Ask, and ye shall receive!
During recent discussions, it was suggested that Darwin’s Doubt raised unanswerable questions for the theory of evolution. Discuss.
324 thoughts on “Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt and the Cambrian Explosion”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I know nothing about carbon isotopes.
All elements were distorted by the impact of layering and instant squeezing of sediment into rock. This mechanism likely accounts for elements issues.
Its not biological mechanisms.
I do respect your candor, but I am also somewhat shocked that you haven’t learned the basics about carbon isotopes and radiometric dating in the years you have been posting on the internet. The better part of a decade, no?
The old-earthers have a ready explanation for the graph I posted, one that is consistent with findings in a wide variety of scientific disciplines. You should look into it; I think you’ll find it more satisfying than idle speculation about ‘distortion’ of elements and so forth.
Finally, the pattern in the graph is not claimed to be due to biological mechanisms, but that’s beside the point.
Fossil incompleteness is a concept based on geology and timelines and chance .
Its not a YEC concept. its not real.
ID in this case is dealing with the concept of a explosion of complexity in timelines hostile to a slow evolutionary concept.
ID has the same problems with fossils as evolutionists as its accepting geology concepts which must be true for the biology concepts to be true.
Without the geology evolution has no evidence and evidence against.
evolution hypothesis is not based on biological scientific evidence.
iots based on other secondary claims of evidence.
Allan Miller,
Any assemblage simply is a local area covered quick in a flow. over lying sediment loads are from later deposition loads whether measured by hours or days or weeks.
I would expect a pre flood world of great segregation of biology. not a mix.
it was so much richer. it would be greater but like the modern amazon. Great diversity in local areas.
I never evade. its off thread. These dating things.
All can be explained by thinking and investigation.
How things were deposited can explain what evolutionists etc can’t because they don’t understand the quick movement and squeezing of sediment.
Turining sediment to stone instantly from pressure is a big YEC claim and if treu, it is, it would change these atomic details.
Tree rings is based on present rates of growth and not evidence of past rates.
trivial evidence for making great conclusions about time and place.
I am somewhat shocked that you are somewhat shocked.
And starlight gets tired. Well, wouldn’t you?
How do you know you have a fossil of every animal and plant ever existing on Earth?
And what is the explanation of ID for the Cambrian Explosion?
Robert Byers,
You would expect exactly what we see? How convenient. I wouldn’t. There is no such segregation now. Backboned animals mix freely with invertebrates, and all sink together on death. And a cataclysmic flood would do some little mixing, no? Yet there is not one vertebrate in the Cambrian strata. Not a single, solitary one. Nor are there trilobites above Permian strata, nor ammonites below the Devonian or above the Cretaceous. Some species of graptolite can only be found in bands just centimetres thick, yet the same band can be found across a wide geographic range.
As to squeezing sediment instantly to rock, I don’t think you really appreciate the sheer volume of sedimentary rock on earth. I live near limestone country, huge cliffs of the stuff. Huge, stratified cliffs, overlaying other sediments, deep into the earth, and overlain by more. And made almost entirely of fossils. Imagine resurrecting them, and releasing them to swim freely in the sea. It would be a little crowded.
I don’t think you appreciate the power of God’s grip. Not only devastated Thor once, but Superman also.
Careful there. Although the interpretation of the characters and the phylogeny is still debated, some of the Cambrian forms such as Haikouichthys, Haikouella, Pikaia, and Myllokunmingia are probably early vertebrates. Checking out their Wikipedia pages, you will find those somewhat inconsistent with each other about who is already a vertebrate and who is a craniate chordate but not a vertebrate.
The other examples you give seem fine to me.
Joe Felsenstein,
Fair enough. I was aware, when I wrote that, of organisms such as Pikaia which display features of early chordates. My understanding was that they would be properly Chordata, but not necessarily Vertebrata. (Applying, of course, modern taxonomy to basal feature, perhaps dubiously). Articulated vertebral segments would seem to be diagnostic, and I’m not sure they have been conclusively shown.
