tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8642154472471430962..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The Cambrian Conundrum: Stephen Meyer Says (Lack of) Fossils Trumps GenesLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52784320823687736812017-03-15T18:05:07.217-04:002017-03-15T18:05:07.217-04:00I wonder if you know the difference between eviden...I wonder if you know the difference between evidence in the fossil record and a phylogenetic hypothesis using current world species strains and based on morphological data...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15816333086351783144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76585238540177015182014-01-06T16:08:36.393-05:002014-01-06T16:08:36.393-05:00I just can't resist @Robert Byers...
You are ...I just can't resist @Robert Byers...<br /><br />You are heavily misinformed if you actually believe that the fossil record does not support evolution. Have you heard of the laws of Fossil Succession? Have you read any recent papers on fossils? There are countless examples of this. <br /><br />On other evidence:<br /><br /> http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask404 <br /><br />Genetics Antique Roadshow<br />Believe it or not, 8% of human DNA is actually old virus DNA. Some viruses, called retroviruses, put their DNA into the DNA of the cells they infect. HIV is a virus like this.<br />...<br />Some of the strongest evidence for common ancestors can be found by looking at where these viruses insert themselves into a cell's DNA. See, these viruses tend to land in random places.<br />So when the virus inserts itself into a human cell, it has 6 billion places to choose from. The odds that two people will have the virus insert in the same place are very small. The odds are even worse that lots of different kinds of retroviruses will all land in the exact same place in two different people.<br />...In fact, chimps and humans share way too many of these old viruses that inserted themselves in the same place for it to be by chance. Common ancestry is the only reasonable explanation.<br /> <br /><br /><br />Amy Blackwelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05097097967425062223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91308404325485443132014-01-06T16:00:27.752-05:002014-01-06T16:00:27.752-05:00I am a theists evolution, I have a unique position...I am a theists evolution, I have a unique position of being bombarded by two opposing groups...haha.<br /><br />My take.<br /><br />My first red flag would be Stephen Meyer has a PH.D in the history/philosophy of science and an undergrad degree in geophysics and earth science. He is smart, and in those areas I would regard is information as more reliable -though not an expert as he has a undergrad degree not PHD in those fields- (earthquakes, volcanoes, thunderstorms, earth's crust)...but this gives him no real credibility to astute himself as an expert about molecular biology and cells, or biological evolution. He can have opinions, but he is not an expert in the least. When you obtain a degree in a field and do work in the field then you are more credible in that field.<br /><br />My second red flag is the first half talks about debunking Darwin. There are two points of criticism I have with that. <br /><br />One is that Darwin is not the be-all-end-all on evolution. Many who debate on the side of 'spontaneous appearance of all life' seem to think he is and if they could just somehow ruin his credibility then all will be good; however, since Darwin there has been hundreds of years of scientific work in the fields of evolutionary biology, plate tectonics, paleontology, archeology, cosmology, meteorology, astrophysics, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, general biology, fossil succession and possibly others that support evolution. Further, predating Darwin this concepts were prevalent among various cultures/philosophers/and religions. Yet, the 'spontaneous appearance of all life' side hardly ever incorporates all the other sciences and all the other scientists work- why...because that would require thousands upon thousands of scientists and papers to debunk.<br /><br />Second is that any scientist is going double think their work, any good scientist proposes something and then often tries to disprove it. Simply listing out of context 'questions' that a scientist like Darwin has, does not debunk their work or what they really thought about it. <br /><br />Amy Blackwelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05097097967425062223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66132982476237826262013-09-20T16:17:35.232-04:002013-09-20T16:17:35.232-04:00If the Science review is paywalled (I haven't ...If the Science review is paywalled (I haven't looked), you can find it <a href="http://darwinsdoubtreviews.blogspot.com/2013/09/charles-r-marshall-reviews-darwins.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63944541939212055452013-09-20T12:21:29.292-04:002013-09-20T12:21:29.292-04:00There's a brief but interesting review of Meye...There's a brief but interesting review of Meyer's book by Charles R. Marshall in today's issue of Science (p. 1344): "When Prior Belief<br />Trumps Scholarship" (under <i>Books et al.: Religion and Science</i>).Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68678608764626947952013-09-19T20:51:29.745-04:002013-09-19T20:51:29.745-04:00The idea of the Cambrian Explosion is an old pagan...The idea of the Cambrian Explosion is an old pagan mythology-- from primordial Chaos, Order arises. This idea is so powerful, even Stephen Jay Gould promoted it in "Wonderful Life", which hangs about our neck like an albatross, or an Opabinia.<br /><br />It's even in the Bible-- Yahweh moves on the surface of the deep, Tehom, cognate to Tiamat, the Babylonian chaos deity/dragon. In Psalm 74, Yahweh breaks the many heads of Leviathan, the chaos deity.<br /><br />Nowadays Ken Ham says Leviathan was a plesiosaur. Anything to cover up the pagan, polytheistic origins of Christianity.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27534651535841355362013-09-19T15:53:00.543-04:002013-09-19T15:53:00.543-04:00Their dating is off, by the way.
