Is the Cambrian Explosion the End of Phyla Evolution?

[talus]

Until the mid-1980s, the understanding of the development of animal life was that it had followed the logical path of a gradual evolution with more simple phyla over eons leading into more complex phyla.

With the rediscovery of fossils held quietly in the dusty drawers of the Smithsonian Institution since 1909, this concept underwent a drastic revision. These fossils in conjunction with other discoveries indicate that all animal phyla appeared almost simultaneously 530 million years ago in the Cambrian period.

All further development was confined to variations within each phylum. One of the great mysteries of animal evolution is WHY no new phyla have evolved or appeared since that Cambrian explosion of life as now documented by all fossil evidence in the world libraries and museums?

What happened to any NEW PHYLA EVOLUTION since that Cambrian period some half billion years ago? How long are we to wait for some new phyla to evolve?

 

[Zero]

There's no great mystery...where would a new phylum go?

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

There's no great mystery...where would a new phylum go?

Right into the proof column of the theory of evolution.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero

There's no great mystery...where would a new phylum go?

Right into the proof column of the theory of evolution.

Ummm, no, I meant physically, where would you put an entire new phylum of creatures, geographically?

 

[selfAdjoint]

My theory is that the Burgess shale explosion of phyla coincided with the evolution of the "homeobox" genes. These enabled a complex body plan to be developed. And all the niches available to various combinations of homeo genes were quickly explored. Many turned out to be not viable in the long run and the rest lived on to give us our modern phyla. Any new body plan that might arise by mutation would have to compete with established phyla already on the scene. So the laws of probability would say that it's extremely unlikely that a new body plan would be anything but a relative failure.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

Ummm, no, I meant physically, where would you put an entire new phylum of creatures, geographically?

If the phylum had lungs and limbs, it would appear on the land and if gills and scales, in the sea.

Your meaning is unclear to me as any brand new phyla appearing anywhere on planet Earth would create a world-wide riot in the scientific community similar to the report in the New York Times on April 23, 1991 titled "Spectacular Fossils Record Early Riot of Creation" referencing the dramatic conclusion that a burst of multicellular life was found during the Cambrian era, more than one-half billion years ago.

Not one new phyla found since that Cambrian Era.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint

My theory is that the Burgess shale explosion of phyla coincided with the evolution of the "homeobox" genes. These enabled a complex body plan to be developed. And all the niches available to various combinations of homeo genes were quickly explored. Many turned out to be not viable in the long run and the rest lived on to give us our modern phyla. Any new body plan that might arise by mutation would have to compete with established phyla already on the scene. So the laws of probability would say that it's extremely unlikely that a new body plan would be anything but a relative failure.

I like your theory about the Burgess shale explosion of phyla coinciding with the mysterious presence of 'homeobox' genes.

Some evolutionists hailed homeobox or hox genes as the saviour of evolution soon after they were discovered. They seemed to fit into the Gouldian mode of evolution (punctuated equilibrium) because a small mutation in a hox gene could have profound effects on an organism. However, further research has not born out many people's evolutionists’ hopes. Dr Christian Schwabe, the non-creationist sceptic of Darwinian evolution from the Medical University of South Carolina (Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology), wrote:

What is the REAL message of the patterns of life? The Biotic Message

His book scientifically fights your theory on the factual terms, on their issues, using their testimony, and their ground rules. This non-cretionist dismantles many evolutionary illusions, and offers a new creation theory of biology.

He says that ‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’

(Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167–177).

Research in the six years since Schwabe wrote this has only born out his statement. Changes to homeotic genes cause monstrosities (two heads, a leg where an eye should be, etc.); they do not change an amphibian into a reptile, for example. And the mutations do not add any information, they just cause existing information to be mis-directed to produce a fruit-fly leg on the fruit-fly head instead of on the correct body segment.

Of course, you are using the ubiquity of hox genes in your argument for common ancestry (‘Look, all these creatures share these genes, so all creatures must have had a common ancestor’). However, commonality of such features is to be expected with their origin from the same source. All such homology arguments are only arguments for evolution when one excludes, a priori, origins by design. Indeed many of the patterns seen do not fit common ancestry. For example, the discontinuity of distribution of hemoglobin-like proteins, which are found in a few bacteria, molluscs, insects, and vertebrates. One could also note features such as vivipary, thermoregulation (some fish and mammals), eye designs, etc.

