Is strict atheism a barrier to knowledge and truth?

[Starboard Tack]

In Iris Fry's book The Emergence of Life on Earth, she makes a statement that demonstrates a common, and possibly defective view of knowledge. The preamble to this statement is a complaint against people she refers to as "Creationists" who, in her opinion, pervert science to further their philosophical arguments. The context to the statement is that instead of billions of years for chemicals to self organize into life on the primordial earth, research has shown that the window has shrunk to around 10 million years, prompting those pesky "Creationists" to note that this isn't enough time for a purely naturalistic explanation for life's beginnings. The statement is this:

Notice the paradox that the findings of scientific research are seen fit, under the circumstances, to serve as evidence against science (by creationists). (page 125).

What is intriguing here is that the research simply argues against a long period of time for life to appear, and says nothing about the value of science. However, by noticing it, apparently the theists are guilty of being anti-science. This is a classic illustration of the topic I'd like to explore.

By adopting the view that a belief in God's existence and his involvement in his creation is a priori off limits, Dr. Fry believes that any suggestion that naturalistic explanation may lack explanatory power and be wrong is by definition anti-science. But is it?

God either does, or does not exist. In what form he/she/it exists is another topic, but is it not a given that there is at least a possibility, even if rejected, that he/she/it does exist?

And if it is a possibility, then by excluding supernatural involvement as a matter of philosophic dogma when trying to understand intractable problems doesn't the scientist who insists on pure naturalism guarantee that he or she may never be able to find the truth? In other words, if the existence of God is even the remotest possibility, isn't the rejection of that possibility without consideration itself anti-scientific? Directed panspermia is taken as a scientific proposition for life's origins, proposed by Nobel prize winners. Is that more scientific than the belief that the causal agent who brought the universe into existence is a personal being?

I can think of examples where scientific advancement has been stultified as a result of an insistence on a purely naturalistic understanding of the world. If so, doesn't it behoove scientists to entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, even if only to be able to rule it out when a naturalistic explanation is found?[/i]

[nygreenguy]

Over 3.5 billion years, surely there should be some stresses put on the population, so where is the cyanobacteria that tastes lousy to jawed fishes so it can beaver away making stromotolites on Malibu beach? Or better yet, grow some big teeth to bite back? You see, evolution explains the wolf to whale, and also explains 3.5 billion years of stasis. Does that make any sense at all?

I decided to look into the origins of this cyanobacteria claim and my findings were quite interesting.

From AIG, Nov. 14, 2003:

Q: Why would old fossils be a problem for evolutionists?

A: According to evolutionists, the oldest fossils ever found are a blue-green algae that lived along the coast of Australia and South Africa. These fossils have been dated by them to be 3.5 billion years old. But when they examined these fossils under the microscope, they found that they were identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today.

Dr. William Schopf, a leading evolutionist, says that this presents a tremendous problem for evolution. You see, evolution is based upon change, and yet these algae dont appear to have changed at all in their supposed 3.5 billion years.

If evolution is based on everything changing, why do we find these oldest fossils to be identical to the living algae today? And its not just the blue-green algae"scientists continue to find many living animals that appear to have hardly changed at all compared to their fossils that are allegedly millions of years old.

The answer is in Genesis. God made all living things"including blue-green algae"only thousands of years ago. Theyve always reproduced after their own kind, as commanded by the Creator.

As a reviewer in Nature said about Schopf's book which covers this topic:

A central message of the book is that Precambrian biology differs fundamentally from Phanerozoic biology. This is indeed so; the transition between the two stands out as the greatest revolution in the history of the biosphere. Schopf makes a claim for 'hypobradytely' " extremely slow evolution during the Precambrian, owing to the predominance of asexual reproduction, "a new fundamental insight that ... stands out as one of the most striking findings ... since Darwin". Whether or not this bold claim will stand the test of time, the measurement of evolutionary rates in fossil microorganisms faces formidable difficulties, because in general only morphology is preserved, and poorly so.

Another obstacle to understanding early fossils is the bias imposed by the small subset of life-forms that have happened to survive until today. By using living organisms as our models (for example, by identifying the earliest fossils as cyanobacteria, as Schopf does), we may blind ourselves to the host of extinct organisms, and unwittingly introduce hypobradytely as a taxonomic artefact.

http://www.nature.com.libezproxy2.syr.e ... 633a0.html

Now, he only really talk about the rate of mutation, but no where says they are the same. To shed light on this and another point I have made is a paper from Science:

Evolutionary change is often studied by calculation and comparison of rates. Rates measured over different intervals of geological time have been used to argue in various ways that vertebrates (principally mammals) evolved more rapidly than mollusks and other inverte brates (1-3). Rates derived from the fos sil record have also been used to argue that mammals evolved more rapidly dur ing the Pleistocene than during preceding epochs (4), and that phyletic evolution (microevolution) is too slow to explain diversification during episodes of adap tive radiation (macroevolution) (1, 5). As I shall show, perceived evolutionary rates are a function of the time interval over which they are measured, and tem poral scaling is required before rates measured over different intervals of geo logical time can be compared....

. Microevolutionary rates measured on a scale of tens or hundreds of years are much higher than phyletic rates derived from fossils. A microevolution ary rate of 400 d is sufficient to change a mouse into an elephant in 10,000 years. However, the stratigraphic record is rare ly complete enough on a scale of hundreds or even thousands of years to preserve such a rapid transition (10). Evolution on a microevolutionary scale is invisible in the fossil record, but this does not preclude microevolutionary pro cesses operating over geological time from producing macroevolutionary change on the longer time scale. Microevolution and macroevolution are different manifes tations of a common underlying process. Rates of evolution measured over different intervals of time cannot be com pared without appropriate temporal scal ing. This conclusion is based on compar ative study of morphological rates, but it holds in principle for rates of taxonomic
and molecular evolution as well.

Philip D. Gingerich, Science, New Series, Vol. 222, No. 4620 (Oct. 14, 1983), pp. 159-161

So he demonstrates why the comparison of bacteria evolution to human evolution the way you do it is incorrect, along with demonstrating how we can have tremendous amounts of genetic change which isnt reflected in the fossil record. There are paper out there which discuss cyanobacteria evolution and divergence, so it does happen.


Now, another large issue is lets say these organisms DID remain unchanged. So what? What says they MUST change? Additionally, that doesn't falsify the fact that we have volumes of data which show many organisms that DID change. The logic that "if cyanobacteria didnt evolve into higher forms, nothing did" is a non sequitur.

[Starboard Tack]

Over 3.5 billion years, surely there should be some stresses put on the population, so where is the cyanobacteria that tastes lousy to jawed fishes so it can beaver away making stromotolites on Malibu beach? Or better yet, grow some big teeth to bite back? You see, evolution explains the wolf to whale, and also explains 3.5 billion years of stasis. Does that make any sense at all?

I decided to look into the origins of this cyanobacteria claim and my findings were quite interesting.

I'm not sure I would use Answers in Genesis as my go to guys for any subject relating to science. They are as committed to proving the earth is 6 k years old regardless of the contrary evidence as evolutionists are to proving that life's diversity is explainable by unguided processes.

From AIG, Nov. 14, 2003:

Q: Why would old fossils be a problem for evolutionists?

A: According to evolutionists, the oldest fossils ever found are a blue-green algae that lived along the coast of Australia and South Africa. These fossils have been dated by them to be 3.5 billion years old. But when they examined these fossils under the microscope, they found that they were identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today.

Dr. William Schopf, a leading evolutionist, says that this presents a tremendous problem for evolution. You see, evolution is based upon change, and yet these algae dont appear to have changed at all in their supposed 3.5 billion years.

If evolution is based on everything changing, why do we find these oldest fossils to be identical to the living algae today? And its not just the blue-green algae"scientists continue to find many living animals that appear to have hardly changed at all compared to their fossils that are allegedly millions of years old.