People apparentl...<i>Their dating is off, by the way.</i><br /><br />People apparently tend to have a blind spot for the "dark ages" of the Cambrian. I suppose trilobites are so emblematic of the lower Palaeozoic that it's hard to visualise any part of the Cambrian without them.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1875585324495978582013-09-19T15:12:10.941-04:002013-09-19T15:12:10.941-04:00Just another word for "steel guitar", wh...Just another word for "steel guitar", which I'm sure you've heard of before. A brand name, really.<br /><br />Their dating is off, by the way. 545ma? A few million years into the Ediacaran, and long before any of the animals they talk about, in the Atdabanian, around 520ma. Nice cello solo.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73741753878711425682013-09-19T14:43:12.095-04:002013-09-19T14:43:12.095-04:00@Piotr
I've seen ;)
Have you seen "Symp...@Piotr<br /><br />I've seen ;)<br /><br />Have you seen "Symphony of Science"?Arek Wittbrodthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10111672656316139254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60913081380663027632013-09-19T14:20:34.487-04:002013-09-19T14:20:34.487-04:00By the way, has anyone seen this?
Cambrian Explos...By the way, has anyone seen this?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMwxwRA9Xr8" rel="nofollow">Cambrian Explosion</a>,<br /><br />featuring a musical instrument (called the dobro) I've never heard of before.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6842555457440491722013-09-18T23:48:15.789-04:002013-09-18T23:48:15.789-04:00And a seventh question.
Meyer says the Cambrian e...And a seventh question.<br /><br />Meyer says the Cambrian explosion lasted 5 million years (a number he gets by cherry picking a 20 year old, out of date paper.) He says 5 million is a small number. As Harshman keeps saying ad infinitem, Meyer ignores the 20+ million years of fossils from latest Ediacaran through early Cambrian up to the "explosion." <br /><br />7. Is 20+ million smaller than 5 million?Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36481469693865196882013-09-18T23:34:31.315-04:002013-09-18T23:34:31.315-04:00Andy writes: "Kimberella is not less controve...Andy writes: "Kimberella is not less controversial or evidently bilaterian than it was generally seen as a jellyfish until relatively recently."<br /><br />I have 6 questions I want answered.<br /><br />1. Why on Earth do you accept Matz et al. as authorities when they say some tracks are caused by giant protists, but you reject their authority when they say Kimberella is a bilaterian and stem mollusk?<br /><br />2. Did Matz et al. say that all Precambrian tracks are caused by giant protists or just some tracks? What caused all the others?<br /><br />3. Why are tracks and burrows getting more complicated in the early Cambrian pre-Atdabanian, pre-explosion? Were giant protists getting superpowers? How did they get those powers? <br /><br />4. Is it just a big coincidence that the "Explosion" happens thereafter to totally "unrelated" (according to Meyer) organisms? Isn't Meyer demanding us to believe BOTH that God suddenly felt an inexplicable urge to create trilobites by magic, AND that, by an amazing coincidence, at about the same time, some totally unrelated organisms just happened to be evolving superpowers without God's help, no relation 'tall?<br /><br />5. If Kimberella is a stem mollusk, it's not fully formed. Creationism predicts all basic kinds appear fully formed. Is creationism falsifiable?<br /><br />6. If hypothetically there really were giant protists around making tracks but leaving no body fossils, doesn't that prove preservation was extremely imperfect in the Precambrian, <b>thus demolishing the whole thesis of Meyer's book?</b>Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71715591740577045462013-09-18T22:42:40.600-04:002013-09-18T22:42:40.600-04:00Its NOT (negative) denying evidence. Its a greater...Its NOT (negative) denying evidence. Its a greater equation of a point.<br />That biological evidence(if science is the methodology here) is demanded if biological conclusions are drawn that are being claimed to BE on biological evidence.<br />I'm insisting that fossils(bio data points on a rock) are not biological evidence for descent and so not evidence for evolution.<br />They are just snapshots of some creature in a moment of time.