@chandler22 Did he doubt it? I know that he was aware that the Cambrian fossils could be a problem, but basically said "time will tell." To my understanding, he had a good deal of confidence in his theory for evolution.
"biodiversity increased by orders of magnitude" -- why ? climate shift, "predation" : explain to me how these things increase biodiversity by "orders of magnitude" ? seems to me these things would wipe out living things by "orders of magnitude".
@celal777 I'm sorry for getting to you so late. It's a good question and I'll give you the best answer I can.
A climate shift or predation would place selection pressure on existing organisms. If enough non-harmful mutations had occurred and built up in the DNA, a response to this pressure would begin manifesting itself because it finally had a reason to instead of being reabsorbed into the gene pool.
@Larian1975 i don't want the best answer you can give me i want a scientific answer if what we are talking about is science. problem is evolution is just a lot of "just so" stories not science.
@celal777 It seems like you might not have the latest evidence on hand. Evolution is actually an observed phenomenon. Not only does the fossil record bear it out, but we've watched it happen in the laboratory.
@celal777 In the precambrian, things didn't really change very much as far as outward appearances go. And it was like that for a *really* long time. Plenty of time for those invisible mutations to happen. Modern day dogs are a good example of this on short timescales with artificial selection. In just 10,000 years we have taken wolves and bred everything from teacup chihuahuas to Irish wolfhounds and pugs. All I'm suggesting is that nature did the same thing with Cambrian biota.
@celal777 That definition is not accurate. Evolution of a species can (and does) occur by both human intervention and natural selection pressures. In the case of the wolves -> dogs example, I was attempting to illustrate how incredibly diverse a given species' genome can become. In the case of dogs, humans were the selection pressure. In the case of trilobites, natural forces such as predation and climate change caused the differentiation of the species into a multitude of others.
"I made it explicit that I was reporting the the most current consensus of experts in the field where you were referencing fringe ideas by individuals"
"And believe you me, papers DO get retracted from journals when they're shown to be crap. Just because something wound up in a journal doesn't mean it's carved of marble and unassailable. It doesn't even mean it's *correct"
You have not cited anything that backs you up.
I cited work with multiple confirmations that backed what I said.
@benthemiester And why should I conform to your standards when this is not only my page, but my own work and experience? Hell, I had a birthday back in July. Should I cite this as well?
Frankly your assault upon my academic integrity has passed the point of being annoying.
If you dont believe me i would urge you to look the new field of functional genomics.
It is you who have tried to pass yourself with authority. Again, I have backed up my claims with citations so as not to be accused of just winging it, or he said she said research.
@benthemiester I've actually done some work in biology at the Arkansas Bioscience Institute in Jonesboro in addition to having undergone basic biology training as part of my degrees. Research experience + biology training = ... well, I admit I'm not an expert.
I read all kinds of fascinating, cutting edge stuff while I was there. But when it was time to do work, we went straight back to standard canon excepting those areas where we were trying to push forward.
@benthemiester When you do functional academic research, you look at these papers and try to replicate what the author(s) claim they've done if its important to your project. Sometimes, (and we DID see this by the way), the stuff in the papers was ... creative (i.e. the author lied), and we couldn't replicate his results.
This is also why just running to published papers and accepting them wholeheartedly is a bad move. A paper is nothing more than a claim. If it gets verified, it gets taught.
@Larian1975 The data I sent was published in several dictionaries and has already been peer reviewed. Nature peer reviews there published articles with a panel of experts before they are even published to be peer reviewed again. The only exception are review articles , and I sent know review articles.
@benthemiester The papers we were working from were peer reviewed! Peer review is not verification. (This is complicated) Peer review means that your journal has sent your submission to people who have a good chance of understanding what you're talking about. They look it over for obvious mistakes and request clarifications if needed. They then make a recommendation to the journal to publish or not.
Once the paper is published verification experiments begin by other groups.
@benthemiester And believe you me, papers DO get retracted from journals when they're shown to be crap. Just because something wound up in a journal doesn't mean it's carved of marble and unassailable. It doesn't even mean it's *correct*, although it's supposed to be.
This is why going with the consensus is the best route when you're not an expert. Science's self-correcting mechanism has worked it over to the point that (most of) the kinks are out and it's more reliable.
@benthemiester "Okay then, let's clear this up. True or false: the human and chimpanzee genomes are ~98% identical?
No. I have cited the sources that say when all is compared it could be as low as 70%. The genome is more than just base pairs of nucleotides and we know this now.
@Larian1975 cont..... I already told you every thing sent was peer reviewed if you know of refutation then you can cite it. There are many other ways to interpret chromosome two, yours is just one. We see no such event in the chimp lineage. Something that is widely excepted is not proof. Junk DNA was also widely excepted. Its interesting that you don't apply the same standard of scrutiny for chromosome 2 paper which is still in the process of active study.
@benthemiester You're not going to see it in the chimp lineage because it's only in human DNA.
I'm beginning to think you're kind of dumb. You quote out of context, demand citations for information freely available in textbooks, misunderstand almost everything I say, display selective memory, put words in my mouth, and in general seem to be unable to communicate intelligently.
You need not respond further. I'm ending this circus.
@Larian1975 Ihave been very specific in my quotations it is you who tried give citation that did not say anything close to what you claimed.You know it and I know it. Your strategy now is to use straw man childish arguments.
"we don't include the junk DNA. BECAUSEIT DOESN'T CODE FOR PROTEINS"
I cited sources that did include non structural DNA your still using the out dated term Junk and your calling me naive?
We know this DNA has extremely complex and impotent function. Your in denial.
You are asking for citations for material that is found in freshman biology textbooks. If your grasp of biology requires citations for things in standard curriculum, then I am sad to say that you are simply not ready to have this conversation. I know this sounds harsh, and I'm sorry for that. But you've demonstrated that you don't understand how to read papers, the peer review process, or how science works in general.
@Larian1975 "You are asking for citations for material that is found in freshman biology textbooks"
You said that we were only interested in coding DNA and this is not true. If you want to believe that, you have every right to but don't accuse me of not understanding. I know that this statement is false. The 2005 human pan troglodyte draft goes into great detail on this subject. Your living in a 1970's paradigm.
I always cite the papers of evolutionist not creationist. If you look at the heading of paper, its entitled "Hypothesis" and thats all we have. As for ancestral fossils, that excuse doesn't fly anymore. We have found early cambrian sponge embryos that are soft bodies. In fact half the fossils we find in Cambrian are soft bodied fossils. If you read paper you will find that he echoes what many others believe in that the Cambrian event is more elusive now in spite of the Darwinist hand waiving.
@benthemiester I don't think you understand Darwin's Theory, but I do think you hate it on a personal level. Whether sponges exist in the pre-Cambrian shale or soft tissues were fossilized is irrelevant. If you want to break Darwin's theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, you're going to have to show organisms out of place in the fossil record - simple things on the lower layers, more complex ones appearing above. The Cambrian Radiation does not do that. It's a "how'd THAT happen?"