The answer is in Genesis. God made all living things"including blue-green algae"only thousands of years ago. Theyve always reproduced after their own kind, as commanded by the Creator.

As a reviewer in Nature said about Schopf's book which covers this topic:

A central message of the book is that Precambrian biology differs fundamentally from Phanerozoic biology. This is indeed so; the transition between the two stands out as the greatest revolution in the history of the biosphere. Schopf makes a claim for 'hypobradytely' " extremely slow evolution during the Precambrian, owing to the predominance of asexual reproduction, "a new fundamental insight that ... stands out as one of the most striking findings ... since Darwin". Whether or not this bold claim will stand the test of time, the measurement of evolutionary rates in fossil microorganisms faces formidable difficulties, because in general only morphology is preserved, and poorly so.

Another obstacle to understanding early fossils is the bias imposed by the small subset of life-forms that have happened to survive until today. By using living organisms as our models (for example, by identifying the earliest fossils as cyanobacteria, as Schopf does), we may blind ourselves to the host of extinct organisms, and unwittingly introduce hypobradytely as a taxonomic artefact.

http://www.nature.com.libezproxy2.syr.e ... 633a0.html

Now, he only really talk about the rate of mutation, but no where says they are the same.

Schopf would disagree with you. From "Life's Origins", edited by Schopf and in his chapter titled "When did life begin", Schopf himself writes on page 173:

"Several of the Apex (Pilbara, 3.5 bn years ago) species seem almost indistiguishable from living cyanobacteria of the taxonomic family Oscillatoriaceae...."

You seem to suggest that creationists made up a claim about these bacteria looking the same today as they did 3.5 billion years ago. The claim isn't made up, it is simply made by the team that discovered the fossils. There was a British critic of Schopf's interpretation of the fossils, whose name eludes me, but my impression is that the Pilbara find is now accepted as true fossils, and yes, they look the same today as they did then.

To shed light on this and another point I have made is a paper from Science:

Evolutionary change is often studied by calculation and comparison of rates. Rates measured over different intervals of geological time have been used to argue in various ways that vertebrates (principally mammals) evolved more rapidly than mollusks and other inverte brates (1-3). Rates derived from the fos sil record have also been used to argue that mammals evolved more rapidly dur ing the Pleistocene than during preceding epochs (4), and that phyletic evolution (microevolution) is too slow to explain diversification during episodes of adap tive radiation (macroevolution) (1, 5). As I shall show, perceived evolutionary rates are a function of the time interval over which they are measured, and tem poral scaling is required before rates measured over different intervals of geo logical time can be compared....

. Microevolutionary rates measured on a scale of tens or hundreds of years are much higher than phyletic rates derived from fossils. A microevolution ary rate of 400 d is sufficient to change a mouse into an elephant in 10,000 years. However, the stratigraphic record is rare ly complete enough on a scale of hundreds or even thousands of years to preserve such a rapid transition (10). Evolution on a microevolutionary scale is invisible in the fossil record, but this does not preclude microevolutionary pro cesses operating over geological time from producing macroevolutionary change on the longer time scale. Microevolution and macroevolution are different manifes tations of a common underlying process. Rates of evolution measured over different intervals of time cannot be com pared without appropriate temporal scal ing. This conclusion is based on compar ative study of morphological rates, but it holds in principle for rates of taxonomic
and molecular evolution as well.

Philip D. Gingerich, Science, New Series, Vol. 222, No. 4620 (Oct. 14, 1983), pp. 159-161

Interesting claim that microevolutionary change can transform a mouse into an elephant in 10,000 years. I wonder why, with microevolutionary change going on constantly we find no genetic differences in homo sapiens sapiens 50,000 years old to you or I, or why Neanderthals at the beginning of their range look genetically identical to specimens examined at the end of their range 200,000 years later?

So he demonstrates why the comparison of bacteria evolution to human evolution the way you do it is incorrect, along with demonstrating how we can have tremendous amounts of genetic change which isnt reflected in the fossil record. There are paper out there which discuss cyanobacteria evolution and divergence, so it does happen.

I'm sure there are changes, however, that doesn't alter the fact that for 3.5 billion years, at least some species of cyanobacteria appear to have remained identical, even though their range has, in the case of stromotolites, shrunk to a very few locations on the planet. For a process that can change a mouse to an elephant in 10,000 years, examples like this of zero adaptations over vast periods of time seem puzzling, however you look at it.

Now, another large issue is lets say these organisms DID remain unchanged. So what? What says they MUST change? Additionally, that doesn't falsify the fact that we have volumes of data which show many organisms that DID change. The logic that "if cyanobacteria didnt evolve into higher forms, nothing did" is a non sequitur.

That is not my claim. My claim is that evolution doesn't do a good job at explaining what we observe and therefore it is reasonable to be skeptical of it.

We have volumes of information that show change over time in the fossil record. We have a theory on what drives that change, and altough there are other mechanisms for genetic alteration than mutation rates, all genomes have been subjected to those rates, and so therefore all living things by definition "MUST change." Whether those changes result in good or ill for the particular critter is a matter of the luck of the draw, is it not? We've focused on cyanobacteria because it happens to be the oldest fossil we have that appears to be unchanged since its creation,but we could as well make the same point with many other living things. The power of evolution is attributed with the abiility to make elephants out of mice, yet is also supposed to explain why Nautilus' haven't budged in 100 million years, the Daddy Long legs for 300 million years, sharks, cockroaches, etc. etc. Evolution seems to work to make change when naturalists want to explain the fossil record, but then seems to not make change when that is needed. At the end of the day, it just looks like bad science that has a philosophical, not empirical backbone.

[nygreenguy]

Now, he only really talk about the rate of mutation, but no where says they are the same.

Schopf would disagree with you. From "Life's Origins", edited by Schopf and in his chapter titled "When did life begin", Schopf himself writes on page 173:

"Several of the Apex (Pilbara, 3.5 bn years ago) species seem almost indistiguishable from living cyanobacteria of the taxonomic family Oscillatoriaceae...."

"Several of the Apex species seem almost indistinguishable from living
cyanobacteria of the taxonomic family Oscillatoriaceae, microbes
that are common today in oceans, lakes, and forest soils worldwide.
The existence very early in the Precambrian of this particular group of
cyanobacteria fits with rRNA trees, which show them to be one of the
most primitive kinds of cyanobacteria living today. It also fits with the
abundant presence of members of this group in the more recent
Precambrian fossil record (figure 6.7) where, like the Apex fossils, their
petrified threadlike filaments are the chief components of biologically
diverse shallow-water microbial communities. But other fossils of the
Apex assemblage more closely resemble noncyanobacterial bacteria.
Thus, the signature of photosynthesis recorded in the Apex organic
matter may reflect the presence of both kinds"cyanobacteria and their
close relatives, photosynthetic bacteria."

So he is comparing to extant members of an entire bacterial family. If the cyanobacteria were the same, he would be making at LEAST genus or species level identification. Why doesnt he? Because they are not the same. There are hundreds of species of cyanobacteria that have evolved from earlier cyanobacteria. There are also ancestors of cyanobactria like every single plant on earth. To say they havent changed is simply incorrect. What you should say is there are extant cyanobacteria that closely resemble ancient forms.

You seem to suggest that creationists made up a claim about these bacteria looking the same today as they did 3.5 billion years ago. The claim isn't made up, it is simply made by the team that discovered the fossils. There was a British critic of Schopf's interpretation of the fossils, whose name eludes me, but my impression is that the Pilbara find is now accepted as true fossils, and yes, they look the same today as they did then.

I though they were shown to be false, either way it isnt really relevant because there are some slightly younger uncontested fossils.

