No fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, but what about complex cells?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 26, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Asked what might disconfirm their theories about how speciation occurs, Darwinian evolutionists reply, “fossil rabbits in the Cambrian”. How about Precambrian? Dave Coppedge (yes, him) observes that

No such fossil has ever been found, partly because any stratum containing a rabbit fossil would never have been labeled Precambrian in the first place. – “Precambrian Rabbit or Evolutionary Transition?” (05/25/2011)

That said,

… evolutionists would be surprised at finding complex non-marine multicellular eukaryotes in Precambrian strata, and this has just been announced in Nature.A team led by Paul Strother of Boston College with help from Oxford University and University of Sheffield has announced “Earth’s earliest non-marine eukaryotes.”1 “Direct evidence of fossils within rocks of non-marine origin in the Precambrian is exceedingly rare,” they said. In Arizona, they found not only ambiguous traces, but oodles of clear evidence for freshwater eukaryotes:

Here we report the recovery of large populations of diverse organic-walled microfossils extracted by acid maceration, complemented by studies using thin sections of phosphatic nodules that yield exceptionally detailed three-dimensional preservation. These assemblages contain multicellular structures, complex-walled cysts, asymmetric organic structures, and dorsiventral, compressed organic thalli, some approaching one millimetre in diameter. They offer direct evidence of eukaryotes living in freshwater aquatic and subaerially exposed habitats during the Proterozoic era. The apparent dominance of eukaryotes in non-marine settings by 1?Gyr ago indicates that eukaryotic evolution on land may have commenced far earlier than previously thought.

The date of one billion years is nearly twice as long ago as the Cambrian explosion. More

Hmmm. NO, they’re not rabbits, but they certainly render Darwinism more doubtful. It might be wiser to bet against Darwin than against dat dastardly wabbit. Or at least, realize that this is a time for exploration, not dogma.

Comments

p.s. But I also think Darwinism could adapt if a rabbit was found in the Cambrian :)Mung_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

“Why is this (finding complex non-marine multicellular eukaryotes in Precambrian strata) perceived as a problem for Darwinian evolution?” ez @18:
Good question! And your answer?
Hey, I never said I agreed with the OP. I disagreed with your mis-characterization of ID. But if that's really the question you meant to ask, why bring up the straw man caricature? As for the question, I'm not sure it does cause any real problem for Darwinism, which has proven to be very flexible in the face of all sorts of discoveries that don't exactly fit in to it's world-view. Do you think Darwinism could live with the discovery that eukaryotes preceded prokaryotes? I do.Mung_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Their eukaryotic characteristics are the evidence for their common descent from a common eukaryotic ancestor.
Their eukaryotic characteristics are the evidence for their common design. There still isn't any genetic evidence to link to the transformations required.Joseph_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

That is fine, however you cannot support your position. And tehre still isn’t any evidence of UCDin the fossil record of marine invrts.
Well, I can - or are you questioning that marine invertebrates are eukaryotes? Their eukaryotic characteristics are the evidence for their common descent from a common eukaryotic ancestor.
Or two different DESIGNS.
Indeed.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

So I’d have to disagree that we do not find any evidence of universal common descent in marine invertebrates
That is fine, however you cannot support your position. And tehre still isn't any evidence of UCDin the fossil record of marine invrts.
on the contrary, we find that they share key characteristics (eukaryotic characteristics) that are not shared with prokaryotes, thus suggesting two divergent lineages
Or two different DESIGNS.Joseph_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Well, I was talking about eukaryotes in the pre-Cambrian, specifically. And standard evolutionary theory would certainly predict eukaryotes in the pre-Cambrian as their is a diversity of eukaryotes in the Cambrian. So I'd have to disagree that we do not find any evidence of universal common descent in marine invertebrates - on the contrary, we find that they share key characteristics (eukaryotic characteristics) that are not shared with prokaryotes, thus suggesting two divergent lineages. Which isn't, I'd suggest, an argument against ID, per se (because as I understand it, and as kairosfocus and Mung have indicated above, common ancestry is perfectly compatible with ID, in at least some forms), although it is an argument against ab initio creation of diversity.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Predictions with regard to the fossil record? Let's see the vast majority of the fossil record (>95%) is of marine invertebrates. And in that vast majority we do not find any evidence of universal common descent. Which position predicted that?Joseph_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