@Larian1975 cont.... complexity cannot be determined on the genetic level. Bacteria are still one of the most least understood and complex organisms in nature. Shapiro has even written papers that they are capable of self engineering. When paleontologist find out of place fossils, they are written as anomalies. There are many cases of this happening. People tried to write off soft tissue in 70 MY old T Rex fossil until they repeated multiple high tech test that confirmed it.
@benthemiester This conversation is getting patchy and I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue due to its fragmented nature (Thanks YouTube). 500 characters is not enough to adequately address all these responses either.
About those anomalies: I'm pretty sure they've all been discredited and are, so far as I can tell, conspiracy theory crap. Belief in the validity of these claims is confirmation bias.
I have sent verifiable published data that speaks to the conundrum and dynamics concerning this event and it seems to be critical of the hand waiving that goes on by many evolutionist concerning this subject, and these men are evolutionist themselves.
@benthemiester I'm reading the paper now. Thus far it seems that the authors are proposing several solutions to the curiosity that is the cambrian radiation, not invoking the supernatural. I'll report back when I'm done with my thoughts on the paper.
@Larian1975 cont.... Darwin himself was critical of his own theory and devoted a whole chapter of his book on how to falsify it. He said if future generations did not discover the universe of transitional that should be there his theory would not be valid.
The Cambrian phyla appear already extremely complex. There are still animal today that are the same as they were during Cambrian explosion. According to C value enigma,
Another thing I would like to mention is that, the sudden appearance also occurred in in orders of magnitude, I would urge you to do some serious research before making any more videos on this subject. It is not just religious people who believe this. There many others including some Chinese who actually work with Cambrian and pre Cambrian fossils and who tutor the Americans who go to China to study at Chengjiang. Some even believe radiation event may have been even shorter than 3 million years.
@benthemiester Yeah, I did get some of my words confused there. However my point was that the Cambrian radiation was/is being used as evidence of creation ex nihilo and proof of the words in Genesis. Frankly this took me by surprise, so I did a whirlwind search (ALL of this clown's arguments failed a 5 minute browse on Google) and I tried to present the information in capsule form.
I believe 10 million years is plenty of time for evolution to occur if the circumstances are right.
@Larian1975 "I believe 10 million years is plenty of time for evolution to occur if the circumstances are right"
For what? Phyla creating themselves & evolving without any known ancestry? Ediacara fauna goes extinct MY before Cambrian. Magnitudes of creatures appearing within a geo blink of an eye already categorized & with extremely complex body plans like compound eyes & advanced sensory organs is not what the Darwinian synthesis teaches. In contrast sharks haven't changed in 100 MY.
@benthemiester I don't think that's quite right. The Cambrian period is merely the point in the geologic record that a large number of animals began to evolve parts which leave fossils en masse. We have evidence of organisms on earth well before this period (bacteria), They didn't leave bony fossils or imprints, but they most certainly left stromatolites.
Evolutionary theory would seem to suggest that the precambrian animalia was rather diverse when bony structures started being selected for.
@Larian1975 It doesn't matter who you heard the info from. If the info is not consistent with the empirical observable record, then its false. In fact this is one of the problems with he said she said inquiry. If you think you can memorize all the creatures as well as all the geological & biological hypothesizes & build an extremely problematic phylogenetic tree as well as solving the puzzle of ancestry & abrupt appearance & categorization of these complex phyla in one search. Then I say bravo.
@benthemiester I mean no offense, but is English your first language? The reason I ask is that you seem to not quite understand the things I say. I made it explicit in the very beginning of this video that I was not an expert, and Biology was not my field. My specialties lie in philosophy and physics.
Explain for me if you will why one would need to undertake a doctorate thesis to report the current thinking in the field by Ph.Ds who are on top of the material?
@Larian1975 I understood what you said and if you read what I said which was, maybe you should research the subject a little more before you make a video and statements that are inaccurate or not researched well enough. You gave the impression that this is a black and white (religious idiots vs intelligent atheist) type of argument. The Chinese who have critiqued the accepted dogma are not religious and many seem to agree that this is a problem for the current Darwinian synthesis.
@Larian1975I don't think you understand Darwin's Theory, but I do think you hate it on a personal level. Whether sponges exist in the pre-Cambrian shale or soft tissues were fossilized is irrelevant. If you want to break Darwin's theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, you're going to have to show etc.
This circular reasoning your assuming Darwin was right without any ancestry to prove it. I think darwin did some great work and I don't dispute it only the assumptions made by Darwinist.
@benthemiester No sir, I am assuming the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection is correct because it works. And it works alarmingly well.
Also, (if I may), terms such as "Evolutionist" and "Darwinist" are markers for incompetence and rudeness on the part of the speaker. No one wears these names willingly (that I've ever met), and they are considered terms of opprobrium. I assure you that I'm not trying to fling vitriol, but to inform you that such labels set people's teeth on edge.
@Larian1975 "in China are making controversial claims doesn't constitute proof. If they had something rock-solid it would be all over the news and a Nobel prize would be given"
The statements makes absolutely no sense. Again this is circular & dual reasoning. If someone could solve this mystery and demonstrate how the evolutionary synthesis could explain this radiation event, then it it would be this person who would win a Noble Prize and be all over the news.
@benthemiester I disagree. That statement makes a good deal of sense. I assure you that the person who makes the discovery which tears down the very foundation of modern biology will receive our highest award. But before that happens, *everybody* in the sciences will have heard about it.
Circular reasoning... I'm not sure that means what you think it means. The argument form you're referring to is Modus Tollens, which is valid. "Dual Reasoning" is one I've never heard of.
@Larian1975 Your confusing modern biology with Cambrian event. The fundamental principles of Modern biology were laid down long before Darwin.
As for the modern synthesis, there already are some very prominence scientist who have called for an extended synthesis & a relaxing of the assumptions of our current synthesis.These men understand the limitations of the current theory & the out dated Darwinian & gene centric paradigm that has been holding us back, & this meeting was done vey quietly.
@benthemiester "Your confusing modern biology with Cambrian event" No, I'm still talking about what Evolution via Natural Selection predicts about the pre-cambrian era - the fossils leading to the cambrian radiation are there, we just haven't found them. If this is wrong, then Darwin's theory is incorrect as I believe you have argued above. Modern biology is based on this theory. If the theory fails, nothing in biology makes sense. (Creationists would *love* this.)
@Larian1975 ENCODE has changed everything. It has revolutionized are whole view of genetics and biochemistry. Many ground breaking discoveries in the las 8 years have been published in major Journals The sequencing of the human genome opened up a universe of information that we were not expecting. It did not make things simpler or confirm old views, it showed us we were wrong about many things and opened up a whole new field of information genomics. Unfortunately the general public is unaware.
