Re: Jonathan Wells' new book Icons of Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion

From: FMAJ1019@aol.com
Date: Sun Oct 15 2000 - 19:08:20 EDT

  • Next message: DNAunion@aol.com: "Re: WHY DOES THE UNIVERSE WORK?"

    In a message dated 10/15/2000 2:18:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
    sejones@iinet.net.au writes:

    Now the rest of the story on the Cambrian 'explosion'

    http://home.flash.net/~mortongr/cambevol.htm

    "This view is widespread among young and old earth creationists. But is it
    true in light of modern data? What I will attempt to show in this note is
    that the ‘gaps’ in the evolution of Cambrian life forms are now being
    filled in by data obtained over the last 15 years; much of this data
    coming in within the past 2 years. While there are older interpretations
    of the Precambrian animals as being totally unrelated to modern
    animals(such as Seilacher's Vendozoan hypothesis), the newer data is
    showing evidence of relationships between the Ediacaran fauna and that of
    the early Cambrian. We will look at the evolutionary sequences which lead
    from Precambrian worm-like creatures to the arthropods, molluscs,
    brachiopods, and annelids, four different phyla."

    "ABSTRACT Molecular studies have the potential to shed
    light on the origin of the animal phyla by providing indepen-dent
    estimates of the divergence times, but have been criticized
    for failing to account adequately for variation in rate of
    evolution. A method of dating divergence times from molec-ular
    data addresses the criticisms of earlier studies and
    provides more realistic, but wider, confidence intervals. The
    data are not compatible with the Cambrian explosion hypoth-esis
    as an explanation for the origin of metazoan phyla, and
    provide additional support for an extended period of Precam-brian
    metazoan diversification."

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 95, pp. 12386–12389, October 1998
    Evolution. Testing the Cambrian explosion hypothesis by using a molecular
    dating technique. LINDELL BROMHAM* † ,ANDREW RAMBAUT*, RICHARD FORTEY ‡
    ,ALAN COOPER § , AND DAVID PENNY ¶

    Or

    "This study suggests that the evolutionary history of both cnidarian
    and bilaterian forms may extend many millions of years deeper in
    Precambrian time than previous direct evidence so far indicates.
    But this is only a beginning. Continued exploration of these
    high-resolution phosphorite deposits may revolutionize palento-logical
    insight into the evolutionary origins of animal forms."

    PNAS u April 25, 2000 u vol. 97 u no. 9 4457–4462. Precambrian animal
    diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of
    China Jun-Yuan Chen* †‡ , Paola Oliveri †§ , Chia-Wei Li ¶ , Gui-Qing Zhou*,
    Feng Gao*, James W. Hagadorn i , Kevin J. Peterson § , and Eric H. Davidson ‡§

    "Still, in spite of the uncertainty about the exact dating, it seems to be
    clear that the major evolutionary inno-vations did not occur suddenly as it
    might seem from the fossil data alone."

    TIG February 1999, volume 15, No. 2. Diethard Tautz

    "Second, the topology of the tree suggests a new inter-pretation
    of the famous Cambrian explosion that we have
    described elsewhere 22 . Briefly, instead of a single radi-ation,
    the topology suggests that at least three independent
    events (corresponding to the diversification of the
    lophotrochozoans, ecdysozoans and deuterostomes) have
    occurred in a poorly diversified stem lineage. It follows
    that animal diversification cannot be due to a single
    ‘genetic revolution’ but, instead, must have been triggered
    primarily by external factors acting on a ‘pre-adapted’
    (meaning possessing many features prone to further spe-cialization
    or functional co-option), already genetically
    complex metazoan. How long before the Cambrian the
    initial protostome/deuterostome split occurred is still a
    matter of harsh debate 26,27 , but even a conservative
    estimate 27 suggests a long precambrian history of these
    two branches."