How? How does the pressures you are talking about, which are no different than those observed today, change the decay rate of Uranium 238 to Lead 206? Or Potassium 40 to Argon 40? We don’t see a change with pressure today for these decay rates. Are you suggesting that the physical laws were different then?
That’s one of the defining characteristics of radioactive decay: it isn’t affected by physical or chemical processes. One of the main reasons it can be used for dating materials.
You must be pretty bored now that your nemesis is occupied elsewhere.
I’ve found over the years that if one is sufficiently lazy, one never gets bored.
One doesn’t know or have a fossil for every critter ever was.
One does not know there are really all that more.
No intermediates can be explained by never having existed.
ID says the CE is evidence for glorious diversity and complexity from a design.
Its not from chance with time. no time and no chance.
They use the CE to make a good point although none of these points about geology and biology are really good points.
70% of dry earth is covered with sedimentary rock. this rock is sediments in origin that was laid by water. All agree. A great flood easily was the laying mechanism.
its welcome and likely that segregation in a pre flood world would be the original norm. not primitive mixing in a post flood world.
So its fine that creatures are not mixed. the flood would not mix like our minor floods. It would work with hugh sediment loads and land masses. In fact it would be impossible to have sorting as we have now in water movements. The flood was too big and powerful.
Its easy to presume a pre flood world being unlike ours. it would segregated in great ways. mammals not living with dinos etc.
Same with bugs or small things.
The segregation in layers is not evidence of a pre flood world not being plausible because of comparing creature types in assemblages.
I don’t know these elements essences.
i just offer suggestions for how things could be different.
The flood would have massive volcanos, continents moving about, and so imagination and research can find answers for these things.
its still about accepting present rates as proof the rates were the same in the past.
its primitive trust in minor details to establish great conclusions about the old earth.
We, tailess primates, have to learn about the earth still.
No, what you are suggesting is that physical laws were different 6000 years ago than they are today. Yet, on the other hand, creationists argue that the universe is so finely tuned (ie, physical laws) that even a small deviation would negate life on earth. Which is it?
Can you describe what exactly you mean by design? What is a “design” that can produce biodiversity exactly?
To claim that you must know exactly what’s the mechanism that produce CE. Do you?
BruceS, to walto:
I feel bad about that, so I drop by to give him a tweak every now and then.
Keiths:
I feel bad about that, so I drop by to give him a tweak every now and then
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Robert Byers,
Absolute nonsense. The sediment is of enormous depth – many kilometres. It has to come from somewhere. There isn’t a great mass of sediment waiting to be precipitated out when it rains. So you say there was then? The oceans were essentially sludge? The mountains mud? Since limestone is made of fossils, that ‘sediment’ is actual creatures. Would you seriously expect them to be crushed to rock when it rained? With not one dead whale or modern-looking fish amongst them?
Why? Why in heaven’s name would creatures remain firmly anchored according to their type, in apparent evolutionary succession? Did vertebrates not eat invertebrates in those days? Or vice versa? Couldn’t things walk, swim, float or sink?
It’s easy to ‘presume’ absolutely anything to fit in with a couple of passages in a book. But I am utterly mystified as to why anyone should make such intellectual contortions to make the world fit what it clearly does not. The stratification goes down to just a few centimetres for many creatures. They are found nowhere above or below that layer. It is ludicrous to suggest that that’s just how they lived in a pre-flood biota, with nothing from above intruding, and no mixing and little evidence of compaction during the supposed cataclysm that made them rock. This doesn’t just happen in one layer, but in most of them above the late pre-Cambrian.
Segregation is “welcome” and mixing is “primitive”?
socle,
Yep. These seats are for trilobites only.
That’s the point, of course. There is no reason whatever to believe in the claims in that book other than (i) he was taught them when he was little; and (ii) the book makes him feel good.