So, to leave this interesting diversion reluctantly.... Are you envisaging Intelligent Design as a continuous process, in which simple "protype" life-forms are continuous tweaked as required, resulting in incremental complexity and/or optimal environmental adaptation? Or do you see it as something that went on prior to life on earth, in which a "front-loaded" common ancestor (or several) was then left to evolve, adapt, and speciate according to a clever algorithm without further interference from the designer? The reason for my question being that the two scenarios would make different predictions with regard to the fossil record, and the prediction made by the first would differ very little, if at all, that I can see, from the predictions of standard biology.Elizabeth Liddle_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

PS: In describing cultural renewal, youth development, and tourism, a former Chief Minister is currently on air here talking about . . . Cricket.kairosfocus_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Actually, Ladies' cricket is coming along at international level, and in this part of the world, ladies are as likely to be knowledgeable fans as men. But then the Windies has always been a special case. When cricket has played a key historical role as a force for liberation and nation-forming, that is going to have an impact. I gather from my Indian friends that their view is that Cricket is the real national religion of India. We need the spirit of the game to be restored in science. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

heh. Well, being a gurrl, yes, cricket is a bit off my cultural base :) Although my grandmother taught my cousin to bowl.... But FWIW, I totally agree that recognizing signs of choice contingency is a valid scientific tool. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: At this juncture, design theory is focussed on identifying, validating and applying signs of choice contingency as a legitimate scientific tool. That is compatible with various means of effecting design, and I think we need to be cautious about criticising a hot pace bowler for not being an open batsman. There are a few all rounders in cricket [Sir Garfield Sobers was maybe the most outstanding in my lifetime], but that is not a good yardstick to judge most players by. Right now, I would be happy to see four super-pace bowlers for the Windies team, which has been in the doldrums for 15 years. I would happily accept a couple of them as being like Courtney Walsh, who typically tuned in like 2 runs when he had to go to bat. Just, make sure they can catch when in the field: catches win matches -- and I want four slips and a Gully. One wicket-keeper cum batsman, and four solid reliable bat (no superstars who have a disintegrative impact on the team, please), and we would be back in business again. In short, I am saying we do need different types of players on the science team, and we do not need superstars who sow discord. For, the whole is far more than the mere sum of the parts. Underlying, my point is that the power of signs of choice contingency, on induction from a broad base of empirical observation and as supported by the needle in the haystack type analysis that grounds the statistical form of the second law of thermodynamics, should not be despised. "But Walsh ca'an bat" is no excuse for locking him out as perhaps your best pacer and as a solidly decent gentleman who is a gracious team builder. Pardon, if a cricket based discussion is a bit off your cultural base. It is maybe the best analogy I can think of as a Caribbean person who has thought a bit about the way groups and teams work. And, oh, yes: cricket was a key part of the liberation struggle for our region as it emerged from colonialist domination. What a difference from the sort of Alinskyite ruthlessness that I am now seeing. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: I think I have not been clear, for which I apologise. By ID "implementation" I wasn't talking about the design process itself, but its timescale as likely to be evidenced in the fossil record. And my point was simply that there are a number of ID scenarios that would make different predictions about what we would see in the fossil record, from a sudden "Explosion" as an advanced design was put into service, as it were,to a gradual radiation as the design process was developed over many generations. Which is why I'm not seeing the news in the OP as evidence either against "Darwinism" or for "ID". Rather, it constrains implementation hypotheses concerning both, I suggest. As for the broader question as to what is evidence of ID, that's probably beyond the scope of this thread, isn't it? I actually agree that there are processes that leave a recognizable signature, and that signature is found in both human artefacts (though not all) and living things. I don't, however, consider it the signature of "intelligent design" where intelligent means "intentional". But perhaps we won't go there right now :) Oh, and you can call me Lizzie. I've never been a Ms (too old), though I do use Mrs, and occasionally Dr :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