You will simply have to give more proof of your theory of homeobox genes sudden appearance as the origin of early DNA pattern for phyla.

 

[Zero]

You might want to watch your quotations from other sources...make sure it is clear what you are quoting, and what your own ideas are.


BTW, are YOU a creationist, ID proponent, or otherwise deficient in the understanding of science? (I'm kidding)

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero

Ummm, no, I meant physically, where would you put an entire new phylum of creatures, geographically?

If the phylum had lungs and limbs, it would appear on the land and if gills and scales, in the sea.

Your meaning is unclear to me as any brand new phyla appearing anywhere on planet Earth would create a world-wide riot in the scientific community similar to the report in the New York Times on April 23, 1991 titled "Spectacular Fossils Record Early Riot of Creation" referencing the dramatic conclusion that a burst of multicellular life was found during the Cambrian era, more than one-half billion years ago.

Not one new phyla found since that Cambrian Era.

I don't think you understand what phyla are. It may be noted that practically all macroscopic animal life, from fish to us are listed under one single phyla - the chordates. Phyla represent a collossal difference, something fundamental that gets added on during relative simplicity and much more other stuff are built on top of. The current state of things are too full of competition, and so on, for there to be a niche for a new phyla to appear.

A list of phyla:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by FZ+
I don't think you understand what phyla are. It may be noted that practically all macroscopic animal life, from fish to us are listed under one single phyla - the chordates. Phyla represent a collossal difference, something fundamental that gets added on during relative simplicity and much more other stuff are built on top of. The current state of things are too full of competition, and so on, for there to be a niche for a new phyla to appear.

A list of phyla:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/

Oops, I forgot to get back to that...that was my point exactly. Nearly every life-sustaining niche has been filled by some form of life. Where there is little life, evolutionary forces will shape existing species to fill each niche. But, once the niche is filled, it becomes nearly impossible for another species to compete with it. How then would we expect an entirely new phylum to come into existence, when it is hard enough for a new species to get a foothold?

 

[Zero]

Oh, and here is an interesting critique of Christian Schwabe: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof56.htm

 

[selfAdjoint]

He says that ‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’

Well that doesn't contradict my theory since I did point out that after the first radiation, the mutation of the hox genes would be very unlikely to produce a valid competitor phylum. For example I would expect mutations in the hox genes of vertibrates to produce nonviable fetuses.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by FZ+

I don't think you understand what phyla are. It may be noted that practically all macroscopic animal life, from fish to us are listed under one single phyla - the chordates. Phyla represent a collossal difference, something fundamental that gets added on during relative simplicity and much more other stuff are built on top of. The current state of things are too full of competition, and so on, for there to be a niche for a new phyla to appear. A list of phyla:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/

FZ+ as I understand it phyla are morphologically based branches of the tree of life on planet earth.

The different three morphological phyla types on Earth being Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya.

The following graph demonstrates darwinian theory vs. the fossil record to this point in time. And you are correct in my confusion and error with phyla progression changes in the tree classifications of specie and class.

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGJ.html

The next graph demonstrates the "vast majority of phyla appear abruptly with low species diversity. The disparity of the higher taxa precedes the diversity of the lower taxa."

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGH.html

The last graph demonstrates evidence of sudden appearnce and stasis.

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGI.html

Darwin wrote, (*note Darwin's referral to the Silurian period is now known as the Cambrian era)

'I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age...Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian strata was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian to the present day...The case must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained'

The Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 313 - 314

Derek E.G. Briggs, Douglas H. Erwin, & Frederick J. Collier
"The Fossils of the Burgess Shale," 1994, Smithsonian Institution, p.39.

 

[Zero]

Ummm...talus, you do realize that when Darwin said "at present", it was 1859?

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...talus, you do realize that when Darwin said "at present", it was 1859?

I enjoyed your critical site of biochemist Schwabe but the article actually admits that both Darwin and Schwabe are both the extremes and that there must be a central ground. The following quote from your article appears to make Schwabe's one-time lucky event and the chance-oriented Darwin construct appear to be one and the same.

Schwabe wants to make the origin of life research "a hard science based upon chemistry, thermodynamics, kinetics and the laws of mass action". Who would object? The origin of life is not a one-time lucky event "in contrast to the chance-oriented Darwinian paradigm"...