But because of those, science (which gave us the microwave oven, for god’s sake!) must be scrapped or made to fit in with bronze age, self-contradictory epic poetry and hollering (involving rape and dismemberment and lots of begetting).
What is the point of “arguing” in such a case?
ETA: What I think he should really be commenting on is why the smashing of the idols of Ba’al was OK. That’s more up his alley.
walto,
It’s just a leisure activity, like watching wildlife. I find Creationism curious.
I find it amusing that ID — which has pretensions — struggles to find an audience, while straight up young earth creationism wields political power and influence, and wins big tax giveaways from states.
Yes, the ‘intellectual’ wing of the creationist community—not much to work with there.
I wonder the same thing. After all these years of following the ID and creationist debate I’m getting burned out. The arguments just dont advance.
I guess the enjoyment comes from collecting ones knowledge and thoughts into a coherent, effective counter argument to ID/creationist claims. Its only fun if one accepts in advance that no amount of evidence will ever persuade them.
One thing I’ll mention that bothers me. This blog is mostly a conversation between regulars. When I and other nonregulars post it usually generates very little comment. But when Byers makes a comment, that keeps the discussion going for days. I can’t for the life of me figure out why. Didnt all of you figure out years ago how futile this is? And many of you are rude to him as well. I think you should have explained politely why you think his beliefs are baseless and move on. Whats the point of making the same rebuttals to him, 6 times a day, every day for 4 or 5 years??
The fun is in organizing one’s own thoughts, and in learning from the arguments of others. You cannot convince a creationist, but you can clarify things for others.
Half-right. Imagination finds answers for the credulous, while research just uses dating methods within an old-earth understanding to find oil and other resources.
Somehow, good ol’ horseshoe crabs spanned nearly all of the pre-Flood ecozonation, and they are found from very “early” to the present-day. Ammonites and (non-avian) dinosaurs just couldn’t take the iridium, though, so they didn’t manage to get past the fine iridium-enriched layer. You know, that world-wide fine layer, like so many other finely-layered sediments that are utterly unlike the poorly-sorted sediments typical of floods (to be sure, no one knows what a nonspecific world-wide flood would be like, but clearly YECs often depict scenarios that could never allow for much fine-layering–especially not a fine worldwide layer).
It isn’t for nothing that ID gave up on that. They won’t disagree with YECs over it, naturally, for reasons of politics, but it gets a bit too much. It’s easier to pretend that functional complexity only comes from intelligence, insisting on their preferred answer rather than asking the real question and paying attention to the evidence that points to a different answer. Still pathetic, but it’s preferable to bogging down on all of the impossibilities of Teh Flud.
Glen Davidson
OK, well thats pretty much what I said. I think we justify it by saying it can educate others because really the fun is presenting the arguments. I think theres also a bit of pride involved if one can impress those on the same side with the quality of ones arguments!
I have rarely responded to Robert here, because he’s an ignoramus who doesn’t respond to points made (unless to handwave), and who never learns. He’s told how much he has to learn, but apparently he only believes what creationists tell him, and they tell him that it’s all fine, with maybe a few niggling points for true believers to work out.
He seems to be here in part because he’s become unwelcome enough at Panda’s Thumb that he was increasingly relegated to the Bathroom Wall–he might be allowed one comment on a new thread, then off to the Wall. The problem is that he writes the same pig-ignorant garbage no matter what, thinking that he’s made points of pure gold. He would do it even if people didn’t reply, because he’s “responding” to the post. Then there’s the question of whether to respond or not. It’s generally so stupid that it seems not to warrant a reply, yet it may persuade the occasional creationist lurker. Anyway, the upshot is that most of his comments garner more comments, whatever the reasons. I rarely responded to him there, either, only occasionally with comments full of remarks about how stupid and inappropriate his line of BS is.
In the end it was recognized that Byers would always provoke comments while only derailing discussion, so off to the Bathroom Wall for him. He took offense, whining that such a response doesn’t credit his very important remarks, and took off to here (and back to UD, which lifted the bannings).
I don’t really get the responses to him either, except that it relieves the boredom. I’m not sure if I had ever responded to him here prior to this morning, but it amused me that he said “imagination and research” can find answers. Imagination, yes. I didn’t want to leave it there, though, as layering found in the earth is completely impossible from the flood scenarios we’re given, and then I thought I’d smack ID a bit while I’m at it.
By the way, the buried reduced carbon and hydrogen could alone combine with several atmospheres of oxygen, and the carbonates found in fossil shells and the like come from much more carbon dioxide than even the reduced carbon. Was the antediluvian world cloaked in crushing pressures of CO2, which were converted in a mere few thousand years into limestone and kerogen by life? Where did all of the released O2 end up, anyhow? And Robert, if you can please explain how the flood laid down massive salt deposits, it would go far in making the flood credible.
Well, you could pretty much pick on The Flood all day, and Robert wouldn’t understand the problems nor care about them. Imagination and research will make it all work out in the end, so that’s good enough.
As for responses to Robert, I expect they’ll continue for some time, especially when nothing else is going on here, for people eventually to get tired of repetitious nonsense after a while. Then he’ll either be ignored or sent off to Guano or some place made for those who simply won’t respond intelligently or in good faith to trenchant criticisms. Murray probably would have suffered a similar fate, except that he apparently bored himself enough with his repetitious nonsense.
Glen Davidson
In posts I have made at PT, I send him off to the Bathroom Wall and also send all responses to him there. There are far too many eager troll-chasers at PT who can’t restrain themselves, and that derails the whole thread. It is Robert’s fault, but perhaps even more the troll-chasers’ fault.
If he ever listened to any scientific argument and sensibly responded, of course that would be On Topic and he would not get sent to the BW,
RodW,
Oh, yes! But then, doing jigsaw puzzles is futile too, or watching sport, or arguing politics, or … I think if you said things that people could take issue with, and were as responsive to the answers as Byers or phoodoo, the conversation would go on for days too. It takes two to tango. But it involves fairly minor effort. TSZ is just one of many tabs open in my browser – there are also songs I’m learning, other things that interest me, my work, porn (I jest) … I have the attention span of a gnat. Periodically I click on TSZ, and if there’s something to respond to, I do, and before you know where you are, there is an interminable back-and-forth with me on one end! But right now, I should really be filing my tax return.
I am genuinely interested to see how people deal with the reality – poke ’em with a stick and see what they come up with, that kind of thing. But I also learn stuff. I gained a much clearer understanding of the role and evolution of sex as a direct result of stock Creationist misunderstanding of the matter, for example. But it’s probably just SIWOTI syndrome at heart.
I’m reading The Cambrian Explosion now by Erwin and Valentine and I’m gaining an appreciation of the complex chemisty and geology of those early environments. It seems to me that theres much in there that subtely undermines much of Meyer’s claim about the Cambrian but where are the brilliant scientist/writers who’ll put it all together and debate him in public they way Nye debated Ham? And speaking of Nye, I thought he explained ice cores very well but I was frustrated that he didnt make the devastating point that ice cores can be veriifed by correlating to known historical events, blowing Ham’s argument out of the water. I’m rambling a bit now. I guess my point is that debates and discussions like this are fun – they’re intellectual sport- but they’re not productive.
This really shouldnt be boring. I’m old enough to still appreciate what an opportunity the internet presents. Rather than everyone getting their panties in a whirl over some comment by Byers what if ID talking points were thoroughly discussed by everyone.(with input from IDers of course) It would be much more interesting and fun and possibly productive. For example, Meyer’s opening talking point is always “the type of info found in DNA is habitually associated with a designeing intelligence”. This could be thoroughly beaten to death. That way, the next time some paleontologist or biochemist decides to sit down with him on some radio show and debate he wont be left fumbling when Meyers brings this out.
Joe Felsenstein,
I’d agree, and at Sandwalk too. I have been guilty myself, though I do try to exercise restraint. In the present case though, we have a thread for discussion of the Cambrian Explosion, and its supposed difficulties for evolution. It was intended for phoodoo, but Byers has picked up the baton, as presently the sole representative of the case For.
I’ve actually read up on several topics; protein evolution; statistics for the same reason…so I guess its not competely unproductive!
I used to think that if you can just pick some simple, narrow straightforward line of evidence for evolution you could force the creationist to see the light. But it doesnt work. They ALWAYS find some ridiculous why to wriggle out of the implications they dont like, and the smarter and more knowledgeable they are the more creative the solution they can come up with. To me this is the main thing that distinguises ID from creationism
RodW,
Unfortunately, we have had about 4 threads on Upright Biped’s ‘semiotic’ theory which failed to beat this notion to death. Each side remained convinced that the other had made no case.
I agree. And if ID as a movement had any grip on the general consciousness (especially beyond it’s cultural heartland in the US) it is now long past it’s sell-by date. Certainly, ID as a scientific way forward has utterly failed to deliver on ideas, paradigms, hypotheses. I used to think, the supporter’s club would quickly fade away after Judge Jones’ ruling but perhaps it will be a generational thing. I see no indication of any recruitment of youngsters. As you say, the arguments don’t change, nor do the faces change, just the ranks get a little thinner.
Interesting, I’ll check that out when I have time. But of course the goal isnt to persuade IDers. Its to come up with sound, pithy streamlined counterarguments to ID claims. ID isnt science, its an exercise in rhetoric. The best way to fight rhetoric is with rhetoric
We anxiously await the website unveiling!
I disagree with the last comment. I think ID is slowly gaining momentum and although the arguments dont change the skill and polish of the rhetoric has improved.
The thing that IDers are most upset about is the takeover in the West of ‘materialist’ thinking: their pejorative for non-supernatural thinking. They blame all the ills of the US, and the decline of the West on this way of thinking. To combat this ID doesnt need to be sound science. It just needs to be rich enough to give a patina of respectability to theistic thinking. This way, intelligent intellectual Christians can safely believe that there is debate and ferment in the scientific community over the existence of a miracle working God.
Right. I totally agree with the fun, relief of boredom, jigsaw puzzles, etc. line. The thing is, the 28th post of “God coulda did it with The Flood” doesn’t really merit a point-by-point response anymore, IMHO. Maybe the first dozen times, or if there still seems a chance that the purveyor is actually interested in the science of the matter, but after that, it seems ridiculous to me.
I know I’m a snarky bastard, but at some point, “He’s not even clearly more powerful than Superman, having once lost in a tag team match that also included Dr. Strange and Magilla Gorilla” seems more appropriate.
Perhaps at the expense of young earth creationism, and in the form of theistic evolution. My own unpopular opinion is that woo cuts across all political, social and economic circles. A percentage of people are susceptible to woo, and will find it within their tribe.
Equally unpopular is my opinion that many, if not most, people who accept science, do so by submitting to authority, rather than having worked it out from a position of not knowing.
The good news, from my perspective, is that the internet puts everyone in the hopper together, so everyone can see arguments that aren’t being made in their social circle. that’s really the opportunity presented to forums like this. The opportunity to influence people who are young and uncommitted.
Perhaps we don’t disagree. I meant that people who formerly were ID advocates need to look for another vehicle. ID failed as a paradigm for fundamentalist Christian and Creationist groups. I don’t expect fundamentalism to fade in a generation, though I would not be surprised to see an increase in conflict and polarisation.
I think the world’s fundamentalists — Christian and Muslim — are feeling the pinch of successful secularism. Again, I think the internet is exposing young people to ideas that they were once sheltered from.
walto,
Well, as my kids say – soz! It’s an incremental thing. One simply replies to a post. Then goes for a run, plays a bit of guitar, annoys the wife … then another. Time passes … Over days it builds, without one even noticing, into a monolithic argument that someone else can read at a single sitting and think “oh, FFS, just shut up already!”. 😉