@benthemiester What does Venter's work have to do with the Cambrian? And didn't you just argue that gene theory was hopelessly outdated and has been keeping us from moving forward? I'm rather confused here.
In fact, I'm so confused that I'm not quite sure what we're talking about anymore. Would you mind helping a fellow out? Are we discussing the latest developments in biological research, paleo-biology, Natural Selection, or the nature of logical fallacies in Philosophy? I'm game for it all.
@Larian1975 "the fossils leading to the cambrian radiation are there, we just haven't found them. If this is wrong"
This is another statement that uses circular reasoning.
If your confused it is not my fault you added in Darwinism as being foundation of biology and it is not. Dr Pill Skelps from the National Academy of Sciences exposed that myth years ago in a published paper. He doesn't deny Darwinism as and neither do I, but has pointed out the limitations and false assumptions of the theory.
@benthemiester Why are you accusing me of begging the question? And why do you keep talking about "Darwinism?" I know of no church of Darwin, nor any school of philosophy that bears his name.
Furthermore, I never said this "Darwinism" was the foundation of Biology. I said that nothing in Biology makes sense except in light of the theory of evolution via natural selection.
@Larian1975 "And why do you keep talking about "Darwinism?"
Because the the modern evolutionary synthesis is the Darwinian synthesis, either term is valid and this is what is taught in schools and universities. What is not taught very often is the major problems with the theory. You have to go to the published science literature itself to find this out.
@benthemiester No. One term is insulting, the other is the name of the theory. (The word you're looking for is either Biologist, Paleontologist, or Scientist.) You wouldn't refer to me as a Newtonist or an Einsteinist, would you? I assure you biology does not teach "Darwinism" in secular universities. In fact, my professor would give you the hairy eyeball for it.
@benthemiester Dr. Phil Skell... Okay, one guy had an opinion which is not the majority one. This is the Appeal to Authority fallacy. In order to be able to cite authorities some criteria have to be met. Bear with me.
1) The authority to whom the appeal is made must be a genuine expert in the relevant area. (Skell passes this one so far as I can tell.)
2) There must be *consensus* among authorities in said area. (This is where the appeal falls on his face and becomes a fallacy.)
@Larian1975 Skell's analysts wasn't based on his opinion it was based on data, research & questioning his own peers. He is considered the father of carbene chemistry.
There are also 900+ other scientist many of whom are very prominent who have recently and openly announced their skepticism for the theory, including atheist and agnostics. As for a consensus, science is no respecter of democracy. Speaking out against the theory even privately can hurt your academic career. It takes courage.
@benthemiester He doesn't seem to be able to convince his peers he's right, but he's sure getting a lot of play from the religious wing.
Let's face facts, I'm not an expert in biology ... and I think neither are you. What this guy said may be interesting, but that's as far as it goes. His claims are up there with E8 theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and M theory in my book (i.e. Nice idea, now prove it.)
What do you think the theory of evolution via natural selection says anyway?
@Larian1975 I've seen the gels ran between humans and chimps. They ARE ~98% identical. Codon for codon. Tell whoever told you that, straight from my mouth, that they're a liar"
@benthemiester Yes I do. Most of the genetic difference between humans and chimps lie in areas that do not code for genes. And I've still seen these things with my own eyes.
This is what the article said concerning no structural DNA.
Most of the big differences between human and chimpanzee DNA lie in regions that do not code for genes, according to a new study. Instead, they may contain DNA sequences that control how gene-coding regions are activated and read.
"They're not in genes, but they're near genes that do some very important stuff," Pollard said.
I dont know how this backs up your statement. There is a great interest in reg. DNA
@benthemiester Okay. That's a fair question. When you run a gel, (that is, compare two DNA samples), you compare the parts that actually code for making proteins. That is the 9X% that is similar, and that's what the reference to similarity has always meant. Junk DNA is not conserved because changes in it are more likely not to kill the organism.
Since you brought up that point of biology/Darwinism I was merley informing you of the new extended synthesis wich is something very few know about. There are many neo Darwinist that don't support it for political reasons like Eugenie Scott and the NCSE who still want to believe in Junk DNA and a 99% similarity between humans and apes. This has all been debunked and I can cite data if you wish. The current synthesis is on its way out and we know even less about the extended synthesis.
@benthemiester Okay, now you're out of your element. I want to make this extremely clear - I've seen the gels ran between humans and chimps. They ARE ~98% identical. Codon for codon. Tell whoever told you that, straight from my mouth, that they're a liar.
As to "Junk" DNA, we're learning that it has a purpose after all, but the "junk" label is just that - a label. We don't know it's function precisely, but we know what happens when we cut it out and allow development to continue.
@Larian1975 I am speaking of more current data....
Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes.
Respond to this video... cont.....Another type of difference, called indels (insertions/deletions) account for another ~3 % difference between the alignable sequences.[19] In addition, variation in copy number of large segments (> 20 kb) of similar DNA sequence provides a further 2.7% difference between the two species.[20] Hence the total similarity of the genomes could be as low as about 70%.
The draft sequence of the common chimpanzee genome published in the summer 2005 showed the regions that are similar enough to be aligned with one another account for 2400 million of the human genome’s 3164.7 million bases[19] – that is, 75.8% of the genome. This 75.8% of the human genome is 1.23% different from the chimpanzee genome in single nucleotide polymorphisms[19] (changes of single DNA “letters” in the genome). .....
@benthemiester The DNA that codes for proteins is ~98% identical. Your figures say it's 96%. The coding portions are the ones we're interested in. Nobody expects the junk DNA to be similar as this would have diverged since our split from a common ancestor.
Note the language used: "When DNA insertions and deletions *are taken into account*, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence." There's a reason they're "taken into account."
@Larian1975 "The coding portions are the ones we're interested in"
You didn't even fully understand citations.
I have never heard anyone say something so short sighted. Why do you think we have spent billions on the ENCODE project and all the research put in? I challenge you to find any paper that says we are only interested in structural sequences. I can cite papers that say just the opposite.
Please cite source. I would love to hear this one. I find this kind of thinking very sad.
@benthemiester What I'm going to say is really important, and I want you to understand it. It doesn't matter what papers I cite. You will merely point to another that is favorable to your position. Ergo, this is a useless exercise. It would also be the Appeal to Authority fallacy. The only non-fallacious option is to say that the consensus is X and there are other things being worked on that have not yet been proven.
@Larian1975 I'm not a philosopher although you are entitled to yours. The Darwinian synthesis is taught in universities and the word Darwinism is a defined term that even Richard Dawkins embraces. If i was speaking of Newton or Mendel I could use term Newtonian or Mendelian. I'm still waiting for the citation backing up your claim that we are only interested in structural DNA or as you call them protein codeine DNA.