Interesting claim that microevolutionary change can transform a mouse into an elephant in 10,000 years. I wonder why, with microevolutionary change going on constantly we find no genetic differences in homo sapiens sapiens 50,000 years old to you or I, or why Neanderthals at the beginning of their range look genetically identical to specimens examined at the end of their range 200,000 years later?

I dont think you are interpreting that correct, and perhaps that is my fault for not including the description of measurements. A Darwin is a unit used to describe evolutionary change. For example a change in leaf size. So if we were to look at a leaf which changed 2 square inches, from 8 to 10 over a perod of 10 year would be around 0.02 Darwins. The molecular equivalent would be much, much larger because we may be measuring base pairs. The magnitude of change on a molecular level, over the same period of time, is much greater.

A microevolution ary rate of 400 d(arwins) is sufficient to change a mouse into an elephant in 10,000 years. However, the stratigraphic (fossil) record is rare ly complete enough on a scale of hun dreds or even thousands of years to preserve such a rapid transition (10). Evolution on a microevolutionary scale is invisible in the fossil record, but this does not preclude microevolutionary processes operating over geological time from producing macroevolutionary change on the longer time scale. Microevolution and macroevolution are different manifes tations of a common underlying process. Rates of evolution measured over different intervals of time cannot be compared without appropriate temporal scaling. This conclusion is based on comparative study of morphological rates, but it holds in principle for rates of taxonomic
and molecular evolution as well.

Finally, we can address the question of how rates of phyletic evolution measured over long intervals of geological time relate to rates characteristic of speciation and adaptive radiation on shorter time scales, a point crucial in the argument that ordinary microevolutionary processes cannot explain macroevolutionary events observed in the fossil record (5). Rates on the order of 60,000 d in laboratory selection experiments were sustained for only a few years; they exceed homeostatic limits (9) and exceed rates to be expected in nature. Rates observed during colonization of new or empty adaptive zones average about 400 d (domain II); all populations studied were viable, and rates on the order of 400 d probably characterize speciation and radiation in new adaptive zones. Post Pleistocene rates (domain Ill) average about 4 din integrated coevolved faunas, while rates measured over longer intervals in the fossil record (domain IV) average less than 1 d. these low rates are measured over such long temporal intervals that differences in morphology are swamped by interval length, and net change greatly underestimates total change. Microevolutionary rates mea sured on a scale of tens or hundreds of years are much higher than phyletic rates derived from fossils. A microevolution ary rate of 400 d is sufficient to change a mouse into an elephant in 10,000 years.

I hope this puts it into perspective and I would suggest reading the entire paper as they have some great data and figures.

I'm sure there are changes, however, that doesn't alter the fact that for 3.5 billion years, at least some species of cyanobacteria appear to have remained identical, even though their range has, in the case of stromotolites, shrunk to a very few locations on the planet. For a process that can change a mouse to an elephant in 10,000 years, examples like this of zero adaptations over vast periods of time seem puzzling, however you look at it.

Funny you say that because in his book, Scoph calls cyanobacteria extreme generalists.

From p.235 of "The Cradle of Life":

The success of cyanobacteria comes because they are generalists, able to survive and grow under the most varied conditions. They have no need to evolve, for even if they are outcompeted in a local setting they easily find refuge in places their competitors cannot endure. This
jack-of-all-trades survival strategy, so different from the specialization
of Phanerozoic plants and animals, begs for explanation.

And this has been what I have been arguing all along.

That is not my claim. My claim is that evolution doesn't do a good job at explaining what we observe and therefore it is reasonable to be skeptical of it.

Do you not find it ironic that the people who study these things in depth, atheist, agnostics and theists alike still manage to agree that evolution is real, natural selection is real and there no no debate on this aspect?

We have volumes of information that show change over time in the fossil record. We have a theory on what drives that change, and altough there are other mechanisms for genetic alteration than mutation rates, all genomes have been subjected to those rates, and so therefore all living things by definition "MUST change."

The premises for your argument is flawed. What evidence do you have to support the last statement?

Whether those changes result in good or ill for the particular critter is a matter of the luck of the draw, is it not?

Not necessairly.

We've focused on cyanobacteria because it happens to be the oldest fossil we have that appears to be unchanged since its creation,but we could as well make the same point with many other living things.

Some extant cyanobacteria resemble ancient forms, these particular groups appear unchanged. To say cyanobacteria have not changed is false.

The power of evolution is attributed with the abiility to make elephants out of mice,

False statement, but Ill take the blame for not providing adequate context.

yet is also supposed to explain why Nautilus' haven't budged in 100 million years, the Daddy Long legs for 300 million years, sharks, cockroaches, etc. etc. Evolution seems to work to make change when naturalists want to explain the fossil record, but then seems to not make change when that is needed. At the end of the day, it just looks like bad science that has a philosophical, not empirical backbone.

The paper I posted gives an empirical explanation, and you seem to be missing the fundamental point of natural selection which is selective pressure. Once again, there are volumes of literature on this. On how things change, how pressures make things change, the rates of these changes, etc... I would start by reading the paper I posted.

[Starboard Tack]

[quote="nygreenguy"][quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 755#415755]

NYGreenguy,

Sorry it took a few days to respond. Regarding whether or not the fossilized cyanobacteria discovered by Schopf are the same species as those languishing in Shark Bay, I certainly grant that no one can make that claim since they are, after all, fossils. All we can say is what Schopf said " they are indistinguishable from modern day bacteria in morphology. Whether they are identical is hardly necessary for me to make my point, however. My point is that we know that cyanobacterial mats account for stromotolites. We know these mineralized mats were once dominant throughout the world because we can find their fossils throughout the world. We know that theyve been around indistinguishable from modern stomotolite forming cyanobacteria for 3.5 billion years and we know that the range of the stromotolite building cyanobacteria has shrunk to a couple meager locations in the world and yet evolutionary change is unapparent, even in the fact of extinction, never mind a reproductive rate in the gazillions. You speak of pressure from natural selection. Over 3.5 billion years and near extinction where is the power of natural selection to save the species of cyanobacteria forming strotomolites?

I understand that evolution provides a just so story as to why we see no change over vast period of time, as well as why we see dramatic change 543 billion years ago when over 70 phyla suddenly and simultaneous popped into existence. Another just so story explains why in the intervening 543 billion years we have evidence of exactly ZERO new phyla appearing, even those over 40 have gone extinct, presumably opening up a few niches. My skepticism regarding evolution is simply that it looks to be a poor theory since it has no coherent explanation that accounts for stromotolites in stasis for 3.5 billion years as well as the near instant appearance of completely new types of life in 5 million years or so during the Cambrian, nor the rapid introduction of hundreds of thousands of radically different species after mass extinction events.

There is fine science documenting the evolutionary mechanism of change within a species, but when that science is applied to create new species it reaches too far. After 3.5 billion years, bacteria is still bacteria after all. Mankind has been manipulating the gene pool of valuable plants and animals for tens of thousands of years. Yet in all that time of intelligent and purposeful activity to bring about new and more useful living entities, a chicken is still a chicken, goats are still goats and wheat is still wheat, infertile F1 hybrids notwithstanding.

I started this post with a quote from Iris Fry because I think evolution is an example where dogmatic naturalism is a barrier to discovery. I dont mean to pick on Dr. Fry, but she is so palpably contemptuous of theism that she represents the archetype of a no doubt brilliant scientist whose philosophical convictions will bar her from certain arenas of knowledge. Here is another quote on page 242 of her book The Emergence of Life on Earth that perfectly illustrates my point:

(biologists) are all opposed philosophically to the notion of intelligent design. Since accounting for the unique complexity and teleology of biological organization on the basis of chance is realistically impossible, the mutually exclusive creationist and evolutionist explanations are the only explanations possible. Hence it is the view of the majority of biologists that any living system, wherever it arises, is most appropriately characterized as the product of an evolutionary process.