Yes Darwin did say 'at present' in the admission of his possible error statement in the year 1859. What has bascially changed since that 1859 time which alters Darwin's basic evolutionary premise in 2004's scientific community?

 

[talus]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint

He says that ‘Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.’

Well that doesn't contradict my theory since I did point out that after the first radiation, the mutation of the hox genes would be very unlikely to produce a valid competitor phylum. For example I would expect mutations in the hox genes of vertibrates to produce nonviable fetuses.

Are you saying that the first radiation of various combinations of homeotic genes were "quickly" explored for an initially complex aberrant construct which was somehow successful. Then "quickly" disappeared because any further use of this gene would result in mutations producing nonviable fetuses? Or that everything originated from one phylum as contradicted by the fossil record as shown in previous thread graphs.

What are the chances of such a one time event occurring once in even 2X the full span of time speculated for the beginning of the universe until now?

 

[Zero]

*rolls eyes*

Do you think anyone today is a strict Darwinist? Old Charles would hardly recognise today's evolutionary science, so attacking Darwin is attacking a strawman.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

*rolls eyes*

Do you think anyone today is a strict Darwinist? Old Charles would hardly recognise today's evolutionary science, so attacking Darwin is attacking a strawman.

*amazement*

Before I can avoid that Darwin 'strawman' again I need to understand your personal construct of 'currently recognized', 'accepted', 'fixed' evolutionary science as apposed to various evolution theorists, biologists and scientists with differing perspectives of Darwin's 1859 original theory.

 

[FZ+]

You must additionally recognise that the so-called cambrian explosion may be only due to the start of fossilisation - pre-cambrian types may well have existed, but were undetectable because they did not secrete minerals etc to leave a genuine trace.

What has bascially changed since that 1859 time which alters Darwin's basic evolutionary premise in 2004's scientific community?

For a start, we actually have a theory of genetics, by which we observe that morphology is often hugely misleading - leaves etc are in fact very easy to produce, by the repitition of small parts, and that's why they are common in nature. We also understand a much greater changebility in the rate of evolution, involve in our models more of the inherent feedback between the organism and its environment, involve theories of co-evolution to see how ecosystems appear, view evolution in terms of new mathematical techniques of dynamical systems, and so on and so forth.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by FZ+

I don't think you understand what phyla are. It may be noted that practically all macroscopic animal life, from fish to us are listed under one single phyla - the chordates. Phyla represent a collossal difference, something fundamental that gets added on during relative simplicity and much more other stuff are built on top of. The current state of things are too full of competition, and so on, for there to be a niche for a new phyla to appear. A list of phyla:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhi708/classify/animalia/

FZ+ as I understand it phyla are morphologically based branches of the tree of life on planet earth.

The different three morphological phyla types on Earth being Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya.

The following graph demonstrates darwinian theory vs. the fossil record to this point in time. And you are correct in my confusion and error with phyla progression changes in the tree classifications of specie and class.

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGJ.html

The next graph demonstrates the "vast majority of phyla appear abruptly with low species diversity. The disparity of the higher taxa precedes the diversity of the lower taxa."

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGH.html

The last graph demonstrates evidence of sudden appearnce and stasis.

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGI.html

Darwin wrote, (*note Darwin's referral to the Silurian period is now known as the Cambrian era)

IMHO there's an awful lot of stuff here mixed up, resulting in much confusion.

1) The taxonomic hierarchy is:
Kingdom
Phylum (Division for plants)
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

2) Little is known about the evolution of multi-cellular organisms before the Cambrian, for the good reason that there is little in the fossil record on which to base assignment of taxa (there's plenty of evidence of eukaryotes, just not enough to be able to classify them into classes etc)

3) The vertiginous mixing of Darwin's words with echoes of modern evolution theory - Darwin got it wrong, in many respects (he was a scientist, science progresses), Gould is just one of those who've developed the theory of evolution since Darwin

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero

*rolls eyes*

Do you think anyone today is a strict Darwinist? Old Charles would hardly recognise today's evolutionary science, so attacking Darwin is attacking a strawman.

