[Fwd: Re: Stereotypes and reputations]

Just a comment on the Cambrian "explosion". Take a look at the length of

the period called the Cambrian. It is not a short period of time. There
is absolutely no reason to expect evolution to progress at an even pace.
In fact, an even tempo would even seem intuitively unnatural. Even the
more recent evolution models show a tendency to rate speed-ups and
slow-downs. It serves a rhetoric or hyperbolic purpose to refer to this
as an explosion, but it really describes a shift to a more rapid rate of
evolution (much like a gasoline explosion is essentially rapid burning).
"Explosion" in the Cambrian context lacks actual precision, and the
rapid evolutionary pace of the era does nothing to falsify an
evolutionary explanation.

Also, there are gaps in the evolutionary record, to be sure. And the
exact structure of the "tree" will always be subject to some additional
refinements. The fossil data is sampled data, but it is not undersampled
so much as to lead to completely erroneous conclusions. We are lucky to
have as many fossils as have been discovered, given the unique
circumstances required for them to both form and be found! But while the
data may resemble a partially completed pointillist painting, the
overall image is quite visible if you just back up a bit and look at
the fossil record as a whole instead of focusing on the disjunctures.
The latter are just puzzles, not showstoppers at this point, though it
may appear so if it is you wish to specifically examine one particular
matinee and and the actor's license taken in rendering Act 2, scene 2,
third line, the part following the comma. JimA

Cornelius Hunter wrote:

> Pim:
>
> The problems with common descent are not minor issues that can be
> glossed over. I recall speaking with an evolutioniist about abruptness
> in the fossil record (Cambrian explosion, etc.). She said she did not
> think that constituted evidence against the theory. So there was no
> evidence against evolution. Do you see the problem here?
>
> If one cannot admit to what are clear counter indications, then there
> is a problem. Woese is not saying that HGT explains early life. He is
> appealing to a far more aggressive explanation -- HGT on a massive
> scale -- nothing like it has ever been observed. You also have
> understated Doolittle, who is one of the early evolutionists to admit
> to what the data say: the tree model doesn't work very well. You wrote:
>
>> That there are problems with morphological and molecular data does
>> not mean that there is no common ancestry. It merely shows that
>> resolving difficulties may be hard. Again, the argument common
>> ancestry is wrong because two methods disagree, is hardly sufficient.
>
>
> Unfortunately this is always the explanation, and it makes common
> descent unfalsifiable. With every problem, one hears, "well, that
> doesn't mean the theory is wrong." So here we have all kinds of
> incongruities -- phylogenetic mismatches abounding. Non homologous
> development patterns that make utterly no sense on common descent.
> Detailed designs evolving independently over and over. Did I mention
> fundamental differences at the DNA level where common descent predicts
> there should be none (proteins involved in DNA replication)? And of
> course that little problem that we have no idea how these designs
> could are arisen. Sure, one can always contrive just-so stories. How
> many different evidential problems, from how many different angles, do
> we need before we acknowledge problems? You mentioned, Douglas
> Theobald's site -- this is yet another problem with talkorigins. That
> page is problematic. You wrote:
>
>> Convergence is also not necessarily a problem for common descent. Nor
>> are ORFans for instance. We should not let our ignorance lead us
>> astray from the solid evidence in favor of common descent.
>
>
> I'm sorry but this is not tenable. ORFans and massive convergence not
> problems? This is a joke right?
>
> --Cornelius
>
>
>
>
>> Cornelius Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> Pim:
>>>
>>> Here are some samplings of places to start in the literature. I've
>>> listed a few categories and citations (with some quotes) below.
>>> There are many more problems with common descent about which
>>> evolutionists are more reticent (non homologous development
>>> pathways, ORFans, massive convergence, for instance)
>>>
>> I notice you reference Woese and Doolittle. It may be helpful to
>> recognize their arguments which are not that there common ancestry is
>> wrong, but rather that horizontal gene transfer may have clouded the
>> picture. It also may help to differentiate between common ancestry
>> and 'universal ancestor'. Even Darwin held open the possibility of
>> multiple universal ancestors.
>>
>> That there are problems with morphological and molecular data does
>> not mean that there is no common ancestry. It merely shows that
>> resolving difficulties may be hard. Again, the argument common
>> ancestry is wrong because two methods disagree, is hardly sufficient.
>>
>> Perphaps your argument should have been that based upon work of
>> others YOU believe that there are some (major) problems with common
>> ancestry. However the suggestion that 'evolutionists are recognizing
>> this' seems overselling.
>>
>> In other words, common ancestry is not in doubt.
>>
>> More later but perhaps it may be helpful to familiarize oneself with
>> the extensive data supporting common descent as documented by Douglas
>> Theobalt http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>>
>> Convergence is also not necessarily a problem for common descent. Nor
>> are ORFans for instance. We should not let our ignorance lead us
>> astray from the solid evidence in favor of common descent.
>>
>> As I said, more later.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Jul 31 01:19:58 2005