Note that she acknowledges that there are only two options for explaining lifes diversity. Note also that she categorically rejects one of those two options EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE TRUE. Now that would be fine if the explanation she circles as the only one allowable actually provides a coherent explanation of exactly how one gets from a mouse to an elephant in any period of time, or why large, slow breeding animals like whales and horses evolve so fast while bacteria who reproduce in unimaginable numbers dont seem to evolve at all except on a microevolutionary scale. But she doesnt have that coherent explanation, which begs the question. If the explanation she prefers doesnt work real well, what is the rationale for not considering the second alternative? That answer is clear. She has a religious preference for the one, however ineffective it is as science, so like most dogmatic naturalists, whatever truth is, shes not likely to find it through empirical means.

Finally, the appeal to authority on the basis that virtually all biologists who make their living in science adhere to evolution as the explanation is not terribly compelling. Virtually all astronomers prior to the 20th century believed (for centuries) in a past eternal universe but were wrong. The universe popped into existence. Perhaps life did as well and perhaps the same force that brought matter, energy, space and time into existence was up to the task of bringing replacement species of whales into existence when the old ones went extinct, as all large bodied, slow breeding animals are wont to do.

[nygreenguy]

NYGreenguy,

Sorry it took a few days to respond.

No prob, I have been quite busy anyhow!

Regarding whether or not the fossilized cyanobacteria discovered by Schopf are the same species as those languishing in Shark Bay, I certainly grant that no one can make that claim since they are, after all, fossils. All we can say is what Schopf said " they are indistinguishable from modern day bacteria in morphology. Whether they are identical is hardly necessary for me to make my point, however.

You keep emphasizing "unchanged". Unchanged means unchanged.

My point is that we know that cyanobacterial mats account for stromotolites. We know these mineralized mats were once dominant throughout the world because we can find their fossils throughout the world. We know that theyve been around indistinguishable from modern stomotolite forming cyanobacteria for 3.5 billion years and we know that the range of the stromotolite building cyanobacteria has shrunk to a couple meager locations in the world and yet evolutionary change is unapparent, even in the fact of extinction, never mind a reproductive rate in the gazillions.

They still exist there because there is still a niche there. Yes, it is shrinking (especially now with climate change) but there is still that niche. AND that isnt the only place cyanobacteria exist. They HAVE diversified and exist elsewhere. If you look from the perspective of the bacteria in the current mats, WHY would they change? What reason do they have to change?

Now, thats just for those that are still in those mats, but as I have mentioned before, the bacteria HAVE evolved into other things. Just because some have changed doesnt mean it required ALL bacteria to change. Why would it?

You speak of pressure from natural selection. Over 3.5 billion years and near extinction where is the power of natural selection to save the species of cyanobacteria forming strotomolites?

from a biologist perspective, this statement is very ironic. For one, evolution works on populations, not species. Secondly, if natural selection came in and "saved" the species, then the species would be "extinct" because it would be a new species!

I understand that evolution provides a just so story as to why we see no change over vast period of time, as well as why we see dramatic change 543 billion years ago when over 70 phyla suddenly and simultaneous popped into existence.

"Just so"? I take it you havent read much of the published literature then? Also, I presume you mean 543 million? (cambrian explosion) And by "popped" I presume you mean over tens of millions of years? Many of them also didnt "pop", there are quite a few transitional fossils.

As for why we see there, there are many reasons.

Another just so story explains why in the intervening 543 billion years we have evidence of exactly ZERO new phyla appearing, even those over 40 have gone extinct, presumably opening up a few niches.

No new phyla? Really? Ive been through this very debate here before.

First, phyla is a taxonomic category just under Kingdom (Kingdom, Phylum (or Domain), Class, Order, Genus, species). Phyla is not the same as diversity. When we measure diversity, we do so on a species scale, not a phyla.

Second, not only do we have new phyla after the cambrian explosion, we have new KINGDOMS. Plants and fungi come AFTER the explosion. Plants are not the dominant life forms on earth and fungi are possibly the most diverse. None of their phyla are in the cambrian.

And what about birds, reptiles and mammals? Sure, they are not "phyla", but they are awfully diverse. All of them appear much later. So it is not accurate to try to use phyla as some sort of indicator of biodiversity.

My skepticism regarding evolution is simply that it looks to be a poor theory since it has no coherent explanation that accounts for stromotolites in stasis for 3.5 billion years as well as the near instant appearance of completely new types of life in 5 million years or so during the Cambrian, nor the rapid introduction of hundreds of thousands of radically different species after mass extinction events.

It does, as long as you do not dismiss it before first understanding it.

There is fine science documenting the evolutionary mechanism of change within a species, but when that science is applied to create new species it reaches too far. After 3.5 billion years, bacteria is still bacteria after all.

This is because once a bacteria stops being a bacteria, you dont count it as a bacteria. So clearly, anything that IS a bacteria, IS a bacteria. Bacteria HAVE become other things, but you dismiss those, because they are other things, NOT bacteria. Your statement makes no logical sense.

Mankind has been manipulating the gene pool of valuable plants and animals for tens of thousands of years. Yet in all that time of intelligent and purposeful activity to bring about new and more useful living entities, a chicken is still a chicken, goats are still goats and wheat is still wheat, infertile F1 hybrids notwithstanding.

So what?

I started this post with a quote from Iris Fry because I think evolution is an example where dogmatic naturalism is a barrier to discovery. I dont mean to pick on Dr. Fry, but she is so palpably contemptuous of theism that she represents the archetype of a no doubt brilliant scientist whose philosophical convictions will bar her from certain arenas of knowledge.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Here is another quote on page 242 of her book The Emergence of Life on Earth that perfectly illustrates my point:

(biologists) are all opposed philosophically to the notion of intelligent design. Since accounting for the unique complexity and teleology of biological organization on the basis of chance is realistically impossible

Natural selection is not chance. That why it is called selection and not natural chance. As for any randomness, what are her calculations?

the mutually exclusive creationist and evolutionist explanations are the only explanations possible. Hence it is the view of the majority of biologists that any living system, wherever it arises, is most appropriately characterized as the product of an evolutionary process.

Thats like saying it is the view of the majority of physicists that any physical system, where ever it arises, will exhibit gravity.

Well duh. When you have a scientific theory based on decades of research and has yet to be falsified and instead only strengthened, it would be irrational and unnecessary to try to develop a new theory with every single piece of research.

Note that she acknowledges that there are only two options for explaining lifes diversity. Note also that she categorically rejects one of those two options EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE TRUE. Now that would be fine if the explanation she circles as the only one allowable actually provides a coherent explanation of exactly how one gets from a mouse to an elephant in any period of time, or why large, slow breeding animals like whales and horses evolve so fast while bacteria who reproduce in unimaginable numbers dont seem to evolve at all except on a microevolutionary scale. But she doesnt have that coherent explanation, which begs the question. If the explanation she prefers doesnt work real well, what is the rationale for not considering the second alternative? That answer is clear. She has a religious preference for the one, however ineffective it is as science, so like most dogmatic naturalists, whatever truth is, shes not likely to find it through empirical means.

you exhibit the exact same characteristics. You horrible distorted Crick, claimed no new phyla appeared after the cambrian, etc....

Finally, the appeal to authority on the basis that virtually all biologists who make their living in science adhere to evolution as the explanation is not terribly compelling.

So then I take it you never go to the doctor? After all, their education, the medicines they derive are all built upon the foundation of natural selection. Heres the thing, if natural selection was SO utterly wrong, it wouldnt work. We wouldnt be able to keep doing the research we are doing and getting the results we are getting. Evolution is easily falsified, yet no matter how hard people try, they just cant do it.