*amazement*

Before I can avoid that Darwin 'strawman' again I need to understand your personal construct of 'currently recognized', 'accepted', 'fixed' evolutionary science as apposed to various evolution theorists, biologists and scientists with differing perspectives of Darwin's 1859 original theory.

There's no such thing as "fixed" science...you don't seem to understand much about science, frankly. Scientists "debunk" Darwin all the time, and after peer review and confirmation, the new info gets integrated into the modern view of evolution. Attacking "Darwinism" is worthless, because no real evolutionist treats Darwin as anything more than a starting point. The accepted view of Darwin is that he had a good general idea, based on what he knew then, but in the 150 years since, we know a lot more.

 

[Nereid]

talus wrote: Are you saying that the first radiation of various combinations of homeotic genes were "quickly" explored for an initially complex aberrant construct which was somehow successful. Then "quickly" disappeared because any further use of this gene would result in mutations producing nonviable fetuses? Or that everything originated from one phylum as contradicted by the fossil record as shown in previous thread graphs.

What are the chances of such a one time event occurring once in even 2X the full span of time speculated for the beginning of the universe until now?

Something much like what you described may have happened - it's not possible to test that idea using what we have in the geological record (and our today's technology) at present. The "disappeared" part need not apply, monstrous alternatives would clearly not have survived, and even potentially 'good' ones may not have been able to compete with what had already become established. It's like: Why can't we find really complex precursors to 'life' here on Earth today? Not because they don't arise naturally (we don't know), but because they'd be eaten by the ubiquitous prokaryotes.

Another confusion that you, IMHO, create (not necessarily consciously) is over time. The solar system has only been around for ~4.5b years, much less time than since the Big Bang (~13.7b years). The oldest rocks we've identified on Earth are ~3.7b years old. The experiments on the hox gene (etc) represent ~1,000 years (maybe) of change in the wild; the gene itself may have been evolving for ~<1b years. And so on.

On a completely different topic: why is this thread in "General Philosophy"? Seems we're discussing the evolution of (multi-cellular) life on Earth, a topic for the Biology (or maybe Earth) sub-forum.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid


On a completely different topic: why is this thread in "General Philosophy"? Seems we're discussing the evolution of (multi-cellular) life on Earth, a topic for the Biology (or maybe Earth) sub-forum.

I was wondering the same thing...while Christian Schwabe is likely to be wrong in his assumptions, and the talk seems to approach pseudoscience, this is generally a scientific-based debate.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero
There's no such thing as "fixed" science...you don't seem to understand much about science, frankly. Scientists "debunk" Darwin all the time, and after peer review and confirmation, the new info gets integrated into the modern view of evolution. Attacking "Darwinism" is worthless, because no real evolutionist treats Darwin as anything more than a starting point. The accepted view of Darwin is that he had a good general idea, based on what he knew then, but in the 150 years since, we know a lot more.

Exactly... There is no such thing as 'fixed' anything. The different theories of life form origin and formation remain continually in a state of 'evolving.' What is modern today is usually discredited tomorrow with new concepts based on 'scientific' findings.

Who are those accepted evolutionist scientists whose 'peer review and confirmations' become the ultimate authorities of anything? Your statement that now science knows 'a lot more' is surely subject to possible further change which may alter the entire Dwarinian starting point as error.

My maxim is 'always keep an open mind' and except nothing as the ultimate answer.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

I was wondering the same thing...while Christian Schwabe is likely to be wrong in his assumptions, and the talk seems to approach pseudoscience, this is generally a scientific-based debate.

This thread is 'general philosophy and not generally a scientific-based debate. Scientific-based anything is based on theory and experimentation. Pseudoscience is based on false or unproven concepts and I would submit that both creationism and evolutionism are both; just that as evidence of fossil history doesn't prove anything. If anyone has evidence that any evolutionary scientist has demonstrated by actual experiment (reviewed by peers) that life formed from a chance-event, I would be willing to entertain this theory.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Nereid

Something much like what you described may have happened - it's not possible to test that idea using what we have in the geological record (and our today's technology) at present. The "disappeared" part need not apply, monstrous alternatives would clearly not have survived, and even potentially 'good' ones may not have been able to compete with what had already become established. It's like: Why can't we find really complex precursors to 'life' here on Earth today? Not because they don't arise naturally (we don't know), but because they'd be eaten by the ubiquitous prokaryotes.

