Ediacaran Intelligent Design

Günter Bechly: Ediacarans are not animals

Spread the love

From Part II of the “Precambrian House of Cards”:

Even Evans et al. (2021) themselves admit that “phylogenetic affinities for most of the Ediacara Biota remain enigmatic” and say that “Many Ediacara taxa may represent stem lineages of animal phyla but their diagnostic characters either were not preserved or had not yet evolved.” Hear, hear.

Günter Bechly, “Ediacarans Are Not Animals” at Mind Matters News

The rest of Gunter Bechly’s series is here.

Maybe back then it just wasn’t as clear.

3 Replies to “Günter Bechly: Ediacarans are not animals

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    Ediacarans Are Not Animals – Günter Bechly – March 23, 2021
    Excerpt: Apart from Kimberella, there is no convincing evidence that the organisms studied by Evans et al. (2021) either represent Ediacaran animals at all, or belong to the attributed subgroups of the animal kingdom, as I have documented in my article series at length and in great detail (Bechly 2018, 2020 a, b, c, d, e, f, 2021 a, b). Dickinsonia is most likely not an animal and definitely has no bilateral symmetry but typical Ediacaran glide symmetry (Bechly 2018), Ikaria is a totally useless fossil that could be a protist or a coelenterate (Bechly 2020b), and even Kimberella remains a problematic organism that could be anything including a coelenterate-grade animal (Budd & Jensen 2017, Bechly 2020f). Also, Darroch et al. (2018: 660) recently concluded:
    “Although the Dickinsonimorpha (V), Triradialomorpha (VI), and Bilateromorpha (VII) have all at one time been placed somewhere on the metazoan tree (e.g., the Dickinsonimorpha with Placozoa, see [59]), there has been no scientific consensus on these placements (Figure I). As a result, there is currently no basis for assigning these groups to the Metazoa.”
    Yes, that’s exactly what I concluded after a thorough study of all the evidence as well. Even Evans et al. (2021) themselves admit that “phylogenetic affinities for most of the Ediacara Biota remain enigmatic” and say that “Many Ediacara taxa may represent stem lineages of animal phyla but their diagnostic characters either were not preserved or had not yet evolved.” Hear, hear.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/03/ediacarans-are-not-animals/

    Though not as pronounced as the Ediacara Biota compared to the Cambrian phyla, the same type of problem exists when comparing Cambrian phyla amongst themselves.

    As Erwin and Valentine explained, “the morphological distances — gaps — between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent.”

    Erwin and Valentine’s The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin’s Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is “Unresolved” – June 26, 2013
    Excerpt: “In other words, the morphological distances — gaps — between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent.”
    Erwin and Valentine (p. 340)?http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....73671.html

    And as Stephen Meyer explained in “Darin’s Doubt”, there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,

    “Over the 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 holds 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, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate 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.”
    – Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

    In fact, the fossil record, from the Cambrian explosion onward, also reveals a ‘disparity preceding diversity’ pattern and is also ‘upside down’ to what Charles Darwin himself had predicted,

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    Moreover, the Cambrian explosion, and multicellularity in particular, simply makes no sense on Darwinian presuppositions.

    Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video
    Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62031.html

    In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for?

    As Charles Darwin himself stated.

    “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66

    “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species – page 266

    The basic logic of natural selection is nicely illustrated in the following graph:

    The Logic of Natural Selection – graph
    http://recticulatedgiraffe.wee.....35.jpg?308

    Simply put, on a Darwinian view of things, any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and/or altruistic behavior, etc… etc.. would all be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since those attributes would obviously slow down successful reproduction.

    Again, the Cambrian Explosion simply makes no sense on the Darwinian view of things. To repeat what the Doctor told Richard Dawkins, “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?”

    Microorganisms, in terms of reproductive success, should simply be the pinnacle of evolution’s creative capacity. There simply is no reason for multicellularity to ever evolve on a Darwinian view of things. And indeed, microorganisms were apparently doing quite well for billions of years prior to the Cambrian Explosion.

    Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video (2:55 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2LDiWeWb4

    Again, on a Darwinian view of things, the Cambrian Explosion should simply never have happened. Much less should we ourselves exist. Multicellularity of any sort is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s own criteria for his theory, i.e. “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”

    Oh well, so much for any hope that Darwin’s theory would ever make any logical and reasonable sense.

    Darwin’s Dilemma – Excellent Cambrian Explosion Movie
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxh9o32m5c0

  2. 2
    ET says:

    It doesn’t matter as evolution by means of blind and mindless processes cannot produce any of the organisms that have lived, died and were fossilized.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    ET@2

    It doesn’t matter as evolution by means of blind and mindless processes cannot produce any of the organisms that have lived, died and were fossilized.

    There are those, within ID, who disagree with you. I’m not one of them, but you should at least be aware that your opinion does not represent ID. Given that UD is the go to site for ID proponents, don’t you think you have some responsibility for failing to disclose the cases in which your opinions do not reflect those of ID?

Leave a Reply