[Clownboat]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 755#415755]

NYGreenguy,

Sorry it took a few days to respond. Regarding whether or not the fossilized cyanobacteria discovered by Schopf are the same species as those languishing in Shark Bay, I certainly grant that no one can make that claim since they are, after all, fossils. All we can say is what Schopf said " they are indistinguishable from modern day bacteria in morphology. Whether they are identical is hardly necessary for me to make my point, however. My point is that we know that cyanobacterial mats account for stromotolites. We know these mineralized mats were once dominant throughout the world because we can find their fossils throughout the world. We know that theyve been around indistinguishable from modern stomotolite forming cyanobacteria for 3.5 billion years and we know that the range of the stromotolite building cyanobacteria has shrunk to a couple meager locations in the world and yet evolutionary change is unapparent, even in the fact of extinction, never mind a reproductive rate in the gazillions. You speak of pressure from natural selection. Over 3.5 billion years and near extinction where is the power of natural selection to save the species of cyanobacteria forming strotomolites?

I understand that evolution provides a just so story as to why we see no change over vast period of time, as well as why we see dramatic change 543 billion years ago when over 70 phyla suddenly and simultaneous popped into existence. Another just so story explains why in the intervening 543 billion years we have evidence of exactly ZERO new phyla appearing, even those over 40 have gone extinct, presumably opening up a few niches. My skepticism regarding evolution is simply that it looks to be a poor theory since it has no coherent explanation that accounts for stromotolites in stasis for 3.5 billion years as well as the near instant appearance of completely new types of life in 5 million years or so during the Cambrian, nor the rapid introduction of hundreds of thousands of radically different species after mass extinction events.

There is fine science documenting the evolutionary mechanism of change within a species, but when that science is applied to create new species it reaches too far. After 3.5 billion years, bacteria is still bacteria after all. Mankind has been manipulating the gene pool of valuable plants and animals for tens of thousands of years. Yet in all that time of intelligent and purposeful activity to bring about new and more useful living entities, a chicken is still a chicken, goats are still goats and wheat is still wheat, infertile F1 hybrids notwithstanding.

I started this post with a quote from Iris Fry because I think evolution is an example where dogmatic naturalism is a barrier to discovery. I dont mean to pick on Dr. Fry, but she is so palpably contemptuous of theism that she represents the archetype of a no doubt brilliant scientist whose philosophical convictions will bar her from certain arenas of knowledge. Here is another quote on page 242 of her book The Emergence of Life on Earth that perfectly illustrates my point:

(biologists) are all opposed philosophically to the notion of intelligent design. Since accounting for the unique complexity and teleology of biological organization on the basis of chance is realistically impossible, the mutually exclusive creationist and evolutionist explanations are the only explanations possible. Hence it is the view of the majority of biologists that any living system, wherever it arises, is most appropriately characterized as the product of an evolutionary process.

Note that she acknowledges that there are only two options for explaining lifes diversity. Note also that she categorically rejects one of those two options EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE TRUE. Now that would be fine if the explanation she circles as the only one allowable actually provides a coherent explanation of exactly how one gets from a mouse to an elephant in any period of time, or why large, slow breeding animals like whales and horses evolve so fast while bacteria who reproduce in unimaginable numbers dont seem to evolve at all except on a microevolutionary scale. But she doesnt have that coherent explanation, which begs the question. If the explanation she prefers doesnt work real well, what is the rationale for not considering the second alternative? That answer is clear. She has a religious preference for the one, however ineffective it is as science, so like most dogmatic naturalists, whatever truth is, shes not likely to find it through empirical means.

Finally, the appeal to authority on the basis that virtually all biologists who make their living in science adhere to evolution as the explanation is not terribly compelling. Virtually all astronomers prior to the 20th century believed (for centuries) in a past eternal universe but were wrong. The universe popped into existence. Perhaps life did as well and perhaps the same force that brought matter, energy, space and time into existence was up to the task of bringing replacement species of whales into existence when the old ones went extinct, as all large bodied, slow breeding animals are wont to do.

Why are there still cyanobacteria you ask?

I may have mentioned this already in this thread, but either way...

If Americans are descendents of people from Europe, why are there still Europeans? (The answer to that is obvious of course) The same logic should be applied to cyanobacteria. "X" (and "Y" and "Z" ect...) evolved from cyanobacteria, but just because we have "X", does not mean cyanobacteria can't or shouldn't still exist too.

[Starboard Tack]

NYGreenguy,

Regarding whether or not the fossilized cyanobacteria discovered by Schopf are the same species as those languishing in Shark Bay, I certainly grant that no one can make that claim since they are, after all, fossils. All we can say is what Schopf said " they are indistinguishable from modern day bacteria in morphology. Whether they are identical is hardly necessary for me to make my point, however.

You keep emphasizing "unchanged". Unchanged means unchanged.

I grant that we can't know whether the fossils found by Schopf and Grazier are the same as those that exist today. However, we can agree that they are still indistiguishable from modern species, so we have an example of bacteria remaining bacteria for 3.5 billion years.

My point is that we know that cyanobacterial mats account for stromotolites. We know these mineralized mats were once dominant throughout the world because we can find their fossils throughout the world. We know that theyve been around indistinguishable from modern stomotolite forming cyanobacteria for 3.5 billion years and we know that the range of the stromotolite building cyanobacteria has shrunk to a couple meager locations in the world and yet evolutionary change is unapparent, even in the fact of extinction, never mind a reproductive rate in the gazillions.

They still exist there because there is still a niche there. Yes, it is shrinking (especially now with climate change) but there is still that niche. AND that isnt the only place cyanobacteria exist. They HAVE diversified and exist elsewhere. If you look from the perspective of the bacteria in the current mats, WHY would they change? What reason do they have to change?

Green, this is why us knuckle draggers have so many problems with evolution fans. Of course you don't really mean that bacteria have any "reason" to evolve or not evolve, so you must be speaking metaphorically. We both know that is not how evolution works, so why do you use that language? Bacteria will be subjected to mutational change over time, and some of those changes may be beneficial and subject to success through natural selection. Is that not the theory??? If so, then why have these bacteria, even though going slowly extinct over 3.5 billion years not adapted? They have had, what do you think 10^20 opportunities to stumble on a mutation that renders them unpalatable to jawed or jawless fishies? How come it hasn't happened, yet you can explain the transformation of a wolf into a whale? Really?

Now, thats just for those that are still in those mats, but as I have mentioned before, the bacteria HAVE evolved into other things. Just because some have changed doesnt mean it required ALL bacteria to change. Why would it?

With respect, you have zero proof that bacteria have evolved into anything. Stating this as fact would be as silly as my saying that you should believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected because he was. You have a theory that is not supported by any empirical or observational evidence that any bacteria in the history of the planet has changed into something other than a bacteria. Can you cite a definitive observational example that would contradict this statement?

You speak of pressure from natural selection. Over 3.5 billion years and near extinction where is the power of natural selection to save the species of cyanobacteria forming strotomolites?

from a biologist perspective, this statement is very ironic. For one, evolution works on populations, not species. Secondly, if natural selection came in and "saved" the species, then the species would be "extinct" because it would be a new species!

I don't understand evolution to be a process that involves intent to save. It is a process where the natural mutation of genomic information results in opportunities for enhanced survivability. If this theory is correct, then where is the mutation that could enhance the survivability of these bacteria? And isn't the bacterial count in Shark Bay a pretty big population?

I understand that evolution provides a just so story as to why we see no change over vast period of time, as well as why we see dramatic change 543 billion years ago when over 70 phyla suddenly and simultaneous popped into existence.

"Just so"? I take it you havent read much of the published literature then? Also, I presume you mean 543 million? (cambrian explosion) And by "popped" I presume you mean over tens of millions of years? Many of them also didnt "pop", there are quite a few transitional fossils.

