David said:
As an invertebrate paleontologist, I think it [Cambrian exp] looks pretty
consistent
with random mutation and natural selection. It's worth noting, too,
that Simon Conway Morris, one of the top experts on the Cambrian
radiation, was a featured speaker at the joint ASA-Christians in
Science meeting in Edinburgh-he's not promoting an atheistic agenda,
no matter what Dembski says abotu his books. Perspectives on an
Evolving Creation has a chapter on this; as a co-author of the chapter
my comments would obviously not diverge much from it, though I would
note a few new ideas and discoveries. Ironically, the claim that the
Cambrian poses a big problem for evolution is based largely on Gould's
popularization of it, where he was trying to claim that the Cambrian
radiation pointed to randomness. Gould overdid the randomness claim
(though this is in part hindsight based on subsequent data), though
it's still a very interesting time to study.
JP replies:
OK, I had this book on my shelf, next in line to read. I just picked it up
and read it. Well written chapter. However, if Figure 1 was an accurate
description of the total story, it would show all the extinct phyla. I find
two different numbers, anywhere from 40 to 70 total phyla appeared in a
rapid period of time, and then many of them died out...down to our present
25 or so, with none of them new. In other words, no new phyla have evolved
since about this time.
I can see the beginnings of your reply to this problem in your chapter: the
crown/stem phyla situation, the transitional organism being classified as a
phyla. So I presume that you are going to tell me that most of these extinct
phyla can be explained away.
Nevertheless, the Cambrian period, even including the pre and post periods,
represents an anomalous time period, that does not fit will with
neoDarwinism.
I agree with your statement that there may have been an environmental
change, the Cambrian period seems to be well-timed to follow the oceans
becoming fully aerobic.
The amazing complexity of life (in complete ecosystems, predator-prey
relationships, etc) that appeared rapidly at that time can be described in
the language of evolution, but the description ignores the rapidity with
which live appeared and evolved. I think that it bears the hallmark of God
stirring the pot.
David said:
How can it [convergent evolution] not be consistent? Convergent evolution
is to be expected if evolution happens.
JP replies:
Molecular evolution too, David? There are five different types of molecular
convergence. There are hundreds of examples in the literature now. They are
not expected, and not consistent with the neoDarwinian model. The most
remarkable is systemic convergence, the independent emergence of entire
biochemical systems, and there are numerous examples of this.
Truly, even with God being directly involved, this confuses me. It certainly
doesn't look Darwinian, but why would God do it this way, and not more like
the Darwinian model? I don't have the answer for that. I just don't think
that neoDarwinian evolutionary concepts explain this very well at all.
More on convergent morphological evolution later. However, just as sort of
an overall view, it seems to me that amazing properties are given the
ability of "natural selection" on random mutations in the DNA.
Kind regards,
James Patterson
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 1 20:18:27 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 01 2008 - 20:18:27 EDT