PS: To see how self referentislly incoherent the NSTA position is, consider tha the warrant for t5he scientific method is a philosophical and even historical question, not a scientific one. Science cannot so easily be severed from linked disciplines, and the pretence that by doing that one may legitimately slip in a priori evolutionary materialism by the back door [and then even insert it into the very definition of science], is utterly revealing.kairosfocus_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Ms Liddle: Pardon, but there are quite serious theories about design and about associated technological evolution. Perhaps, you may wish to make acquaintance of TRIZ. )A Google search will be instructive.) Perhaps you mean instead that the forensics of whodunit, specifically how, on the origins of life and body plans are not currently solved by ID thinkers. That is true, as we were not there and do not have direct observational controls. That does not prevent us from having good reason to infer that tweredun on empirically and analytically reliable signs. And indeed Venter et al have given adequate proof of concept as to what would be a sufficient way: a molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond where we now are. As to the turnabout strawman claims, I think that the term evolutionary materialism is sufficiently descriptive to see what is usually meant by the references to darwinism, and that the sort of citations from major sources here -- including the US NAS and NSTA, abundantly suffice to show the problem. of course there are theistic darwinists too, but such are plainly fellow travellers. Let me cite NSTA:
The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . . [[S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge. [[NSTA, Board of Directors, July 2000. Emphases added.]
This suffices to document the a priori evolutionary materialism being imposed on origins science, and to show the caricature of design thought, whereby ever since Plato in The Laws Bk X, 2350 years ago, the appropriate contrast to "nature" is "art" as in ART-ificial. Art often leaves empirically reliable characteristic traces, just as chance and necessity do. So, there is no good reason that we cannot study signs of choice contingency scientifically. And indeed, sciences such as the forensic sciences, routinely do so. Mr Johsnson's rebuke is apt:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

Mung, thanks for the clarification. I do understand that ID is not creationism, however, I know of very few theories as to how ID might actually have been implemented, and it strikes me that evidence that is claimed by IDists as infirming "Darwinism" (for example the OP of this thread) also constrains possible implementations of ID, including, for example, theories that postulate living things were created by an Intelligent Designer already complex at a particular time point. However, ID theories that propose that an Intelligent agent continuously nudged what we naive Darwinists call "mutation" in a desired direction from the year dot to the present are obviously compatible with the gradual morphological changes we see in the fossil record. But then such a theory would not predict what you predicted, namely that "as far back as you care to find living organisms, those organisms will show characterics of design" - if the Intelligent Design of living things was implemented in the manner I just suggested, very early exemplars might well be very simple, just as a lump of potter's clay, in the early stages of throwing, looks pretty well as it did when it was dug up. So it seems to me that there are many differential predictions ID could wrt the fossil record that differentiate not between ID and "Darwinism" but between different implementations of ID. Ab initio complex creation by an Intelligent Designer would predict, perhaps, something like the Cambrian explosion (but it would be an explosion not a radiation), or, alternatively, an earlier "pre-Cambrian" explosion. You (sensibly in my view) reject that implementation. But by rejecting it, you imply some kind of gradual implementation which would, it seems to me, predict just what "Darwinism" predicts - gradual evolution (i.e. change) towards more complex/well-adapted life-forms over time. However, I might concede the argument that if it could be shown that the time-period required was too short for un-assisted "Darwinist" evolution (as "news" claims - no time for the required "long-running glop show") then ID might be supported as a more viable alternative. However, another alternative is, of course panspermia, as embraced by Crick and Hoyle and others. The putatively required "long-running glop show" could be accommodated at another, prior, venue :) However, the argument then hangs on whether "Darwinism" really requires a "long-running glop show", and I think the case is far from demonstrated. But whether it is or not, that's the case that has to be made, it seems to me, if ID draw support from the evidence cited in the OP. Otherwise, the evidence is not only compatible with "Darwinism" but predicted by it, in contrast to the implementation of ID that proposes that the Cambrian "Explosion" was indeed an ID-ignited "Explosion" and not Darwinian radiation, as "Darwinists" would claim, and therefore predict (correctly) evidence of complex pre-Cambrian precursors. Note on my use of scare quotes: I should also say that the reason that I put "Darwinist/ism" in scare-quotes above, is that we have a straw man problem in this direction as well. Ditto with "neo-Darwinist". That's why I tend to prefer terms like "standard biological explanation" to "Darwinist explanation", though that isn't perfect either, science being a continuous process of refinement, not an establishment of a definitive "standard". Yes, we know that Darwin's theory was certainly incomplete, and sometimes actually wrong - at least his predictions failed to take into account much of what we now know about evolutionary processes, not least being the entire domain of genetics. In particular, we know much more about the role of drift, and, perhaps even more importantly, the mathematics of non-linear systems - "chaos theory" is astonishingly new (given its explanatory power wrt complexity) So to cite Margulis as any kind of challenge or threat to "Darwinism" or even "neo-Darwinism" when either label is taken as a token for main-stream biology really is to attack a straw man. Margulis' work may be controversial (I think it's terrific myself) but it is no challenge to the idea that living things can be accounted for without invoking an Intelligent Designer. Indeed, she offers extremely interesting answers to exactly the kind of objection IDists often raise to non-ID explanations for living things. So I think you guys embrace Margulis at your peril :)Elizabeth Liddle_{May 28, 2011
May
05
May
28
28
2011
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, So, I guess, that does make her a non-Darwinist. But she still believes in a common descent with modification, she just proposes a different kind of modification. So does Behe. You may want to meditate on that.nullasalus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