So you are saying that all evidence of early Earth complex life forms disappeared for reasons such as either being eaten or not surviving? That is a very broad allegation.

Another confusion that you, IMHO, create (not necessarily consciously) is over time. The solar system has only been around for ~4.5b years, much less time than since the Big Bang (~13.7b years). The oldest rocks we've identified on Earth are ~3.7b years old. The experiments on the hox gene (etc) represent ~1,000 years (maybe) of change in the wild; the gene itself may have been evolving for ~<1b years. And so on.

Yes you are right in the fact that many assumptions are being made about time spans (from Earth's perspective) and the hox gene, etc which (MAYBE) evolved and so on. These assumptions are of course possible maybes but are based on current concepts with little proof other than current methods of determining relative time or grasping at an aberrant hox gene that may or may not have been responsible for anything.

On a completely different topic: why is this thread in "General Philosophy"? Seems we're discussing the evolution of (multi-cellular) life on Earth, a topic for the Biology (or maybe Earth) sub-forum.

I suspect that at this point this subject is a discussion of general philosophy and not hard science proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Might there be a yet unknown theory of multi-cellular life as yet unknown by science?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero

I was wondering the same thing...while Christian Schwabe is likely to be wrong in his assumptions, and the talk seems to approach pseudoscience, this is generally a scientific-based debate.

This thread is 'general philosophy and not generally a scientific-based debate. Scientific-based anything is based on theory and experimentation. Pseudoscience is based on false or unproven concepts and I would submit that both creationism and evolutionism are both; just that as evidence of fossil history doesn't prove anything. If anyone has evidence that any evolutionary scientist has demonstrated by actual experiment (reviewed by peers) that life formed from a chance-event, I would be willing to entertain this theory.

So you put it in Philosophy since you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You should realize, though, that science should be talking about scientifically, not philisophically. Otherwise, you have facts against "well, I'd feel better if it were some different way", and that leads nowhere.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

So you put it in Philosophy since you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You should realize, though, that science should be talking about scientifically, not philisophically. Otherwise, you have facts against "well, I'd feel better if it were some different way", and that leads nowhere.

Thanks for your kind words. It seems that you are the one whose ideation of evolution is that, well maybe is a real theory and does not belong in a phiolosophical arena.

It might be that those scientists who believed that the Earth was the center of the universe should have been in the solid field of pure science instead of concepualizing philosophically about the possibility that their theory was in error...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus


Exactly... There is no such thing as 'fixed' anything. The different theories of life form origin and formation remain continually in a state of 'evolving.' What is modern today is usually discredited tomorrow with new concepts based on 'scientific' findings.

Who are those accepted evolutionist scientists whose 'peer review and confirmations' become the ultimate authorities of anything? Your statement that now science knows 'a lot more' is surely subject to possible further change which may alter the entire Dwarinian starting point as error.

My maxim is 'always keep an open mind' and except nothing as the ultimate answer. [/B]

So, are you willing to accept Christian Schwabe as being absolutely right? Your posting of late seems to show an anti-science bias , you know. NOTHING in science is absolute, not physics, or biology, or chemistry, or medicine, or any other branch of sciences. However, based on the total accumulation of evidence over the past few centuries, we can feel very confident in the fact of evolution...it is at least as well supported as any other scientific idea, and your desire for an "ultimate authority" misses the point.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus
Thanks for your kind words. It seems that you are the one whose ideation of evolution is that, well maybe is a real theory and does not belong in a phiolosophical arena.

It might be that those scientists who believed that the Earth was the center of the universe should have been in the solid field of pure science instead of concepualizing philosophically about the possibility that their theory was in error... [/B]

See what I mean? How can evolution NOT be a real theory? It is hugely supported by all of the evidence. A new theory to replace evolution would have to encompass all the evidence, and in addition to it answer other questions better than evolution does. Currently, there is no hypothesis which has enough evidence backing it to formulate a theory to compete with evolution. That doesn't at all mean that one of the current unsupported hypotheses will not someday be confirmed by the preponderance of the evidence; I am simply pointing out the fact that no hypothesis has fulfilled that requirement as of the current moment.

 

[Nereid]

talus wrote: So you are saying that all evidence of early Earth complex life forms disappeared for reasons such as either being eaten or not surviving? That is a very broad allegation.

There's an awful lot of evidence of life on Earth, from ~3.4b onwards. However, there's little that can be said about the taxanomic classification - down to the species level - of multi-cellular life, before the Cambrian. One notable exception is the Ediacara Biota, whose significance and relationship with the Cambrian phyla is still being worked out.

Also, note that, despite the apparent certainty of the charts talus posted earlier, the number of animalia phyla which appeared first in the fossil record in the early Cambrian is not certain, nor whether some of today's phyla in fact first appeared later.

talus wrote: Yes you are right in the fact that many assumptions are being made about time spans (from Earth's perspective) and the hox gene, etc which (MAYBE) evolved and so on. These assumptions are of course possible maybes but are based on current concepts with little proof other than current methods of determining relative time or grasping at an aberrant hox gene that may or may not have been responsible for anything.

Not a bad summary, except that a little more precision in the use of terms such as 'assumption', 'concept', 'proof', 'methods' would be nice. Also, the timespans I was referring to weren't just re the hox gene - there isn't all that much uncertainty in the age of well-studied rock formations, and many 'genetic clocks' are now fairly well calibrated.

talus wrote: I suspect that at this point this subject is a discussion of general philosophy and not hard science proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Might there be a yet unknown theory of multi-cellular life as yet unknown by science?

With the possible exception of the role of the hox gene in the formation of phyla, this *is* an area of 'hard science', in the sense that there are hypotheses, predictions, tests and observations, falsification, theory formation etc - just the same as in cosmology, high-energy particle physics, etc. New theories about multi-cellular life will surely be proposed! And, being science, they will have to encompass ALL the data and observations amassed to date.

 

[Nereid]

talus wrote: *SNIP
The different theories of life form origin and formation remain continually in a state of 'evolving.'

Such theories are not within the domain of evolution; they are in the field of abiogenesis.

talus wrote: *SNIP
Pseudoscience is based on false or unproven concepts and I would submit that both creationism and evolutionism are both; just that as evidence of fossil history doesn't prove anything. If anyone has evidence that any evolutionary scientist has demonstrated by actual experiment (reviewed by peers) that life formed from a chance-event, I would be willing to entertain this theory.

Again, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis - as Zero said in another post, there's no doubt about the fact of evolution, and we now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms; the same cannot be said of 'creationism'. There's an extensive thread elsewhere in PF on this very topic - I'll find it for you if you'd like.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
Such theories are not within the domain of evolution; they are in the field of abiogenesis. Again, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis - as Zero said in another post, there's no doubt about the fact of evolution, and we now have some pretty good theories about its mechanisms; the same cannot be said of 'creationism'. There's an extensive thread elsewhere in PF on this very topic - I'll find it for you if you'd like. [/B]

This confusion between abiogenesis and evolution is a hallmark of the pseudoscientific worldview. It goes right along with sticking "-ism" on the end of "Darwin", "science", and "evolution", to give the impression that they are pseudo-religious beliefs.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

So, are you willing to accept Christian Schwabe as being absolutely right? Your posting of late seems to show an anti-science bias , you know. NOTHING in science is absolute, not physics, or biology, or chemistry, or medicine, or any other branch of sciences. However, based on the total accumulation of evidence over the past few centuries, we can feel very confident in the fact of evolution...it is at least as well supported as any other scientific idea, and your desire for an "ultimate authority" misses the point.

No I do not concede that I accept Christian Scwabe, Charles Darwin, scientists or theorists who feels that there is now a finite accumulation of empirical evidence.

There is of course no ultimate authority on any side of the two sided evolution vs creation paradigm.

It is my belief that intelligent humans have accumulated evidence which is nothing more than a perception of solid evidence.

Each person's cognitive abilities consist of human senses and the brain's inquisitve ability to provide a reality based on what appears to be our existence. A universe with immutable concrete laws of nature (and science) which must be explained as surely as any current concepts of evolution.

 

[Zero]

What? Huh? What are you talking about?

Creationism is a religious belief with no evidentiary support. Evolution is a firmly supported theory with the same level of acceptance as geology, physics, chemistry, etc.

Do you doubt physics, chemistry, or geology with the same fervor that you doubt evolution? Do you doubt evidence as a whole, do you doubt all perception?

And, let me ask again, are you a creationist? Seriously, this time.