I have backed up everything I've said with citations. You offer only opinion.
You're not much of a scientist either. I don't have to reference the standard accepted view in the field which is in every textbook. But since you can't sleep at night until I do:
University of California - Davis. "Comparing Chimp, Human DNA." ScienceDaily 13 October 2006.
We're interested in the DNA that codes for proteins.
There's your reference. (You really need to work on your nomenclature.)
@Larian1975 It was you that gave me the line you don't have to have a PHD and now your accusing me of pretending I did. I am a professional researcher as well as many other things. I got interested in this subject many years ago when my firm was involved in a lawsuit concerning this very subject and as a result I have had the chance to correspond and speak with many scientist on this subject and have made a few friends. I never claimed to to be an expert. I spoke of serious research only.
@benthemiester Without basic training in a given field, a person is most likely not going to be able to understand what the research in journals means. That's not their fault. Unless you're actually doing research of your own (working on something new and contributing back to the field), you stick with the standard explanations because the new stuff isn't ready to be widely used yet. It's incomplete and not reliable.
@benthemiester "It was you that gave me the line you don't have to have a PHD"
I made it explicit that I was reporting the the most current consensus of experts in the field where you were referencing fringe ideas by individuals.
@Larian1975 To say there is a consensus on the dynamics of the Cambrian explosion is a joke. This field is filled with controversy and confusion and this is well known. If we had it your way science would never grow and we would have to disregard all new data and stick to what is safe and familiar.
@Larian1975 If your field is biology then why would you say that were only interested in non coding DNA? You then cited a paper claiming it backed you up, but it said nothing of the sort, which leads me to believe that maybe your kind of new at this stuff. In this post ENCODE world there is no such thing as an expert. Everyone is going to have to adjust there understanding. Even Coyne in the Locus of Evolution admits ignorance in this newer understanding of epigenetics & regulatory DNA.
@benthemiester "why would you say that were only interested in non coding DNA?" I SAID that when we compare genomes (that's the part that codes for proteins) we don't include the junk DNA. BECAUSEIT DOESN'T CODE FOR PROTEINS. Get this through your thick head.
@Larian1975 "BECAUSEIT DOESN'T CODE FOR PROTEINS. Get this through your thick head"
Your own citation says that major changes in chimps is not in our proteins.
You don't seem to understand that just because most do not code for proteins doesn't mean there useless junk. They do control how genes are regulated and expressed and man do code for RNA and a few may even code for proteins.
The genes centric Junk DNA paradigm is over. I could send u data & multiple confirmation but pretend it away.
.The articles did not say anything of the sort, please give the quotation that they were only interested in coding portions. As a matter of fact, many of this so called non coding regulatory DNA do in fact code for RNA I have more recent articles from Nature and others that verify this. You said that "The coding portions are the ones we're interested in" Yet your own citation takes great interest in pointing out regulatory DNA. If you call this research then it is very poor.
@benthemiester "The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., [journal citation on the page])"
This references the genome, which is not the entirety of DNA. The genome is the portion which codes for proteins. Sorry for not making this clear as I assumed you knew this already.
@Larian1975 I don't know what you mean by assuming. I already knew this. This was my whole point. I even sent 2 citations of this, one from WIKI & one from Richard Buggs. I don't think you understand. If I were you I would go back and read very carefully at what the citations are actually saying. There's more to this than just SNP's and we have known this for a long time. The divergence is inferred not proven. We don't even have an established molecule clock much less an adequate fossil record.
@benthemiester Okay then, let's clear this up. True or false: the human and chimpanzee genomes are ~98% identical? (I believe you argued against this earlier.)
Secondly, the divergence you speak of is backed by a preponderance of evidence, one of the most striking of which is the human chromosome 2. All other apes have 24 pairs, while we have 23. This is because two chromosomes fused sometime in the past. Coupled with the similarity of the two genomes, that's pretty good evidence.
@Larian1975 "Now considering this video was about the Cambrian Radiation, I'm done discussing apes"
Wise decision since judging by your response you didn't seem to understand what was being said, I would also urge you to stop discussing Cambrian explosion until you research it more thoroughly.
@benthemiester You've done none of the experiments. I have. You can't even get nomenclature correct. The long and short of this entire thing is that you pretend to knowledge and understanding that you don't have and attempt to come off as an authority. You are not. You have no degree, no training, and you've tried to shovel some of the worst things off to me as valid science/philosophy in hopes I wouldn't know better. Maybe you should you take your own advice.
If your more interested in the extended evolutionary synthesis I have posted video entitled "Will the Real Theory Of Evolution please Stand Up". In it Stewart Newman who was there at the Altenberg meeting tries to explain it, and even he admits that it is not fully understood or even yet proven but never the less it is well on its way. He even criticizes the Dover verdict and the hand waiving that goes on by his own colleagues and the public being told things that aren't true.
This is false.The initial radiation event referred to as the explosion or biology's big bang is estimated at 3-10 million years. It is a blink of an eye on the geo time scale. It's the Cambrian record that last about 40- 60 million years. Ediacara biota is not new, know one denies that it ever existed, your being lied to, however Ediacara biota goes extinct millions of years before Cambrian and there is dispute whether they were even multicellular. The had no mouths, anus or internal organs.
@benthemiester It would appear then that I am being lied to by Creationists, since that's where I heard the argument. In fact, one imikewillrockyou makes the claim in this very thread that Darwin's tree of life appears nowhere in the fossil record. Biologists I've spoken with seem to have no problem with this event.
the cambrian explosion has been well understood for several years. it has been a favorite of creatonists because, as you said, they hear what they want to hear about it and do not understand the science behind it. the reason for this accelerated development of aquatic life is that oxygen production in the sea skyrocketed, shifting life to aerobic metabolism which is far more effective in the production of atp. this is not a mystery not does it make scientists who understand biology confused.
Larian1975, We are wrapping our life around this one fact? Are you serious? Darwin's problems are much larger than just no tree of life exists in the Cambrian fossils. Darwin's tree of life appears NOWHERE in the fossil record top to bottom. Unless you imagine it's there. It's a complete myth.
watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY&feature=player_profilepage
And then we see stuff like this and just laugh at the whole thing. It getting funny now.
I'm afraid your assertion is unfounded. I worked in a microbiology lab. The "tree of life" most certainly does show up in the fossil record. We use it every day.
What are your qualifications on this subject which would make me take your assertions seriously? No biologist I've ever met, nor even heard of, agrees with your assessment.
Larian1975 appeals to authority will go nowhere with me. I couldn't care less if you have five doctorates in biology. Darwin's tree is life is not in the fossil record. If you have a resource that will refute that then please send me the link. And I mean a real tree of life representing actual known fossils showing the actual evolutionary process not speculative models. Examples like Pakicetid falls under speculative with a million missing steps in between.