nulla salus: Maybe I do . . . my ignorance is extensive. She is certainly a critic of the idea that natural selection and mutation are the main drivers of common descent with modification. In her interview she said she considers them gears in the machine but not the biggest gear. So, I guess, that does make her a non-Darwinist. But she still believes in a common descent with modification, she just proposes a different kind of modification. Anyway, my day is kicking into gear here in Ye Olde England. Thanks for the lovely conversations. I'm not sure when I'll be back, my Saturdays are pretty random. Later all!!ellazimm_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, I view common descent with modification to be a purely mechanical process even if Dr Margulis is right. (She makes my brain hurt too.)</I. Then maybe you need to read up more on what 'mechanism' entails. Even someone can agree with 'mechanism' and still be an ID proponent. Margulis is, at the end of the day, a Darwinism critic. I think that much is clear given her recent interview, despite arguably years of saying "No, no, she just rejects these and those certain spins. She's a good Darwinist."nullasalus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

nulla salus: Good point, one that I forget: not all ID proponents see how and when design was implemented in the same way. I just hadn't thought of design at that level before. Interesting. I like your analogy, brought it right home to me. Especially those two . . . "You take common descent to be making a statement about theology? By all means, do so. That comes with a price tag you know." Did I? I certainly didn't mean to. I was having trouble find the words to express what I was thinking. I view common descent with modification to be a purely mechanical process even if Dr Margulis is right. (She makes my brain hurt too.)ellazimm_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, That is: how can it be common descent if there are design interventions? Who says the interventions are divine? Not ID, surely. I take the phrase common descent to mean descent with no interventions other than mutation. That’s just looking at the biology NOT directed breeding. You take common descent to be making a statement about theology? By all means, do so. That comes with a price tag you know. Is ID saying . . . just guessing here . . . that there is no jump or gap but that the mutations are not random but directed? That design comes in at that level? Or that SOME mutations/changes are not random? Think of it this way: Does "science" say that Jerry Coyne or Lynn Margulis is correct? If your reply is, "Well, neither. Margulis and Coyne both use science to inform their views, but 'science' is not a person, and as such endorses neither.", then you're understanding the ID position as I understand it. ID is a big tent - individuals can disagree. You can endorse common descent, you can reject it. You can affirm macro-evolution, or you can deny it. The issues are more subtle than that. Surely you don't think that "science" means "all scientists march in lock-step"? Much less that ID means "every ID proponents agrees on all points"?nullasalus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