<br />The connections to other fossils, above/below depositions, is not from biological evidence or investigation but a mere line of reasoning after presumptions of the origin of the depositions of the segregated fossils.<br />Even if they were telling the tale of evolution it STILL would not be biological evidence.<br />Just a secondary piece of evidence.<br />Without the geology there is NO biology conclusions of descent.<br />Therefore it is no conclusions from biological investigation.<br />Its all been a grand flaw of methodology. Its not obeying scientific principals of investigation.<br />Evolution is still only a hypothesis and not a theory.<br />Otherwise show us why its a theory !!<br /><br />Everybody just convinces themselves the fossil sequences are telling a tale in history.<br />True or not they are not telling a tale of science methodology.<br />I'm right or I'm wrong with my equation.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40561687492615207742013-09-18T18:07:02.405-04:002013-09-18T18:07:02.405-04:00Andy seems surprised that in science one is willin...Andy seems surprised that in science one is willing to revise one's hypotheses in the light of new evidence.<br /><br />Why does Andy find this concept so strange and foreign ?<br /><br />Could it be that Andy has already been instructed on what the conclusions are and his purported spirit of scientific inquiry is really an exercise in post hoc rationalization of a position arrived at by non rational means ?<br />steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6944976386915037802013-09-18T17:58:26.328-04:002013-09-18T17:58:26.328-04:00which do you think captures the essence of the pap...<i>which do you think captures the essence of the paper better?</i><br /><br />PS My point (illustrated with the quote) is that while Matz et al. question the mainstream interpretation of the Precambrian crawling marks and burrows, they accept at least one <b>other</b> important piece of evidence and by no means claim that bilaterians sprang up out of nowhere in the Cambrian.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44627336883998561372013-09-18T17:49:18.139-04:002013-09-18T17:49:18.139-04:00@Andy. Let me repeat: the evidence of Precambrian ...@Andy. Let me repeat: the evidence of Precambrian bilaterians is not restricted to tracks and burrows (which, by the way, as pointed out by Anaxyrus above, do not actually look amoeba-made, pace Matz). The position of <i>Kimberella</i> was indeed controversial "until recently", but now, with 1000+ known specimens, it's no longer an enigmatic jelly blob but an abundant, cosmopolitan taxon. The original interpretations have been abandoned in the light of new evidence (which, in addition to body fossils, includes feeding and crawling tracks, and impressions of non-mineralised shells disassociated from the body). Whether <i>Kimberella</i> is or isn't a stem mollusc is disputable, but its bilaterian status is not really in doubt any longer.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26333732240392917462013-09-18T17:10:57.283-04:002013-09-18T17:10:57.283-04:00Andy,
I'm pointing out that the trackways the...Andy,<br /><br />I'm pointing out that the trackways the article attributes to giant protists are not the trackways that people usually point to when talking about the long fuse of the Cambrian explosion. Those are instead the increasing diversity of tracks clearly made by bilaterians, beginning in the very latest Ediacaran and expanding throughout the first two stages of the Camrbrian. Meyer completely ignores these and the accompanying small, shelly fauna, and goes directly from the Ediacaran to the Atdabanian. This increase, around 542ma, is that Matz et al. are calling the "explosion", but that isn't Meyer's explosion. Meyer begins his with the first appearances of trilobites and the Chengjiang fauna, some 20+ million years later.<br /><br />Note that Matz et al. accept <i>Kimberella</i> as not only bilaterian but a mollusk. That is, they aren't claiming that *all* Ediacaran fossils were giant protists.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64132271114284437882013-09-18T16:30:20.308-04:002013-09-18T16:30:20.308-04:00Piotr,