Appeal to authority? Do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds? What do you call those links you sent me? You're trying to demand special treatment for your arguments (and they're not even your arguments, by the way), and then insist that I am unable to vouch for my own credibility on this subject. Even if I had "five doctorates in biology". some random schoolteachers would trump me in your sight. That's stupid, sir.
Larian1975, Can I assume that everyone that might disagree with you must be a piece of work? No offense but I only invited you to a debate I'm not your enemy. You did in fact respond with Appeal to Authority and I merely called you on it. Wouldn't you do the same? And now you are calling me names. Look I'm sorry I won't bother you anymore. Peace, Mike
I don't mind a discussion, but this whole thing started off in precisely the wrong way. You opened negotiations in a manner I found to be unfounded, and you have yet to address this in a satisfactory fashion.
Your post about appeals to authority was, frankly, rude, and in my exasperation I responded in kind. You lecture me in logical fallacies while committing them by the fistful, and this too wears on my sense of decency.
And Appeal to Authority is not always a fallacy. (more)
Appeal to Authority is a fallacy -only- when the authority you appeal to is unrelated to the subject at hand. For instance, if I tell you that Issac Newton would disagree with a claim that objects in near Earth orbit fell at a rate greater than 9.8 meters per second, that is acceptable.
Saying that Stephen Hawking uses Brand X toothpaste and you should use that particular brand too because there's no way you're smarter than Stephen Hawking is a fallacy.
@Larian1975 You cant do a simple goggle search. It takes years of study, and people are still trying to put this puzzle together and its not just creationist who are saying that this is a great mystery. The science literature is field with these problems concerning the theory. There are tons of hypothesis out there and just as many disputed opinions. Even Dawkins admits to sudden appearance "as if just planted there" with no known ancestry.
@benthemiester It doesn't take years of study to read current data. There is a difference between saying "we don't yet know for certain" as Dawkins does and saying "we DO know and it was God" as creationists do.
I think your Dawkins quote was a little disingenuous. He also postulates, (as I did above before I looked it up) that "it might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize". (This book is horribly out of date, by the way.)
@Larian1975 They didn't leave bony fossils or imprints, but they most certainly left stromatolites. Stromatolites were produced by blue green algae and they diminished by 80% by start of Cambrian and I know of no one who has made a case in academia for blue green algae evolving into Cambrian phyla. Stromatolites still appear on earth today. Blue green algae didn't have bony fossils. The are cyanobacteria.
@benthemiester I'm not suggesting that cyanobacteria are the direct precursors to the fossilized creatures found in the cambrian layers. I'm suggesting that, since we see evidence of all these creatures in the cambrian radiation, and prior to that we see stromatolites, there -may have been- more complex organizms living in the pre-cambrian alongside the cyanobacteria that did not have bones or shells.
@Larian1975 I never said you had to be a PHD and you can cite any paper you like. Whether you truly understand it is a different story, and judging by your video I don't think you do.
@benthemiester Then you would be in error. Sorry for misleading you.
The points I laid out in this video are the consensus of the biological community. The fact that someone (or a group of someones) in China are making controversial claims doesn't constitute proof. If they had something rock-solid it would be all over the news and a Nobel prize would be given. Right now, they've just not proven anything. Hence, we stick to the theory we've got and try to fit oddities into the model.
I have no idea what you're talking about, because "everything is like it is because of random chance" is not the argument evolutionary biology makes. It seems you misunderstand the theory's claim.
Why should we accept that as being true? First we would need irrefutable evidence that God even existed. We know that the creatures themselves did, but there is no such evidence of a creator. In fact, all the evidence available, as a whole, points to God being imaginary.
All the scientific literature on the subject that I've ever seen. Give wikipedia a shot. Check out "Cambrian Explosion." It's right in the header. Scroll down and pay particular attention to the "How real was the explosion?" section.
That's easy. They say that there was no Cambrian period and the speed of light is Jesus. These were animals deposited during the great flood. My penis itches. :P
Another important thing to remember is that animals tend not to fossilize unless they have hard parts like shells, bones, carapaces or the like. The Cambrian "explosion" merely marks the period in history where organisms developed these traits.
True. However the presence of soft-bodied organisms can be inferred in the fossil record by the trace elements they leave behind in sediments from decomposition and their waste products.
Who would've thought Jarheads knew anything about science?
Yes, this is true. But in reality, the Cambrian "explosion" merely marks the period in history where life forms evolved that were just statistically more likely fossilize. Another trick I have seen creationists use is the fact that all the known animal phyla are present in the Cambrian. They argue that this is evidence that all life appeared suddenly, and with no evolution occurring. This statement sounds quite impressive unless you actually know where phyla sit in the classification hierarchy.
thanks for the video. this subject was one that gave Darwin himself cause to doubt his general theory...
chandler22 6 months ago
@chandler22 Did he doubt it? I know that he was aware that the Cambrian fossils could be a problem, but basically said "time will tell." To my understanding, he had a good deal of confidence in his theory for evolution.
Larian1975 6 months ago
"biodiversity increased by orders of magnitude" -- why ? climate shift, "predation" : explain to me how these things increase biodiversity by "orders of magnitude" ? seems to me these things would wipe out living things by "orders of magnitude".
celal777 8 months ago
@celal777 I'm sorry for getting to you so late. It's a good question and I'll give you the best answer I can.
A climate shift or predation would place selection pressure on existing organisms. If enough non-harmful mutations had occurred and built up in the DNA, a response to this pressure would begin manifesting itself because it finally had a reason to instead of being reabsorbed into the gene pool.
Larian1975 7 months ago
@Larian1975 i don't want the best answer you can give me i want a scientific answer if what we are talking about is science. problem is evolution is just a lot of "just so" stories not science.
celal777 7 months ago
@celal777 It seems like you might not have the latest evidence on hand. Evolution is actually an observed phenomenon. Not only does the fossil record bear it out, but we've watched it happen in the laboratory.
Larian1975 7 months ago
@celal777 In the precambrian, things didn't really change very much as far as outward appearances go. And it was like that for a *really* long time. Plenty of time for those invisible mutations to happen. Modern day dogs are a good example of this on short timescales with artificial selection. In just 10,000 years we have taken wolves and bred everything from teacup chihuahuas to Irish wolfhounds and pugs. All I'm suggesting is that nature did the same thing with Cambrian biota.
Larian1975 7 months ago
@Larian1975 dog or horse breeding is guided by humans --- you can't use that argument for evolution which by definition is and even must be unguided.
celal777 7 months ago
@celal777 That definition is not accurate. Evolution of a species can (and does) occur by both human intervention and natural selection pressures. In the case of the wolves -> dogs example, I was attempting to illustrate how incredibly diverse a given species' genome can become. In the case of dogs, humans were the selection pressure. In the case of trilobites, natural forces such as predation and climate change caused the differentiation of the species into a multitude of others.