Yes, I meant 543 million years ago. And the period of time for the creation of these new phyla is not tens of millions of years, but perhaps as few as 5 million years, or at least so says the Chinese team examining the strata in China. You reckon that is enough time to create 70 new phyla, while 3.5 billion years ago can't solve the stromotolite problem, nor 300 million years produce an improved Daddy Long Legs with longer legs or bigger teeth?

Another just so story explains why in the intervening 543 billion years we have evidence of exactly ZERO new phyla appearing, even those over 40 have gone extinct, presumably opening up a few niches.

No new phyla? Really? Ive been through this very debate here before.

Name one new bodey plan that has appeared in the last 543 million years. Since 70 appeared in a few million years, in 543 million you should have quite a few to point to since the process creating new body plans if an unguided process driven by genomic change and natural selection.

First, phyla is a taxonomic category just under Kingdom (Kingdom, Phylum (or Domain), Class, Order, Genus, species). Phyla is not the same as diversity. When we measure diversity, we do so on a species scale, not a phyla.

Phyla represent body plans. Are you saying that the differences between phyla are not greater than the differences between species within phyla? Really? Here you are defining evolutionary power as affecting only species, yet chages in species through evolutionary processes should create new body plans, should it not? After all, if evolution explains going from bacteria to Albert Einstein, coming up with a few new body plans shouldn't be all that unusual, especially since around 40 of the body plans that came into existence in a geologic blink of an eye have gone extinct in the meanwhile, presumable opening up lots of lucatrive niches.

Second, not only do we have new phyla after the cambrian explosion, we have new KINGDOMS. Plants and fungi come AFTER the explosion. Plants are not the dominant life forms on earth and fungi are possibly the most diverse. None of their phyla are in the cambrian.

Again, name one new body plan that has emerged isnce the Cambrian. Perhaps my source of information is incorrect, but I think you will find that no new body plans have appeared. My sources by the way include Ward and Brownlee, "Rare Earth", both are aggressive atheists, as well as Lewin in Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/241/4863/291.extract . In understand that some evolutionists prefer to define phyla so as to get around the problems associated with the Cambrian event, but if you stick to the idea that phyla represents a body plan, you'll find none you can point to that have arisen in the last half billion years.

And what about birds, reptiles and mammals? Sure, they are not "phyla", but they are awfully diverse. All of them appear much later. So it is not accurate to try to use phyla as some sort of indicator of biodiversity.

I certainly don't dispute diversity. I dispute the source of diversity. There have been lots of whales replacing the inevitable extinction of big bodied, slow breeding mammals because God apparently likes whales. You think it is because a critter like a bacteria that produces gazillions of offspring doesn'te evolve while a whale who produces a few million does. I disagree. If you are arguing that evolution accounts for divesity of species, but not the creation of phyla, you have a unique interpretation of the ToE.

My skepticism regarding evolution is simply that it looks to be a poor theory since it has no coherent explanation that accounts for stromotolites in stasis for 3.5 billion years as well as the near instant appearance of completely new types of life in 5 million years or so during the Cambrian, nor the rapid introduction of hundreds of thousands of radically different species after mass extinction events.

It does, as long as you do not dismiss it before first understanding it.

You keep saying that, but continually stating that the reason I don't agree with you is because I lack understanding is a pretty weak argument, if not arrogant. According to evolution, all diversity that we see througout history is due to natural processes not requiring a creator. You wish to assert that the Cambrian explosion is explicable under your theory, yet you can't explain it. You wish to explain the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the basis of gradual evolutionary change, yet can't produce plausible antecedents to us. I won't accuse you of being ignorant, but would ask that you not confuse your philosophy with proof of knowledge. When Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature writes "to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific", do you think he is lacking in knowledge as well? And if he is correct, how would you propose that your theory be falsifed, as you imply it can be in your last statement on this post? How do you falsify the non-scientific philosophic belief?

There is fine science documenting the evolutionary mechanism of change within a species, but when that science is applied to create new species it reaches too far. After 3.5 billion years, bacteria is still bacteria after all.

This is because once a bacteria stops being a bacteria, you dont count it as a bacteria. So clearly, anything that IS a bacteria, IS a bacteria. Bacteria HAVE become other things, but you dismiss those, because they are other things, NOT bacteria. Your statement makes no logical sense.

It makes perfect logical sense. With manmade efforts to create utility in plants and animals, no one gives a rip whether new genera or species are created, only whether the animal created gives more milk, carries more meat, or is more docile. Yet in thousands of years of concentrated effort, chickens are still chickens, bovines still bovines. Your assertion that of course bacteria remain bacteria if there are still bacteria to observe is obviously true. But it is the kind of truism that masks an underlying disconnect for evolutionary theory. If something isn't there, its because it became extinct because it couldn't adapt. If it is still there in the same form after billions of years, it's because it didn't need to adapt. And it if is asserted to have changed rapidly, it is because it had to adapt. In other words, it is the ultimate "God in the gaps" argument, where god in this case is naturalistic evolution. It explains everything and in so doing, explains nothing and is therefore unfalsifiable.

Mankind has been manipulating the gene pool of valuable plants and animals for tens of thousands of years. Yet in all that time of intelligent and purposeful activity to bring about new and more useful living entities, a chicken is still a chicken, goats are still goats and wheat is still wheat, infertile F1 hybrids notwithstanding.

So what?

So what? Well, if evolution works through natural selection, why hasn't man been able to produce a novel type of life in 40,000 years of trying?

I started this post with a quote from Iris Fry because I think evolution is an example where dogmatic naturalism is a barrier to discovery. I dont mean to pick on Dr. Fry, but she is so palpably contemptuous of theism that she represents the archetype of a no doubt brilliant scientist whose philosophical convictions will bar her from certain arenas of knowledge.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Yes, no doubt she is guilty, as most naturalists are of allowing her philosophical convinctions to stand in the way of knowledge. Wait a minute....is that what you meant??

Here is another quote on page 242 of her book The Emergence of Life on Earth that perfectly illustrates my point:

(biologists) are all opposed philosophically to the notion of intelligent design. Since accounting for the unique complexity and teleology of biological organization on the basis of chance is realistically impossible

Natural selection is not chance. That why it is called selection and not natural chance. As for any randomness, what are her calculations?

She is referring to the fine tuned nature of the universe for life. The calculations are the calculations, however much some wish to pretend that they don't exist. She is acknowledging that the creation of the universe in the form we find it cannot be explained on "the basis of chance", therefore must be designed or must be the product of unknown forces of organization. She opts for the latter even though it is clearly a religious standpoint which ultimately all atheism is.

the mutually exclusive creationist and evolutionist explanations are the only explanations possible. Hence it is the view of the majority of biologists that any living system, wherever it arises, is most appropriately characterized as the product of an evolutionary process.

Thats like saying it is the view of the majority of physicists that any physical system, where ever it arises, will exhibit gravity.

No, what she is saying is that any explanation that is not a naturalistic explanation is barred a priori on philosophical grounds. Which simply goes to my point that atheism is a barrier to knowledge.

Well duh. When you have a scientific theory based on decades of research and has yet to be falsified and instead only strengthened, it would be irrational and unnecessary to try to develop a new theory with every single piece of research.

Of course that is the point. Evolution is constructed in such a way that it cannot be falsified, and is therefore not scientific. You explain the Cambrian explosion without providing a scintilla of evidence on how it could have happened. You just asset that it must have been evolution. How is that statement of faith falsifiable? You might as well attempt to falsify my observations of spiritual healing that defy the laws of physics. I don't present those observations as science, yet evolutionists are willing to present their 'just so' stories as worthy of being taken seriously.

Note that she acknowledges that there are only two options for explaining lifes diversity. Note also that she categorically rejects one of those two options EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE TRUE. Now that would be fine if the explanation she circles as the only one allowable actually provides a coherent explanation of exactly how one gets from a mouse to an elephant in any period of time, or why large, slow breeding animals like whales and horses evolve so fast while bacteria who reproduce in unimaginable numbers dont seem to evolve at all except on a microevolutionary scale. But she doesnt have that coherent explanation, which begs the question. If the explanation she prefers doesnt work real well, what is the rationale for not considering the second alternative? That answer is clear. She has a religious preference for the one, however ineffective it is as science, so like most dogmatic naturalists, whatever truth is, shes not likely to find it through empirical means.

you exhibit the exact same characteristics. You horrible distorted Crick, claimed no new phyla appeared after the cambrian, etc....

I didn't distort Crick in the slightest. He stated that once formed, DNA could not evolve since any evolution would be disasterous. That merely says that a level of perfection was achieved against staggering odds beyond any possibility of being overcome almost instantly as soon as the earth cooled. It is powerful evidence for the hand of a creator. Your response? Creator not allowed. Has to be purely natural causes. Now who is engaging in distortion?

Finally, the appeal to authority on the basis that virtually all biologists who make their living in science adhere to evolution as the explanation is not terribly compelling.

So then I take it you never go to the doctor? After all, their education, the medicines they derive are all built upon the foundation of natural selection. Heres the thing, if natural selection was SO utterly wrong, it wouldnt work.

Complete non sequitor. People went to the doctor when the doctor bled them. That didn't make the doctor right, did it? And if natural selection works, please point to a single example where it actually does work and has produced a unique form of life not identified based on just so interpretations of scant fossil evidence. Since the theory is ironclad, this should be very, very easy. Have at it.

We wouldnt be able to keep doing the research we are doing and getting the results we are getting. Evolution is easily falsified, yet no matter how hard people try, they just cant do it.

If you believe it is falsifiable, please state how. Einstein showed how relativity could be falsified. How is evolution falsifiable? Because things change? Because they don't?

[Janx]

nygreenguy wrote: My point is that we know that cyanobacterial mats account for stromotolites. We know these mineralized mats were once dominant throughout the world because we can find their fossils throughout the world. We know that theyve been around indistinguishable from modern stomotolite forming cyanobacteria for 3.5 billion years and we know that the range of the stromotolite building cyanobacteria has shrunk to a couple meager locations in the world and yet evolutionary change is unapparent, even in the fact of extinction, never mind a reproductive rate in the gazillions.

nygreenguy wrote: They still exist there because there is still a niche there. Yes, it is shrinking (especially now with climate change) but there is still that niche. AND that isnt the only place cyanobacteria exist. They HAVE diversified and exist elsewhere. If you look from the perspective of the bacteria in the current mats, WHY would they change? What reason do they have to change?

Starboard Tack wrote: If so, then why have these bacteria, even though going slowly extinct over 3.5 billion years not adapted? They have had, what do you think 10^20 opportunities to stumble on a mutation that renders them unpalatable to jawed or jawless fishies? How come it hasn't happened, yet you can explain the transformation of a wolf into a whale? Really?

Hi Starboard Tack, I'm having trouble understanding your response to nygreenguy. Much of your reply involves false statements. I'm wondering why this is the case. Example:

If so, then why have these bacteria, even though going slowly extinct over 3.5 billion years not adapted?

What do you mean by "not adapted"? Cyanobacteria are very successful at adaptation. You can find this bacteria almost anywhere in the world where there is a bit of moisture and sunlight.

They have had, what do you think 10^20 opportunities to stumble on a mutation that renders them unpalatable to jawed or jawless fishies? How come it hasn't happened, yet

This has happened.
Article: Cyanobacteria (Blue-Green Algae) Poisoning
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/animpest/v1136w.htm

yet you can explain the transformation of a wolf into a whale? Really?

Such a transformation never happened. Nor is anyone claiming it has happened.

[nygreenguy]

I grant that we can't know whether the fossils found by Schopf and Grazier are the same as those that exist today. However, we can agree that they are still indistiguishable from modern species, so we have an example of bacteria remaining bacteria for 3.5 billion years.

False. SOME ancient cyanobacteria are similar to SOME modern cyanobacteria.

Green, this is why us knuckle draggers have so many problems with evolution fans. Of course you don't really mean that bacteria have any "reason" to evolve or not evolve, so you must be speaking metaphorically.

No, Im not speaking metaphorically. If something is well adapted to its surroundings, there is no reason to evolve. There is no pressure pushing evolution.

We both know that is not how evolution works, so why do you use that language? Bacteria will be subjected to mutational change over time, and some of those changes may be beneficial and subject to success through natural selection. Is that not the theory??? If so, then why have these bacteria, even though going slowly extinct over 3.5 billion years not adapted?

As said before, if they change species, they are no longer cyanobacteria and they become "extinct", if they dont change, then you claim evolution isnt happening. You are creating a logically impossible test.

They have had, what do you think 10^20 opportunities to stumble on a mutation that renders them unpalatable to jawed or jawless fishies? How come it hasn't happened, yet you can explain the transformation of a wolf into a whale? Really?

Ive repeated this a million times over, we have many, many species of cyanobacteria and they have many, many ancestors. So please, STOP claiming cyanobactria have not evolved. They have. Now, some ARE still similar to ancient forms. Why is that? Well, because there is a wide open niche they are very successful at. You keep trying to imply that evolution is necessary to be successful, that an organism must always be improving. This has never been a part of evolutionary theory.

Now, thats just for those that are still in those mats, but as I have mentioned before, the bacteria HAVE evolved into other things. Just because some have changed doesnt mean it required ALL bacteria to change. Why would it?

With respect, you have zero proof that bacteria have evolved into anything.

Are you that confident in your research to make such a claim?

Stating this as fact would be as silly as my saying that you should believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected because he was. You have a theory that is not supported by any empirical or observational evidence that any bacteria in the history of the planet has changed into something other than a bacteria. Can you cite a definitive observational example that would contradict this statement?

Once again, you are claiming some sort of special knowledge over the scientific community. Do you really think we would have such theories if the situation was as you describe? The genetic and fossil evidence is overwhelming. Every living eukaryote on earth is carrying evidence of this.

I don't understand evolution to be a process that involves intent to save. It is a process where the natural mutation of genomic information results in opportunities for enhanced survivability. If this theory is correct, then where is the mutation that could enhance the survivability of these bacteria? And isn't the bacterial count in Shark Bay a pretty big population?

There has to be pressure on the mutations.

Yes, I meant 543 million years ago. And the period of time for the creation of these new phyla is not tens of millions of years, but perhaps as few as 5 million years, or at least so says the Chinese team examining the strata in China. You reckon that is enough time to create 70 new phyla, while 3.5 billion years ago can't solve the stromotolite problem, nor 300 million years produce an improved Daddy Long Legs with longer legs or bigger teeth?

Please provide a citation for this claim.

Phyla represent body plans.

No they do not. They are no discreet categories like these for taxonomic levels.

Are you saying that the differences between phyla are not greater than the differences between species within phyla?

Why does it matter? What exactly are you trying to claim?

Here you are defining evolutionary power as affecting only species, yet chages in species through evolutionary processes should create new body plans, should it not?

Not necessarily.

After all, if evolution explains going from bacteria to Albert Einstein, coming up with a few new body plans shouldn't be all that unusual, especially since around 40 of the body plans that came into existence in a geologic blink of an eye have gone extinct in the meanwhile, presumable opening up lots of lucatrive niches.

This is another example of your lack on knowledge in the subject creating a misunderstanding. You are generalizing the science to the point it is meaningless. There is a reason why we saw so many body plans in the cambrian and why we do not see so many now. However, instead of asking more questions, you seem to find yourself content and confident enough in your limited knowledge of the subject to come to these grand conclusions and pretty much say the people who study this stuff are idiots.