Who is doing quote mining? I quoted the ent...Piotr,<br />Who is doing quote mining? I quoted the entire summary, you quoted half a passage in the discussion section...which do you think captures the essence of the paper better?Further more Kimberella is not less controversial or evidently bilaterian than it was generally seen as a jellyfish until relatively recently.<br /><br />John,<br />I think that you need to read the text or at least the summary again. The main subject of the paper is: Giant Protists as explanation for trackways in the pre-cambrian (i.e. before 542 m.y. ago, some as old as 1.800 m.y.) that has previously been attributed to bilaterians.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503746944125068931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63449264852775010012013-09-18T11:01:35.417-04:002013-09-18T11:01:35.417-04:00I am afraid that Booby Byers is really like that. ...I am afraid that Booby Byers is really like that. The folks over at Panda's Thumb where he also entertains us with his breathtaking inanities are convinced that he is not a Poe.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03156659347945868851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3905816389560756172013-09-18T10:21:43.465-04:002013-09-18T10:21:43.465-04:00Andy: You are confusing matters in exactly the sam...Andy: You are confusing matters in exactly the same way Meyer did, ignoring the first 20+ million years of the Cambrian. The "obvious and explosive appearance in the Early Cambrian, 542 million years ago" is something Meyer never, ever mentions, because he goes straight from the Ediacaran to the Atdabanian, around 520 million years ago (though he thinks it's 530). They're referring here to the increase in variety and complexity of trails and burrows and the appearance of the small, shelly fauna. Again, this isn't the Precambrian, just a part of the Cambrian that Meyer pretends doesn't exist.<br />John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89323805182752959262013-09-18T10:20:27.179-04:002013-09-18T10:20:27.179-04:00Self correction (I pressed "Publish" too...Self correction (I pressed "Publish" too early). The first paragraph should have read:<br /><br />Did you read the whole paper, or just the abstract for quote-mining purposes? Enthusiastic as the autors are about the giant protist hypothesis, they admit that there is more tangible evidence of Ediacaran bilaterians:Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19620139924078306232013-09-18T10:16:34.989-04:002013-09-18T10:16:34.989-04:00@Andy W.
Did you read the whole paper, or just th...@Andy W.<br /><br />Did you read the whole paper, or just the abstract for quote-mining pourposes? Enthusiastic as the autors are, they admit that there <b>is</b> more tangible evidence of Ediacaran bilaterians:<br /><br /><i>However, the fossil evidence of bilaterian animals in the Precambrian is scarce. There is only one common Precambrian body fossil — that of Kimberella quadrata — whose interpretation as a primitive mollusk has stood up to scrutiny thus far.</i><br /><br />Limited or not, it's better than the direct body-fossil evidence of giant Precambrian amoeboid protists, which is simply nonexistent.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40187598009251007822013-09-18T08:29:44.613-04:002013-09-18T08:29:44.613-04:00Fortunately for all of us, Quest can indeed answer...Fortunately for all of us, Quest can indeed answer those profound questions. The true answer, which should be obvious to everyone, is a booming voice from the top of the mountain followed by a puff of smoke.Pedro A B Pereirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15195139833344839287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7523801104721251702013-09-18T08:19:25.825-04:002013-09-18T08:19:25.825-04:00The top and bottom of his posts are too far apart....The top and bottom of his posts are too far apart.<br /><br />With apologies to Ambrose Bierce in what I consider to be the most succinct negative book review ever:<br /><br />“The covers of this book are too far apart.”steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5813786697052185602013-09-18T07:08:18.769-04:002013-09-18T07:08:18.769-04:00@Andy Wilberforce:
"Evidence" of pre-ca...@Andy Wilberforce:<br /><br /><i>"Evidence" of pre-cambrian complex body plans is mostly restricted to interpretation of burrows and trackways.</i><br /><br />So did you not read Larry's post? Or did you just not understand it?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.com