sufficient. However, there is some evidence of precursors, and the paper finds that the rate is within the means of known mechanisms.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

And BTW Zachriel's article, on the rates of evolution, has been taken apart at evolutionnews.org.Box_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: As evidence you refer to adaptation among lizards. Evolutionary theory predicts that observed rates of evolution must be greater than or equal to inferred historical rates. That is what we find. Evolution doesn't encompass the origin of life.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Are you referring to this statement?
Yes, that was a bluff - or a lie. You responded, by citing "rates of evolution" to this problem:
hundreds of millions of years to explain OOL, the transition to eukaryotes ...
As evidence you refer to adaptation among lizards. Bluffing, shell game, deception, crock of lies -- there are a number of terms for that kind of thing.Silver Asiatic_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Bluffing, or you’re more accurate calling it a crock of lies. Are you referring to this statement? Z: Observed rates of evolution are more than sufficient to account for inferred historical rates of evolution, including the Cambrian Explosion. If so, the claim is composed to two interlocking parts. For the observed rates, there have been many such studies. For instance, see Losos et al., Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis, lizards, Nature 1997; or Weiner, The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, Knopf 1994. For historical rates, again, there are many such studies; for instance, see Lee et al., Rates of Phenotypic and Genomic Evolution during the Cambrian Explosion, Current Biology 2013; or Gingerich, Rates of evolution: effects of time and temporal scaling, Science 1983.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Bluffing, or you're more accurate calling it a crock of lies. Some businesses are based on that - like professional psychics and mediums. They know its a lie, but they take your money anyway. You can't ask for a money-back guarantee either. Evolutionists should have the reputation of tarot-card readers or mafioso. Maybe not quite as honorable as either of those.Silver Asiatic_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Why are evolutionists such a bunch of babbling bluffers?Joe_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Observed rates of evolution are more than sufficient to account for inferred historical rates of evolution, including the Cambrian Explosion.
What a crock of lies. Observed rates of evolution are proven to be insufficient to account for anything other than slight variations. They definitely are not sufficient to account for the origin of Eukaryota.Joe_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: OK, that was a hyperbole! Okay. gpuccio: Let’s say that you said that it explains the biological explosions. Yes, when there is an open niche, there is often a burst of evolution. gpuccio: My point is simply that you skepticals are never skeptical about those unsupported ideas. It's well supported. You just cited two examples, birds and mammals after the Great Extinction. Others include island colonization, such as Darwin's finches. Thought you were going to explain your understanding of the difference between facilitate and explain. gpuccio: Well, I am not sure we have hundreds of millions of years to explain OOL, the transition to eukaryotes, and especially the various “explosions”. Again, that's not what you ~~said~~ suggested, which was four billion years for small events like these explosions. Perhaps you meant the entirety of historical evolution. It wasn't clear. gpuccio: And I am not sure that “hundreds of millions of years” is even near to what would be needed by “your” theory. Observed rates of evolution are more than sufficient to account for inferred historical rates of evolution, including the Cambrian Explosion. That doesn't mean the actual detailing of that history isn't fraught with difficulties.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

The “explosions” take millions of years.
That is the propaganda, anyway.
Evolution is powered by the exploitation of resources, so when a niche is vacated, another organism will tend to evolve to exploit those resources.
Only if that organism was intelligently designed to evolve to exploit those resources.
The Theory of Evolution still requires hundreds of millions of years to explain the vast changes,
There isn't any theory of evolution so no one knows what it requires. BTW no one has determined the age of the earth. The best one can do is determine the age of the materials.Joe_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: "Well, you said it explained “anything”." OK, that was a hyperbole! Let's say that you said that it explains the biological explosions. post #50: "gpuccio: A vacant niche can explain everything. No, but it does explain a burst of diversification." Emphasis mine. "Evolution is powered by the exploitation of resources, so when a niche is vacated, another organism will tend to evolve to exploit those resources. It may also converge on some of the same adaptive solutions." Good catechism. My point is simply that you skepticals are never skeptical about those unsupported ideas. "No. The Theory of Evolution still requires hundreds of millions of years to explain the vast changes, enough time as to directly contradict the younger age of the Earth determined by physicists of the day such as Kelvin." Well, I am not sure we have hundreds of millions of years to explain OOL, the transition to eukaryotes, and especially the various "explosions". Even the window from habitable earth to LUCA could well be less than that. And I am not sure that "hundreds of millions of years" is even near to what would be needed by "your" theory. Maybe infinite multiverses are more like it! :) And why do you insist with the age of earth? I have no doubts that it is as old as science says. Maybe more.gpuccio_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

tjguy: Whatever happened to Darwinian evolution one little gradual step at a time?! The "explosions" take millions of years. gpuccio: That is what I am “denying”. Well, you said it explained "anything". Evolution is powered by the exploitation of resources, so when a niche is vacated, another organism will tend to evolve to exploit those resources. It may also converge on some of the same adaptive solutions. gpuccio: One thing is to say that a vacant niche can facilitate a burst of diversification. All another thing is to say that it can explain it. But probably a true skeptical cannot understand those subtleties… But you should certainly be able to explain it for the benefit of our readers. gpuccio: Well, let’s say life as we know it. Sure. gpuccio: It is equally true that water is probably not enough. Sure. gpuccio: Again, you certainly know that there is a definite logical difference between “necessary” and “sufficient”. Sure. No one knows what is required for life to begin at this point, however, it is known that life is very adaptive and will occupy most any niche where there is liquid water and energy. gpuccio: Well, that has been well known since Gould, but evolutionists seem not baffled by the necessity to rely on 10 million years instead of, say, 4 billion, for small events like those “explosions”. No one posited four billion years to explain the "explosions". Rates of evolution during the Cambrian were about five times the historical rate, but still much much lower than directly observed rates. See Lee et al., Rates of Phenotypic and Genomic Evolution during the Cambrian Explosion, Current Biology 2013. gpuccio: But after all, so many things can happen in one day, given a vacant niche and the right level of credulity! No. The Theory of Evolution still requires hundreds of millions of years to explain the vast changes, enough time as to directly contradict the younger age of the Earth determined by physicists of the day such as Kelvin.Zachriel_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

@65 gpuccio
After all, 10 million years is still a very big time.
Well, it all depends on the context. A popular song back in 1975 said: il tempo vola, un anno non è un secolo. :) P.S. you're probably too young to know that old song, which I heard first time on Polish radio in a popular musical program known as "Lato z radiem" back in that year. Since many people didn't understand the lyrics, they thought it was about a "bull fighter", because the singers repeated the word "tornerò" and many people thought they were referring to a "torero". Sometimes in the discussions here, it seems like your interlocutors have the same problem with understanding different words, even though you're writing in clear English. Or maybe they just pretend not understanding? Who knows? Oh, well. Things happen. :)Dionisio_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

@65 gpuccio
...so many things can happen in one day, given a vacant niche and the right level of credulity! :)
yes, for example, in one day some of your interlocutors can saturate a discussion thread with a bunch of senseless comments. :)Dionisio_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply