The Evidence for Random Mutations

[exchemist]

Well, I didn’t know that. I should have thought something when they said “mainstream scientists”.

Here’s some info from **real** scientists:

"The beginning of the Cambrian period, some 545 million years ago, saw the sudden appearance in the fossil record of almost all the main types of animals (phyla) that still dominate the biota today. To be sure, there are fossils in older strata, but they are either very small (such as bacteria and algae), or their relationships to the living fauna are highly contentious, as is the case with the famous soft-bodied fossils from the late Precambrian Pound Quartzite, Ediacara, South Australia."


-- Alan Cooper and Richard Fortey, “Evolutionary explosions and the phylogenetic fuse,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13 April, 1998: 151-156




“Most of the hypotheses have at least a kernel of truth, but each is insufficient to have been the single cause of the Cambrian explosion....This is a period of time that has attracted a lot of attention because it is when animals appear very abruptly in the fossil record, and in great diversity. Out of this event came nearly all of the major groups of animals that we recognise today.....Because it is such a major biological event, it has attracted much opinion and speculation about its cause.”

— Oxford University’s Museum of Natural History paleontologist Paul Smith


You know, truth is truth, no matter who says it.
I’m just glad that these guys were honest about describing the evidence!

Ah thanks, that's a lot better! Fortey is one of my favourite authors on all this. He was the trilobite specialist at the London Natural History Museum for many years. I have read several of his books.

None of them suggests for an instant that the Cambrian Radiation calls evolution into question. When Fortey says "abrupt" , yes, so it is - on a geologist's timescale. But "abrupt" does not mean "instantaneous", but over a period of 20-25m yrs. It is quite true that we do not yet have a detailed model for what happened to cause this rapid proliferation in the Cambrian. It remains an active area of research. But Fortey makes a number of points in his book "Life An Unauthorised Biography" (1998).

First he describes evidence that the differentiation into phyla seems to have taken place earlier than the Cambrian. Then he suggests, by analogy with the earliest insects (springtails etc) and other examples, that it seems likely the earlier differentiating forms left few fossils because they would probably have been very small. The apparent Cambrian Radiation would then have been due to a simple increase in size, leading to proliferation of observable fossils, rather than all the differentiation being necessarily compressed into 20m yrs +. Added to which, greater size requires greater mechanical stiffness, so thicker (more fossilisable) shells. This, he suggests, could have been prompted by higher availability of oxygen or nutrients (there is some geological evidence for the latter, apparently, due to ocean encroachment over the land at that time.) He also suggest the same thing I mentioned in an earlier post, namely the great environmental stress presented by the development of the mouth, rapid locomotion and thus predation. It is part of evolutionary theory that evolution occurs most rapidly when the organism is under an environmental stress, as this alters the cost-benefit ratio for inheriting changes, versus the status quo.

It is all still conjecture, pending the discovery of evidence for or against such hypotheses, but nobody with any science training seriously thinks that it cannot be explained by evolutionary mechanisms.

Meanwhile the creationist's problem remains the same: the creation hypothesis involves supernatural interference with nature, while the scientific method ipso facto excludes such notions from consideration by science. So "creation science" is, and forever will be, a contradiction in terms.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Random does not exist except in the observers head. Unpredictable that's all. Random has zero meaning.

Your post has zero meaning with respect to the topic of the thread.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But they do “appear abruptly”...it wasn’t one species, it was thousands, each one appearing suddenly during that 25 m-y period:

“The Cambrian Explosion relates to an abrupt appearance of a wide range of organisms, mainly invertebrates, with hard (fossilizable) parts in Cambrian strata which mainstream scientists date from about 540 million years ago. “

Excerpt from The Cambrian Explosion

That has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[David T]

Your post has zero meaning with respect to the topic of the thread.

Random has zero to do with anything. First is the system opened or closed that you are talking about? Since that is totally unresolved random at best is a mathematical modelling tool nothing more.

Unpredictable change in hard emergent fashion. Not hard and actually no big deal and self evident. Wow deep.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Random has zero to do with anything. First is the system opened or closed that you are talking about? Since that is totally unresolved random at best is a mathematical modelling tool nothing more.

Unpredictable change in hard emergent fashion. Not hard and actually no big deal and self evident. Wow deep.

Wow, still not addressing the topic of the thread.

 

[David T]

Wow, still not addressing the topic of the thread.

Random is irrelevant mutations is a so what....selective based on traits was already known for about 5000 years . What the he'll is corn exactly. Genetics was simply the discovery of what was already known is all. I suppose if you want to make it profound it is in context to creationism or intelligent design. Wow the bar is low.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Random is irrelevant mutations is a so what....selective based on traits was already known for about 5000 years . What the he'll is corn exactly. Genetics was simply the discovery of what was already known is all. I suppose if you want to make it profound it is in context to creationism or intelligent design. Wow the bar is low.

Have you read the opening post?

 

[exchemist]

Random is irrelevant mutations is a so what....selective based on traits was already known for about 5000 years . What the he'll is corn exactly. Genetics was simply the discovery of what was already known is all. I suppose if you want to make it profound it is in context to creationism or intelligent design. Wow the bar is low.

Can you rephrase that in comprehensible English?

 

[David T]

Can you rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Random.has zero to do with anything. I have a stove it starts from 12 to 30 seconds. I measure the time very accurately. I note the times and they end up random between 12 and 30 seconds. . I then project there is no discernable pattern except that it's distributed in a curve between 12 and 30 seconds that's my fitness. . That probability is higher in the middle than the ends. I can conclude that 12 to 30 seconds in a random pattern ignites the stove based on fitness.

Any problem with the above? Cuz that's what's being said here in this post.

 

[David T]

No, that is not what the thread is about.

Please read the opening post and respond if you wish.

Random.has zero to do with anything. I have a stove it starts from 12 to 30 seconds. I measure the time very accurately. I note the times and they end up random between 12 and 30 seconds. . I then project there is no discernable pattern except that it's distributed in a curve between 12 and 30 seconds that's my fitness. . That probability is higher in the middle than the ends. I can conclude that 12 to 30 seconds in a random pattern ignites the stove based on fitness.

Any problem with the above? Cuz that's what's being said here in this post.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

[QUOTE="exchemist, post: 5597961, member: 64097”]”....evolution of these organisms from unicellular precursors within such a short period of time is highly doubtful.”[/QUOTE]

They didn’t say impossible. (Although I think it is.)

Suffice it to say....and many scientists agree...that the evidence uncovered in the Cambrian Explosion presents problems for current explanations of evolution.

Why would there be such finely detailed fossils, including easily discernible soft-bodied parts, then further down....nothing showing any transitions, no clear precursors beneath them?

No, the record supports a creative event.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But "abrupt" does not mean "instantaneous", but over a period of 20-25m yrs

Then you misunderstand the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you misunderstand the evidence.

You are right. His estimate was on the conservative side:

"The "Cambrian Explosion" refers to the sudden appearance in the fossil record of complex animals with mineralized skeletal remains. It may represent the most important evolutionary event in the history of life on Earth.

The beginning of the explosion is generally placed about 542 million years ago, during the Cambrian Period at the start of the Palaeozoic Era (the same time the Ediacarans disappear from the fossil record). While the explosion was rapid in geological terms, it took place over millions of years - the Burgess Shale, at 505 million years old, records the tail end of the event. The explosion is particularly remarkable because all major animal body plans (each more or less corresponding to a distinctive Phylum - Mollusca and Chordata, for example) appeared during this time, changing the biosphere forever.


The Cambrian Explosion - Origin of Animals and the Cambrian Explosion - Science - The Burgess Shale

A minimum of 35 million years matches the evidence more closely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

[QUOTE="exchemist, post: 5597961, member: 64097”]”....evolution of these organisms from unicellular precursors within such a short period of time is highly doubtful.”
They didn’t say impossible. (Although I think it is.)

Suffice it to say....and many scientists agree...that the evidence uncovered in the Cambrian Explosion presents problems for current explanations of evolution.

Why would there be such finely detailed fossils, including easily discernible soft-bodied parts, then further down....nothing showing any transitions, no clear precursors beneath them?

No, the record supports a creative event.

Really? What "scientists agree"? Please don't cite dentists and other people that are far outside of their specialty as creationists are so apt to do.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Suffice it to say....and many scientists agree...that the evidence uncovered in the Cambrian Explosion presents problems for current explanations of evolution.

Why would there be such finely detailed fossils, including easily discernible soft-bodied parts, then further down....nothing showing any transitions, no clear precursors beneath them?

No, the record supports a creative event.

All of which has zero to do with the evidence in the opening post.

 

[exchemist]

Random.has zero to do with anything. I have a stove it starts from 12 to 30 seconds. I measure the time very accurately. I note the times and they end up random between 12 and 30 seconds. . I then project there is no discernable pattern except that it's distributed in a curve between 12 and 30 seconds that's my fitness. . That probability is higher in the middle than the ends. I can conclude that 12 to 30 seconds in a random pattern ignites the stove based on fitness.

Any problem with the above? Cuz that's what's being said here in this post.

Stove? Fitness? WTF??

 

[exchemist]

[QUOTE="exchemist, post: 5597961, member: 64097”]”....evolution of these organisms from unicellular precursors within such a short period of time is highly doubtful.”

They didn’t say impossible. (Although I think it is.)

Suffice it to say....and many scientists agree...that the evidence uncovered in the Cambrian Explosion presents problems for current explanations of evolution.

Why would there be such finely detailed fossils, including easily discernible soft-bodied parts, then further down....nothing showing any transitions, no clear precursors beneath them?

No, the record supports a creative event.[/QUOTE]

No scientist I have ever heard of with relevant expertise agrees that the Cambrian Radiation presents problems for the theory of evolution. If you know of any that do, please cite them here with references. I bet you cannot do that - though I would be naturally intrigued if you can prove me wrong.

What they do acknowledge is that we do not yet know the reasons why the Camrbrain Radiation seems to be so dramatic in the fossil record. That is quite different. I have alluded to some of the hypotheses in my post about Fortey's book. These - and no doubt other - hypotheses would be capable of accounting for how evolution operated during the period in question. The problem we have is not a problem with evolution: it is a problem of not yet knowing which of these hypotheses may be correct.

As for your bald and unevidenced assertion of a creative event, by which you mean a supernatural interference with natural processes, science will never entertain that notion. First, to do so would be against the scientific method. Second a Goddidit "explanation" would be a science stopper, as it would close down all further enquiry. Consider: if science were ever to start accepting miraculous explanations, anything at all that we do not currently understand could be "explained" that way, could it not? So what would be the further need for science?

Whereas in fact, ever since the Renaissance, science has succeeded precisely by never being fobbed off with a supernatural explanation for anything.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As for your bald and unevidenced assertion of a creative event, by which you mean a supernatural interference with natural processes, science will never entertain that notion.

"Unevidenced"? Really? Since when have information-rich regulatory systems and patterns ever been observed to begin, undirected, by themselves? Scientific testing always reveals an intelligent source.

Even SETI and related programs look for intelligence that way!

First, to do so would be against the scientific method

Yes, there's no test for invisible life in this, or any another, realm. Since not being being able to test for -- and falsify -- something is a restriction science imposes on itself....maybe the accepted method should change.

And how does a "Goddidit" explanation, "close down all further enquiry"? (It sounds like you're just repeating what you've heard.)
One of the greatest scientists of all time, Isaac Newton, always attributed to God as the Source for what he discovered....how did that inhibit him? Huh? Or Galileo, Boyle, or Kepler?

If anything, it gave them added reason for closer examination: to search for a purpose behind their discoveries!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

To @sayak83 :

Please! You just grasp at straws.

Not all scientists agree with that explanation.

I apologize for the first sentence...I should have just posted a link stating that an increase in oxygen levels as the cause of the C.E. Isn’t ‘obvious’:

After stating how scientists thought that oxygen increases stimulated this explosion, the article continues....

“But last year, a major study1 of ancient sea-floor sediments challenged that view. Erik Sperling, a palaeontologist at Stanford University in California, compiled a database of 4,700 iron measurements taken from rocks around the world, spanning the Ediacaran and Cambrian periods. He and his colleagues did not find a statistically significant increase in the proportion of oxic to anoxic water at the boundary between the Ediacaran and the Cambrian.

“ “Any oxygenation event must have been far, far smaller than what people normally considered,” concludes Sperling. Most people assume “that the oxygenation event essentially raised oxygen to essentially modern-day levels. And that probably wasn't the case”, he says.”

— Excerpt from What sparked the Cambrian explosion? (Date published: 16 Feb. 2016)

Have a good day!

 

[sayak83]

To @sayak83 :


I apologize for the first sentence...I should have just posted a link stating that an increase in oxygen levels as the cause of the C.E. Isn’t ‘obvious’:

After stating how scientists thought that oxygen increases stimulated this explosion, the article continues....

“But last year, a major study1 of ancient sea-floor sediments challenged that view. Erik Sperling, a palaeontologist at Stanford University in California, compiled a database of 4,700 iron measurements taken from rocks around the world, spanning the Ediacaran and Cambrian periods. He and his colleagues did not find a statistically significant increase in the proportion of oxic to anoxic water at the boundary between the Ediacaran and the Cambrian.

“ “Any oxygenation event must have been far, far smaller than what people normally considered,” concludes Sperling. Most people assume “that the oxygenation event essentially raised oxygen to essentially modern-day levels. And that probably wasn't the case”, he says.”

— Excerpt from What sparked the Cambrian explosion? (Date published: 16 Feb. 2016)

Have a good day!

Not sure why you referred me. However, the article goes on to say that increase in oxygen level is responsible for Cambrian radiation.

By pooling and analysing previously published data with some of his own, he found that tiny worms survive in areas of the sea floor where oxygen levels are incredibly low — less than 0.5% of average global sea-surface concentrations. Food webs in these oxygen-poor environments are simple, and the animals feed directly on microbes. In places where sea-floor oxygen levels are a bit higher — about 0.5–3% of concentrations at the sea surface — animals are more abundant but their food webs remain limited: the animals still feed on microbes rather than on each other. But around somewhere between 3% and 10% oxygen levels, predators emerge and start to consume other animals.

The implications of this finding for evolution are profound, Sperling says.The modest oxygen rise that he thinks may have occurred just before the Cambrian would have been enough to trigger a big change. “If oxygen levels were 3% and they rose past that 10% threshold, that would have had a huge influence on early animal evolution,” he says. “There's just so much in animal ecology, lifestyle and body size that seems to change so dramatically through those levels.”

Thus, your article supports the evolutionary view of Cambrian radiation.
What sparked the Cambrian explosion?