Larian1975 7 months ago
Cambrian...
No mammals
No reptiles
No amphibians
No dinos
No insects
No land plants
The Cambrian refutes the creationist history of life and is consistent with the modern scientific, evolutionary, history of life.
tinroad66 9 months ago
Cambrian...
No mammals
No reptiles
No amphibians
No dinos
No insects
No land plants
The Cambrian refutes the creationist history of life and is consistent with the modern scientific, evoluitonary, history of life.
tinroad66 9 months ago
"I made it explicit that I was reporting the the most current consensus of experts in the field where you were referencing fringe ideas by individuals"
"And believe you me, papers DO get retracted from journals when they're shown to be crap. Just because something wound up in a journal doesn't mean it's carved of marble and unassailable. It doesn't even mean it's *correct"
You have not cited anything that backs you up.
I cited work with multiple confirmations that backed what I said.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester And why should I conform to your standards when this is not only my page, but my own work and experience? Hell, I had a birthday back in July. Should I cite this as well?
Frankly your assault upon my academic integrity has passed the point of being annoying.
Larian1975 1 year ago
If you dont believe me i would urge you to look the new field of functional genomics.
It is you who have tried to pass yourself with authority. Again, I have backed up my claims with citations so as not to be accused of just winging it, or he said she said research.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I've actually done some work in biology at the Arkansas Bioscience Institute in Jonesboro in addition to having undergone basic biology training as part of my degrees. Research experience + biology training = ... well, I admit I'm not an expert.
I read all kinds of fascinating, cutting edge stuff while I was there. But when it was time to do work, we went straight back to standard canon excepting those areas where we were trying to push forward.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@benthemiester When you do functional academic research, you look at these papers and try to replicate what the author(s) claim they've done if its important to your project. Sometimes, (and we DID see this by the way), the stuff in the papers was ... creative (i.e. the author lied), and we couldn't replicate his results.
This is also why just running to published papers and accepting them wholeheartedly is a bad move. A paper is nothing more than a claim. If it gets verified, it gets taught.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 The data I sent was published in several dictionaries and has already been peer reviewed. Nature peer reviews there published articles with a panel of experts before they are even published to be peer reviewed again. The only exception are review articles , and I sent know review articles.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester The papers we were working from were peer reviewed! Peer review is not verification. (This is complicated) Peer review means that your journal has sent your submission to people who have a good chance of understanding what you're talking about. They look it over for obvious mistakes and request clarifications if needed. They then make a recommendation to the journal to publish or not.
Once the paper is published verification experiments begin by other groups.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@benthemiester And believe you me, papers DO get retracted from journals when they're shown to be crap. Just because something wound up in a journal doesn't mean it's carved of marble and unassailable. It doesn't even mean it's *correct*, although it's supposed to be.
This is why going with the consensus is the best route when you're not an expert. Science's self-correcting mechanism has worked it over to the point that (most of) the kinks are out and it's more reliable.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Okay then, let's clear this up. True or false: the human and chimpanzee genomes are ~98% identical?
No. I have cited the sources that say when all is compared it could be as low as 70%. The genome is more than just base pairs of nucleotides and we know this now.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Well lah dee dah. I cited one that said it was as high as 98%. And a more current one at that.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 cont..... I already told you every thing sent was peer reviewed if you know of refutation then you can cite it. There are many other ways to interpret chromosome two, yours is just one. We see no such event in the chimp lineage. Something that is widely excepted is not proof. Junk DNA was also widely excepted. Its interesting that you don't apply the same standard of scrutiny for chromosome 2 paper which is still in the process of active study.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester You're not going to see it in the chimp lineage because it's only in human DNA.
I'm beginning to think you're kind of dumb. You quote out of context, demand citations for information freely available in textbooks, misunderstand almost everything I say, display selective memory, put words in my mouth, and in general seem to be unable to communicate intelligently.
You need not respond further. I'm ending this circus.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 Ihave been very specific in my quotations it is you who tried give citation that did not say anything close to what you claimed.You know it and I know it. Your strategy now is to use straw man childish arguments.
"we don't include the junk DNA. BECAUSEIT DOESN'T CODE FOR PROTEINS"
I cited sources that did include non structural DNA your still using the out dated term Junk and your calling me naive?
We know this DNA has extremely complex and impotent function. Your in denial.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester This will be our last communication.
You are asking for citations for material that is found in freshman biology textbooks. If your grasp of biology requires citations for things in standard curriculum, then I am sad to say that you are simply not ready to have this conversation. I know this sounds harsh, and I'm sorry for that. But you've demonstrated that you don't understand how to read papers, the peer review process, or how science works in general.
Thanks for visiting.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 "You are asking for citations for material that is found in freshman biology textbooks"
You said that we were only interested in coding DNA and this is not true. If you want to believe that, you have every right to but don't accuse me of not understanding. I know that this statement is false. The 2005 human pan troglodyte draft goes into great detail on this subject. Your living in a 1970's paradigm.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Didn't have time to edit please excuse grammar errors.
benthemiester 1 year ago
I always cite the papers of evolutionist not creationist. If you look at the heading of paper, its entitled "Hypothesis" and thats all we have. As for ancestral fossils, that excuse doesn't fly anymore. We have found early cambrian sponge embryos that are soft bodies. In fact half the fossils we find in Cambrian are soft bodied fossils. If you read paper you will find that he echoes what many others believe in that the Cambrian event is more elusive now in spite of the Darwinist hand waiving.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I don't think you understand Darwin's Theory, but I do think you hate it on a personal level. Whether sponges exist in the pre-Cambrian shale or soft tissues were fossilized is irrelevant. If you want to break Darwin's theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, you're going to have to show organisms out of place in the fossil record - simple things on the lower layers, more complex ones appearing above. The Cambrian Radiation does not do that. It's a "how'd THAT happen?"
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 cont.... complexity cannot be determined on the genetic level. Bacteria are still one of the most least understood and complex organisms in nature. Shapiro has even written papers that they are capable of self engineering. When paleontologist find out of place fossils, they are written as anomalies. There are many cases of this happening. People tried to write off soft tissue in 70 MY old T Rex fossil until they repeated multiple high tech test that confirmed it.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester This conversation is getting patchy and I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue due to its fragmented nature (Thanks YouTube). 500 characters is not enough to adequately address all these responses either.
About those anomalies: I'm pretty sure they've all been discredited and are, so far as I can tell, conspiracy theory crap. Belief in the validity of these claims is confirmation bias.
Larian1975 1 year ago
I have sent verifiable published data that speaks to the conundrum and dynamics concerning this event and it seems to be critical of the hand waiving that goes on by many evolutionist concerning this subject, and these men are evolutionist themselves.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I'm reading the paper now. Thus far it seems that the authors are proposing several solutions to the curiosity that is the cambrian radiation, not invoking the supernatural. I'll report back when I'm done with my thoughts on the paper.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 cont.... Darwin himself was critical of his own theory and devoted a whole chapter of his book on how to falsify it. He said if future generations did not discover the universe of transitional that should be there his theory would not be valid.