nulla salus: "You only need to realise ID doesn't demand the falsity of either evolution or common descent." Okay, that does bring up a point I haven't been able to wrap my head around. And this is probably just my missing something . . . it happens . . . a lot. That is: how can it be common descent if there are design interventions? I take the phrase common descent to mean descent with no interventions other than mutation. That's just looking at the biology NOT directed breeding. Does that makes sense? Is it still descent if there's a discontinuity in the biology? Is ID saying . . . just guessing here . . . that there is no jump or gap but that the mutations are not random but directed? That design comes in at that level? Or that SOME mutations/changes are not random? And would that still be common descent . . . . This is interesting . . . .ellazimm_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, nulla salus: I don’t think common descent with modification is infinitely elastic but, as a very good biology teacher once told me: nature has pretty much tried out everything you can think of at one time or another. Helluva design, ain't she? You only need to realize ID doesn't demand the falsity of either evolution or common descent. ;)nullasalus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

nulla salus: I don't think common descent with modification is infinitely elastic but, as a very good biology teacher once told me: nature has pretty much tried out everything you can think of at one time or another. She also was very uninterested in science fiction because she found it singularly unimaginative compared to biology.ellazimm_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

I think the question becomes more complex if ID is not taken as denying evolution per se so much as questioning the Darwinian account of it. One thing I find telling: Larry Moran offered up his informal, unscientific poll showing a range of opinions on the question of whether or not "junk DNA" ultimately had a use. What seems to have passed with minimal comment is that Moran's results were almost equal across the spectrum, from '0% had a use' to '100% had a use'. Perhaps the lesson to take away from it - and away from the cambrian explosion - is that, come hell or highwater, whatever data is found, it can be fit within Darwin's theory. Because Darwinism is just that elastic. Whether you find a complex organism 1 second or 1 billion years after the OoL, for example.nullasalus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

Mung: "Why is this (finding complex non-marine multicellular eukaryotes in Precambrian strata) perceived as a problem for Darwinian evolution?" Good question! And your answer?ellazimm_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

Why i thought you both were equating ID with Creationism: e1:
...you’re always saying there is very little pre-Cambrian evidence for complex life forms, that during the Cambrian explosions whole families of organisms just popped into existence...
e2:
I always thought that those who point to the Cambrian “explosion” as evidence against “Darwinism” did so because they interpret it as evidence that a huge variety of living forms were created ab initio at that time.
Mung_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Hello News Your final sentence says it all: “Or at least, realize that this is a time for exploration, not dogma.” Scientists are constantly doing exactly that – exploring the Earth, hunting for evidence of early life, and determining how new finds modify or fit into our current picture of the past history of the planet. That is how they came up with this latest evidence - by patiently sifting through large sequences of shale and phosphatic nodules from Precambrian strata and documenting what they found. Their findings are exactly what might be expected from the viewpoint of evolution and common descent - yet you grumble that somehow these findings “render Darwinism more doubtful”. Replying to DrREC, you say “no long-running glop show”. Huh?? Three billion years is not “long-running”? What length of time would satisfy you? You so far have failed to reply to the very plain questions of DrREC, ellazimm, and Elizabeth Liddle - how do these findings contradict Darwin’s theory?leenibus_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth and ellazimm, I'm willing to consider that I misunderstood what either one or both meant by "I don't understand the problem." Perhaps the comments which followed that statement from both of you were really quite unrelated to what you wanted to get to. ID is not creationism, agreed? Did you mean to ask: Why is this (finding complex non-marine multicellular eukaryotes in Precambrian strata) perceived as a problem for Darwinian evolution?Mung_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Mung: When you state that the Cambrian is contrary to the predictions of common descent with modification you mean the fossil record of the Cambrian yes?? And surely you are taking into account that any fossil record is going to be spotty and incomplete. No one can expect it to be complete without gaps. So, what is the specific contradiction you are thinking of?ellazimm_{May 27, 2011
May
05
May
27
27
2011
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply