Sponges on ancient ocean floors 100 million years before Cambrian period

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Agauger

I ask this not to be snobby but to get a feel for how much you know about how much information it takes to assemble new radically different body plans.

The question presupposes that we start with information, and then use that information to build a body to a plan.

But maybe we actually started with the bodies that we found and then, after the fact, invented the idea of body plans. Maybe body plans are better thought of as spandrels.

[Patrick]

@gbrooks9

Isnt this where PeacefulScience adheres to God as the source? Only atheists would reject this solution.

No, Information Theory and evolutionary science does not recognize God as the source of where the information necessary to build an animal came from. From evolutionary science we know that the information to build an animal resides in the DNA of its parent.

[Agauger (Ann Gauger)]

@Art, I might also say that evolutionists must demonstrate that evolution is capable of the task, rather than making hypothetical claims.

Where does your number 40 come from?

Thanks,
Ann

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Agauger

Where does your number 40 come from?

Any takers for this question?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I’m not sure where it comes from myself. Curious to here your answer.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

It would be really nice if these discussions could take place in such a way that any individual who supports a given position is not considered to be a proxy for that position, and, as such, has to constantly suffer the consequences of every historical offense ever committed by that group. Can we not just, as individuals, have conversations with one another? Talk about the points? To me, whenever I read someone attacking the character of a person or group, I immediately assume that they don’t have a good argument.

Please, discuss the points and stop berating individuals. There are so many great conversations from which there is much to be learned. These personal attacks are simply nauseating and they have no educational value whatsoever.

[T_aquaticus]

@Agauger

So many diverse forms, many of them with no apparent precursors, appeared so quickly.

It is this God of the Gaps argument that scientists balk at. How can you claim that there are no precursors after searching such a tiny, tiny percentage of the fossil record? I think it is a very poor assumption to think that our fossil collections are complete or that we have a fossil for every species that existed over that period.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@T_aquaticus

I think it is a very poor assumption to think that our fossil collections are complete or that we have a fossil for every species that existed over that period.

Will you expect that, in time, we will see precursors to the aforementioned body plans that otherwise seem to appear fully formed? Discovering fossils that provide a clear pathway to these new body types would certainly overcome the “Cambrian explosion” argument.

@T_aquaticus

It is this God of the Gaps argument that scientists balk at. How can you claim that there are no precursors after searching such a tiny, tiny percentage of the fossil record?

Don’t get mad, because I’m just asking (remember, you are a friendly atheist)… but, if the fossil record is vastly incomplete, then the fossil record does not support an evolutionary pathway to the new body types found in the Cambrian layers. So, how does this quote, above, vary from the God of the Gaps accusation? It seems as though the evidence is the key. If it exists, then the “Cambrian explosion” argument goes away. If the evidence does not exist, then one can hardly criticize another for questioning the lack of evidence. Speculative future evidence is certainly not evidence, right?

Moreover, I don’t think that people claim that there are no precursors, they claim, as you have, that there is an incredible lack of precursors that have been discovered. (This is certainly what should be claimed.) Everyone should also agree that, if discovered, the criticism would be invalid.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Michael_Callen

I think it is a very poor assumption to think that our fossil collections are complete or that we have a fossil for every species that existed over that period.

Will you expect that, in time, we will see precursors to the aforementioned body plans that otherwise seem to appear fully formed? Discovering fossils that provide a clear pathway to these new body types would certainly overcome the “Cambrian explosion” argument.

That is precisely the reason why this matters.

@Michael_Callen

Moreover, I don’t think that people claim that there are no precursors , they claim, as you have, that there is an incredible lack of precursors that have been discovered.

Actually, this is pretty close to what they claim. They also claim that it was sudden, not 40 million years.

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

@swamidass

Moreover, I don’t think that people claim that there are no precursors , they claim, as you have, that there is an incredible lack of precursors that have been discovered.

Actually, this is pretty close to what they claim.

@Agauger

So many diverse forms, many of them with no apparent precursors, appeared so quickly. That’s why it’s called an explosion.

Ann Gauger, for instance, states it fairly, I believe.

But what about the other parts of my comment? I feel as though you really keyed in on the least significant aspects. Do those who hold to an evolutionary viewpoint (one that believes that evolution is solely responsible for the existence of all species on the planet) expect to see fossil evidence for these body plans that otherwise seem to appear fully formed? And what about the God of the Gaps argument?

Is it not responsible for all of us to say that evidence, not the lack of evidence, is the foundation upon which our arguments should be made? I think that we’re all truth seekers here. The evidence should be borne out over time and conclusions can be drawn. But, for now at least, this seems to be an open chapter.

Thoughts?

[Mung]

@Michael_Callen

It would be really nice if these discussions could take place in such a way that any individual who supports a given position is not considered to be a proxy for that position…

Also it would be better, imo, to avoid statements of the “they say” sort and quote or cite a specific claim.

[T_aquaticus]

@Michael_Callen

Will you expect that, in time, we will see precursors to the aforementioned body plans that otherwise seem to appear fully formed?

First, what does “fully formed” even mean? How do you determine if a species is fully formed? What are the criteria?

More to the point, I have no idea what we will find in the future. All I do know is that we have searched a tiny, tiny fraction of the Earth for fossils. How in the world can you say that there are no precursors after searching such a small portion of the Earth?

@Michael_Callen

Discovering fossils that provide a clear pathway to these new body types would certainly overcome the “Cambrian explosion” argument.

That isn’t true because of Gish’s Law. For every new transitional fossil found there are now two new gaps. It is a fool’s errand to think that evidence will impact the YEC/OEC community. For example, here are quite a few transitionals and the YEC/OEC community just ignores them:

@Michael_Callen

Don’t get mad, because I’m just asking (remember, you are a friendly atheist)… but, if the fossil record is vastly incomplete, then the fossil record does not support an evolutionary pathway to the new body types found in the Cambrian layers.

I do get a bit frustrated at times, but never mad.

The fossil record does support evolution because the theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. The fossils we have fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. The theory of evolution makes no predictions about the rate of preservation or the rate of discovery, so gaps are not a problem.

[Mung]

@T_aquaticus

The theory of evolution makes no predictions about the rate of preservation or the rate of discovery, so gaps are not a problem.

Darwin seemed to think it was a problem, and absence of evidence for a theory is always problem.

[T_aquaticus]

@Mung

Darwin seemed to think it was a problem, and absence of evidence for a theory is always problem.

It is strange that you would say that since Darwin wrote a whole chapter in “Origin of Species” explaining why it wasn’t a problem.

The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell’s metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.
Origin of Species

[Timothy_Horton]

@Agauger

So many diverse forms, many of them with no apparent precursors, appeared so quickly

Which ones do have apparent precursors? Do you admit there’s evidence those evolved from the precursors and say only the ones we haven’t found fossilized precursors for are “Designed” ones? That’s classic God Of The Gaps reasoning, an argument rejected by science three centuries ago.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Mung

Darwin seemed to think it was a problem, and absence of evidence for a theory is always problem.

Small gaps in the details does not equate to the entire theory suffering from absence of evidence.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Michael_Callen

Is it not responsible for all of us to say that evidence, not the lack of evidence, is the foundation upon which our arguments should be made? I think that we’re all truth seekers here. The evidence should be borne out over time and conclusions can be drawn. But, for now at least, this seems to be an open chapter.

Part of the evidence we need to take into account is the farther back in time we go the more rare finding fossilized remains become. This is especially true of pre-Cambrian finds when virtually all life was still soft-bodied making fossilization all the more unlikely.

An analogy would be: suppose you are a sheriff tracking an escaped prisoner. For the first mile the prisoner ran along a wet beach which showed his footprints clearly. For the next mile he cut inland where on hard soil every third or fourth footprint was preserved. Finally the prisoner ran across very rocky ground where his footprints are found every 500 ft. Should we conclude a supernatural being carried the prisoner over the ground so he didn’t leave footprints at places? Or should we take into account the physical substrate we are examining as the explanation for less prints?

[Mung]

@Timothy_Horton

Part of the evidence we need to take into account is the farther back in time we go the more rare finding fossilized remains become.

I think it’s the opposite. The farther forward in time you go the rarer the fossils become.

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Agauger

Where does your number 40 come from?

Getting back to this (before the thread runs away from me) -

Recall the question:

@Art

Thus, ask yourself - if each and every cell (1 trillion or cell) in the human body was specified by a unique combination of transcription factors, then how many such factors would we need?

The number of ways to “sample” one TF = 1.
The number of ways to sample 2 TFs = 3 (A, B, AB)
The number of ways to sample 3 TFs = 7 (A, B, C, AB, AC, BC, ABC)
The number of ways to sample n TFs = 2^n-1 (which is the formula for the number of combinations of N objects sampled without respect to order, less the case of no TFs).

To get 10^12 combinations (roughly speaking), it is easy to see that n=40.

@Agauger

@Art, I might also say that evolutionists must demonstrate that evolution is capable of the task, rather than making hypothetical claims.

Well, to see what is possible, consider the evolution of an entirely new kingdom, without any new information (to speak of) - summarized in this review. As always, enjoy!

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Art

Thus, ask yourself - if each and every cell (1 trillion or cell) in the human body was specified by a unique combination of transcription factors, then how many such factors would we need?

I see now. I lost the original context.