The Cambrian phyla appear already extremely complex. There are still animal today that are the same as they were during Cambrian explosion. According to C value enigma,
benthemiester 1 year ago
Another thing I would like to mention is that, the sudden appearance also occurred in in orders of magnitude, I would urge you to do some serious research before making any more videos on this subject. It is not just religious people who believe this. There many others including some Chinese who actually work with Cambrian and pre Cambrian fossils and who tutor the Americans who go to China to study at Chengjiang. Some even believe radiation event may have been even shorter than 3 million years.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Yeah, I did get some of my words confused there. However my point was that the Cambrian radiation was/is being used as evidence of creation ex nihilo and proof of the words in Genesis. Frankly this took me by surprise, so I did a whirlwind search (ALL of this clown's arguments failed a 5 minute browse on Google) and I tried to present the information in capsule form.
I believe 10 million years is plenty of time for evolution to occur if the circumstances are right.
Thanks!
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 "I believe 10 million years is plenty of time for evolution to occur if the circumstances are right"
For what? Phyla creating themselves & evolving without any known ancestry? Ediacara fauna goes extinct MY before Cambrian. Magnitudes of creatures appearing within a geo blink of an eye already categorized & with extremely complex body plans like compound eyes & advanced sensory organs is not what the Darwinian synthesis teaches. In contrast sharks haven't changed in 100 MY.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I don't think that's quite right. The Cambrian period is merely the point in the geologic record that a large number of animals began to evolve parts which leave fossils en masse. We have evidence of organisms on earth well before this period (bacteria), They didn't leave bony fossils or imprints, but they most certainly left stromatolites.
Evolutionary theory would seem to suggest that the precambrian animalia was rather diverse when bony structures started being selected for.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 It doesn't matter who you heard the info from. If the info is not consistent with the empirical observable record, then its false. In fact this is one of the problems with he said she said inquiry. If you think you can memorize all the creatures as well as all the geological & biological hypothesizes & build an extremely problematic phylogenetic tree as well as solving the puzzle of ancestry & abrupt appearance & categorization of these complex phyla in one search. Then I say bravo.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I mean no offense, but is English your first language? The reason I ask is that you seem to not quite understand the things I say. I made it explicit in the very beginning of this video that I was not an expert, and Biology was not my field. My specialties lie in philosophy and physics.
Explain for me if you will why one would need to undertake a doctorate thesis to report the current thinking in the field by Ph.Ds who are on top of the material?
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 I understood what you said and if you read what I said which was, maybe you should research the subject a little more before you make a video and statements that are inaccurate or not researched well enough. You gave the impression that this is a black and white (religious idiots vs intelligent atheist) type of argument. The Chinese who have critiqued the accepted dogma are not religious and many seem to agree that this is a problem for the current Darwinian synthesis.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester So why would I need a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology to report the the most current consensus of experts in the field?
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975I don't think you understand Darwin's Theory, but I do think you hate it on a personal level. Whether sponges exist in the pre-Cambrian shale or soft tissues were fossilized is irrelevant. If you want to break Darwin's theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, you're going to have to show etc.
This circular reasoning your assuming Darwin was right without any ancestry to prove it. I think darwin did some great work and I don't dispute it only the assumptions made by Darwinist.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester No sir, I am assuming the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection is correct because it works. And it works alarmingly well.
Also, (if I may), terms such as "Evolutionist" and "Darwinist" are markers for incompetence and rudeness on the part of the speaker. No one wears these names willingly (that I've ever met), and they are considered terms of opprobrium. I assure you that I'm not trying to fling vitriol, but to inform you that such labels set people's teeth on edge.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 "in China are making controversial claims doesn't constitute proof. If they had something rock-solid it would be all over the news and a Nobel prize would be given"
The statements makes absolutely no sense. Again this is circular & dual reasoning. If someone could solve this mystery and demonstrate how the evolutionary synthesis could explain this radiation event, then it it would be this person who would win a Noble Prize and be all over the news.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I disagree. That statement makes a good deal of sense. I assure you that the person who makes the discovery which tears down the very foundation of modern biology will receive our highest award. But before that happens, *everybody* in the sciences will have heard about it.
Circular reasoning... I'm not sure that means what you think it means. The argument form you're referring to is Modus Tollens, which is valid. "Dual Reasoning" is one I've never heard of.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 Your confusing modern biology with Cambrian event. The fundamental principles of Modern biology were laid down long before Darwin.
As for the modern synthesis, there already are some very prominence scientist who have called for an extended synthesis & a relaxing of the assumptions of our current synthesis.These men understand the limitations of the current theory & the out dated Darwinian & gene centric paradigm that has been holding us back, & this meeting was done vey quietly.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "Your confusing modern biology with Cambrian event" No, I'm still talking about what Evolution via Natural Selection predicts about the pre-cambrian era - the fossils leading to the cambrian radiation are there, we just haven't found them. If this is wrong, then Darwin's theory is incorrect as I believe you have argued above. Modern biology is based on this theory. If the theory fails, nothing in biology makes sense. (Creationists would *love* this.)
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 ENCODE has changed everything. It has revolutionized are whole view of genetics and biochemistry. Many ground breaking discoveries in the las 8 years have been published in major Journals The sequencing of the human genome opened up a universe of information that we were not expecting. It did not make things simpler or confirm old views, it showed us we were wrong about many things and opened up a whole new field of information genomics. Unfortunately the general public is unaware.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester What does Venter's work have to do with the Cambrian? And didn't you just argue that gene theory was hopelessly outdated and has been keeping us from moving forward? I'm rather confused here.
In fact, I'm so confused that I'm not quite sure what we're talking about anymore. Would you mind helping a fellow out? Are we discussing the latest developments in biological research, paleo-biology, Natural Selection, or the nature of logical fallacies in Philosophy? I'm game for it all.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 "the fossils leading to the cambrian radiation are there, we just haven't found them. If this is wrong"
This is another statement that uses circular reasoning.
If your confused it is not my fault you added in Darwinism as being foundation of biology and it is not. Dr Pill Skelps from the National Academy of Sciences exposed that myth years ago in a published paper. He doesn't deny Darwinism as and neither do I, but has pointed out the limitations and false assumptions of the theory.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Why are you accusing me of begging the question? And why do you keep talking about "Darwinism?" I know of no church of Darwin, nor any school of philosophy that bears his name.
Furthermore, I never said this "Darwinism" was the foundation of Biology. I said that nothing in Biology makes sense except in light of the theory of evolution via natural selection.
Skell coming up...