Again, name one new body plan that has emerged isnce the Cambrian. Perhaps my source of information is incorrect, but I think you will find that no new body plans have appeared. My sources by the way include Ward and Brownlee, "Rare Earth", both are aggressive atheists, as well as Lewin in Science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/241/4863/291.extract . In understand that some evolutionists prefer to define phyla so as to get around the problems associated with the Cambrian event, but if you stick to the idea that phyla represents a body plan, you'll find none you can point to that have arisen in the last half billion years.

Once again, why the body plan obsession? Why does that matter and what exactly does it represent? Dont use talking points, use science. Actually, you should look more into what taxonomic categories ARE and how they are created along with phylogenetic trees.

You claimed phyla, and upper taxonomic category has to do with body plans. If we have entire KINGDOMS, which are the highest taxonomic category, appearing AFTER the cambrian, that would mean EVERY phyla contained in those kingdoms are "new body plans" according to your logic.

I certainly don't dispute diversity. I dispute the source of diversity.

I can give lots of papers on sources of diversity.

There have been lots of whales replacing the inevitable extinction of big bodied, slow breeding mammals because God apparently likes whales.

I dont understand this.

You think it is because a critter like a bacteria that produces gazillions of offspring doesn'te evolve while a whale who produces a few million does. I disagree. If you are arguing that evolution accounts for divesity of species, but not the creation of phyla, you have a unique interpretation of the ToE.

This is a strawman because you are still misrepresenting the theory of evolution.

According to evolution, all diversity that we see througout history is due to natural processes not requiring a creator. You wish to assert that the Cambrian explosion is explicable under your theory, yet you can't explain it.

Says who?

You wish to explain the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens on the basis of gradual evolutionary change, yet can't produce plausible antecedents to us.

Because you dont understand what you are asking for.

I won't accuse you of being ignorant, but would ask that you not confuse your philosophy with proof of knowledge. When Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature writes "to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific", do you think he is lacking in knowledge as well? And if he is correct, how would you propose that your theory be falsifed, as you imply it can be in your last statement on this post? How do you falsify the non-scientific philosophic belief?

Henry Gee has responded to this quotemine:

That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. Unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view. However, this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great scientific coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live by dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a mark of health rather than decay. However, the point of IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology-- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.

So what? Well, if evolution works through natural selection, why hasn't man been able to produce a novel type of life in 40,000 years of trying?

we have forced speciation either on purpose, or by accident. as for "novel" why is that relevant? There are lots of things which occur naturally which we cant recreate.

Yes, no doubt she is guilty, as most naturalists are of allowing her philosophical convinctions to stand in the way of knowledge. Wait a minute....is that what you meant??

I was relating your criticisms of her, and her criticisms to you and your positions.

She is referring to the fine tuned nature of the universe for life. The calculations are the calculations, however much some wish to pretend that they don't exist. She is acknowledging that the creation of the universe in the form we find it cannot be explained on "the basis of chance", therefore must be designed or must be the product of unknown forces of organization. She opts for the latter even though it is clearly a religious standpoint which ultimately all atheism is.

False dilemma AND an argument to incredulity all in one.

No, what she is saying is that any explanation that is not a naturalistic explanation is barred a priori on philosophical grounds. Which simply goes to my point that atheism is a barrier to knowledge.

No, it is just non-natural explanations fail to create anything which is either logical or can be empirically demonstrated. It cant even manage to falsify evolution.

Of course that is the point. Evolution is constructed in such a way that it cannot be falsified, and is therefore not scientific. You explain the Cambrian explosion without providing a scintilla of evidence on how it could have happened.

It can be falsified in so many ways. Just because someone hasnt been able to do it, doesnt mean it is set up that way. People have came out and gave many ways to falsify evolution. Rabbit in the cambrian, lack of a nested hierarchy, etc...
What makes you think we dont have evidence of the cambrian? Have you read the scientific literature? If you do a journal search for this, do you think nothing will come up? What is your basis for this claim?

You just asset that it must have been evolution. How is that statement of faith falsifiable? You might as well attempt to falsify my observations of spiritual healing that defy the laws of physics.

Defy the laws of physics? We have lots of evidence of these cases being fraud.

I don't present those observations as science, yet evolutionists are willing to present their 'just so' stories as worthy of being taken seriously.

It depends on how willing you are to actually do the research.

I didn't distort Crick in the slightest. He stated that once formed, DNA could not evolve since any evolution would be disasterous.

You are STILL repeating the same mistake. I have repeatedly explained this. He NEVER SAID dna could not evolve. He explained how a specific mechanism of protein coding (this is actually RNA were talking about here) came about. He ONLY said that protein formation needed a tripled codon and not a single or double. THATS IT. That has NOTHING to do with the evolution of dna.

That merely says that a level of perfection was achieved against staggering odds beyond any possibility of being overcome almost instantly as soon as the earth cooled. It is powerful evidence for the hand of a creator. Your response? Creator not allowed. Has to be purely natural causes. Now who is engaging in distortion?

you. you take a statement which is about science you dont understand, try to interpret the science you dont understand, and make conclusions which are wrong.

Complete non sequitor. People went to the doctor when the doctor bled them. That didn't make the doctor right, did it?

Those people are irrelevant. Were taling actual modern science here.

And if natural selection works, please point to a single example where it actually does work and has produced a unique form of life not identified based on just so interpretations of scant fossil evidence. Since the theory is ironclad, this should be very, very easy. Have at it.

Another strawman.

If you believe it is falsifiable, please state how. Einstein showed how relativity could be falsified. How is evolution falsifiable? Because things change? Because they don't?

Evolution doesnt say things MUST change. It only says they HAVE. Natural selections how and why and even why not. As for falsifiability, I gave reasons above. TO even lists a few: a static fossil record;
true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
observations of organisms being created.

[nygreenguy]

I am going to add some detail to my previous posts regarding the cambrian and the issue with crick.

The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).

There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.

The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:

The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.

Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.

The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.

Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).

Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).

Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).

Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).

Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).

Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

Now for the codon stuff. Lets start with basic genetics.

So a protein needs to be made. The DNA unwinds and RNA polymerase attaches to the DNA and begins transcription. This creates an RNA copy of of the DNA. So the mRNA leaves the nucleus. Then it meets up with a ribosome and the ribosome attaches to the mRNA. Now here is where the crick stuff comes in.


This is a chart with the 3 base pairs (codon is the group of bases that represent an amino acid) that represent different codons. You can see some like alanine (ala) have a code of GCU,GCC,GCA,GCG. You notice the third position can be anything at all and we still get the same amino acid. Ok, so what does this mean?


So the ribosome attaches. We can see that a complimentart 3 base pair tRNA with attached amino acid can only attach at that specific matching 3 base pair part on the mRNA. So the ribosome reads the mRNA 3 bases at a time. So lets look at the crick paper:
We must now tackle the nature of the primitive code and the manner in which it
evolved into the present code. It might be argued that the primitive code was not a triplet code but that originally the bases were read one at a time (giving 4 codons), then two at a time (giving 16 codons) and only later evolved to the present triplet code. This seems highly unlikely, since it violates the Principle of Continuity. A change in codon size necessarily makes nonsense of all previous messages and would almost certainly be lethal. This is quite different from the idea that the primitive code was a triplet code (in the sense that the reading mechanism moved along three bases at each step) but that only, say, the first two bases were read. This is not at all implausible.

So right there he is givving possible scenarios for this protein creating complex starting off only having 1 bp codons or 2 bp codons. He argues against that being possible (he goes into more detail later) but he then responds that the primitive mechanism DID use the triplet codon mechanism. He is ONLY saying that the single or double codon evolution couldnt happen NOT that none of the mechanisms couldnt have involved. In fact, much of this paper IS about how these mechanisms evolved.

Then we have the fact that many papers have come out in the past 40 years that are much more detailed.