    Animal evolution the end of the intermediate taxa? André Adoutte et al. TIG
    March 1999, volume 15, No. 3

    > This fall, there has appeared a scientifically authoritative book casting
    > grave doubt on the whole basis of these confident illustrations. Dr.
    > Jonathan Wells, a molecular and cell biologist from the University of
    > California at Berkeley who is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute,
    > in
    > his Icons of Evolution does more than cast doubt.
    >
    > He takes 10 so-called "proofs" of evolution offered in current textbooks
    > and shows where not one of them is in a fact a proof of anything, and
    > several are actually frauds.
    >
    > The speckled moths were actually pasted on the trees, not found there.
    > And while there may be rare instances of species that seem part ape, part
    > human, there is no evidence the one came from the other.
    >

    It's fascinating how Wells seems to continue to ignore reality here. Majerus
    own data show that moths are found on trees. That sometimes for illustrative
    purposes moth were 'pasted' on trees does not diminish the importance of the
    peppered moth.

    From Evolution 53 (3), 1999, pp. 980-984, by permission of the Society for
    the Study of Evolution. FINE TUNING THE PEPPERED MOTH PARADIGM Bruce S. Grant
    Department of Biology, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795

    "Industrial melanism in peppered moths remains one of the best documented and
    easiest to understand."

    > Why, you wonder, do scientists ascribe credibility to these proofs?
    > Because, says Wells, every scientist specializes. He may be aware the
    > particular "proof" offered in his own area of expertise is fundamentally
    > flawed, but he assumes those in all the other areas are not. In fact, he
    > says,
    > they all are.
    >
    >

    Are they? So far that seems hardly self evident and even contradicted by
    actual fact.

    SE: Now, says Behe, we have opened the box; we can see how the
    cell is constructed. It's about as simple as a jet engine. It is a
    masterpiece
    of design. There is no possibility, none whatever, he says, that it could
    have come about by mere happenstance

    Interesting assertion especially since Behe suggests otherwise. Has Behe done
    his homework and shown that such particular routes cannot exist? Nope.

        "One can never completely rule out such an indirect route, which is
        tantamount to proving a negative. However, the more complex the
        system, the more difficult it becomes to envision such indirect
        scenarios and the more examples of irreducible complexity we meet, the
        less and less persuasive such indirect scenarios become. It cannot be
        that everything in life started out as something else.
        " Behe, "Intelligent design theory as a tool" , pp. 179

    It is clear that there is a problem for IC/ID here, if natural pathways
    cannot be excluded beforehand then IC is not a reliable detector
    of design. We can perhaps for individual IC systems try to show that the
    possibility of a Darwinian (or non-Darwinian) pathway is diminishlingly small
    but ICness itself is not a sufficient indicator of design anymore.

    [...]

    Behe:
    "That definition has the advantage of promoting research: to state clear,
    detailed evolutionary pathways; to measure probabilistic resources; to
    estimate mutation rates; to determine if a given step is selected or not. It
    allows for the proposal of any evolutionary scenario a Darwinist (or others)
    may wish to submit, asking only that it be detailed enough so that relevant
    parameters might be estimated. If the improbability of the pathway exceeds
    the available probabilistic resources (roughly the number of organisms over
    the relevant time in the relevant phylogenetic branch) then Darwinism is
    deemed an unlikely explanation and intelligent design a likely one. "

    [...]
    So does Behe provide us with probability calculations showing the likelihood
    of intelligent designed pathways? Nope.

        "At no step --not even one-- does Doolittle give a model that includes
        numbers or quantities; without numbers there is not science."
        
        Behe pp. 95 Darwin's Black Box

    SE: Both these books follow an earlier one by Berkeley law professor Philip
    Johnson whose Darwin On Trial put the theory of natural selection before
    a make-believe jury, and gave the evidence for it as it would be presented
    in court. He shows how the supposed evidence, all of it, fails to vindicate
    the theory.

    Johnson's failure to comprehend evolutionary claims and their evidence has
    been addressed by many including Lamoureux. Science is not decided in courts
    using reasonable doubt, science is decided by the facts and the power of the
    hypotheses to explain these facts.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 19:08:37 EDT