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 "And why do you keep talking about "Darwinism?"
Because the the modern evolutionary synthesis is the Darwinian synthesis, either term is valid and this is what is taught in schools and universities. What is not taught very often is the major problems with the theory. You have to go to the published science literature itself to find this out.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester No. One term is insulting, the other is the name of the theory. (The word you're looking for is either Biologist, Paleontologist, or Scientist.) You wouldn't refer to me as a Newtonist or an Einsteinist, would you? I assure you biology does not teach "Darwinism" in secular universities. In fact, my professor would give you the hairy eyeball for it.
Problems with Natural Selection? Like what?
And if you don't mind, can you give me your CV?
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 There is tons of data on the philosophy of Darwinism.ACTA BIOTHEORETICA
Volume 27, Numbers 3-4, 201-235, DOI: 10.1007/BF00115834
Darwin's evolutionary philosophy: The laws of change
Edward S. Reed
This is one of many books and articles that discuss this subject.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Dr. Phil Skell... Okay, one guy had an opinion which is not the majority one. This is the Appeal to Authority fallacy. In order to be able to cite authorities some criteria have to be met. Bear with me.
1) The authority to whom the appeal is made must be a genuine expert in the relevant area. (Skell passes this one so far as I can tell.)
2) There must be *consensus* among authorities in said area. (This is where the appeal falls on his face and becomes a fallacy.)
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 Skell's analysts wasn't based on his opinion it was based on data, research & questioning his own peers. He is considered the father of carbene chemistry.
There are also 900+ other scientist many of whom are very prominent who have recently and openly announced their skepticism for the theory, including atheist and agnostics. As for a consensus, science is no respecter of democracy. Speaking out against the theory even privately can hurt your academic career. It takes courage.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester He doesn't seem to be able to convince his peers he's right, but he's sure getting a lot of play from the religious wing.
Let's face facts, I'm not an expert in biology ... and I think neither are you. What this guy said may be interesting, but that's as far as it goes. His claims are up there with E8 theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and M theory in my book (i.e. Nice idea, now prove it.)
What do you think the theory of evolution via natural selection says anyway?
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 I've seen the gels ran between humans and chimps. They ARE ~98% identical. Codon for codon. Tell whoever told you that, straight from my mouth, that they're a liar"
Do you still maintain that statement?
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Yes I do. Most of the genetic difference between humans and chimps lie in areas that do not code for genes. And I've still seen these things with my own eyes.
Larian1975 1 year ago
Respond to this video...
This is what the article said concerning no structural DNA.
Most of the big differences between human and chimpanzee DNA lie in regions that do not code for genes, according to a new study. Instead, they may contain DNA sequences that control how gene-coding regions are activated and read.
"They're not in genes, but they're near genes that do some very important stuff," Pollard said.
I dont know how this backs up your statement. There is a great interest in reg. DNA
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Okay. That's a fair question. When you run a gel, (that is, compare two DNA samples), you compare the parts that actually code for making proteins. That is the 9X% that is similar, and that's what the reference to similarity has always meant. Junk DNA is not conserved because changes in it are more likely not to kill the organism.
Larian1975 1 year ago
Since you brought up that point of biology/Darwinism I was merley informing you of the new extended synthesis wich is something very few know about. There are many neo Darwinist that don't support it for political reasons like Eugenie Scott and the NCSE who still want to believe in Junk DNA and a 99% similarity between humans and apes. This has all been debunked and I can cite data if you wish. The current synthesis is on its way out and we know even less about the extended synthesis.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Okay, now you're out of your element. I want to make this extremely clear - I've seen the gels ran between humans and chimps. They ARE ~98% identical. Codon for codon. Tell whoever told you that, straight from my mouth, that they're a liar.
As to "Junk" DNA, we're learning that it has a purpose after all, but the "junk" label is just that - a label. We don't know it's function precisely, but we know what happens when we cut it out and allow development to continue.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 I am speaking of more current data....
Figures published in Nature on September 1, 2005, in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Respond to this video... NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITIUTE
"When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence."
This only accounts for a small fraction of non regulatory part of our genome, the percentage becomes much lower when entire genome is compared.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Respond to this video... cont.....Another type of difference, called indels (insertions/deletions) account for another ~3 % difference between the alignable sequences.[19] In addition, variation in copy number of large segments (> 20 kb) of similar DNA sequence provides a further 2.7% difference between the two species.[20] Hence the total similarity of the genomes could be as low as about 70%.
benthemiester 1 year ago
Respond to this video...WIKIPEDIA
The draft sequence of the common chimpanzee genome published in the summer 2005 showed the regions that are similar enough to be aligned with one another account for 2400 million of the human genome’s 3164.7 million bases[19] – that is, 75.8% of the genome. This 75.8% of the human genome is 1.23% different from the chimpanzee genome in single nucleotide polymorphisms[19] (changes of single DNA “letters” in the genome). .....
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester The DNA that codes for proteins is ~98% identical. Your figures say it's 96%. The coding portions are the ones we're interested in. Nobody expects the junk DNA to be similar as this would have diverged since our split from a common ancestor.
Note the language used: "When DNA insertions and deletions *are taken into account*, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence." There's a reason they're "taken into account."
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 "The coding portions are the ones we're interested in"
You didn't even fully understand citations.
I have never heard anyone say something so short sighted. Why do you think we have spent billions on the ENCODE project and all the research put in? I challenge you to find any paper that says we are only interested in structural sequences. I can cite papers that say just the opposite.
Please cite source. I would love to hear this one. I find this kind of thinking very sad.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester What I'm going to say is really important, and I want you to understand it. It doesn't matter what papers I cite. You will merely point to another that is favorable to your position. Ergo, this is a useless exercise. It would also be the Appeal to Authority fallacy. The only non-fallacious option is to say that the consensus is X and there are other things being worked on that have not yet been proven.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@benthemiester Now considering this video was about the Cambrian Radiation, I'm done discussing apes.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 I'm not a philosopher although you are entitled to yours. The Darwinian synthesis is taught in universities and the word Darwinism is a defined term that even Richard Dawkins embraces. If i was speaking of Newton or Mendel I could use term Newtonian or Mendelian. I'm still waiting for the citation backing up your claim that we are only interested in structural DNA or as you call them protein codeine DNA.
I have backed up everything I've said with citations. You offer only opinion.
benthemiester 1 year ago
You're not much of a scientist either. I don't have to reference the standard accepted view in the field which is in every textbook. But since you can't sleep at night until I do:
University of California - Davis. "Comparing Chimp, Human DNA." ScienceDaily 13 October 2006.
We're interested in the DNA that codes for proteins.
There's your reference. (You really need to work on your nomenclature.)
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 It was you that gave me the line you don't have to have a PHD and now your accusing me of pretending I did. I am a professional researcher as well as many other things. I got interested in this subject many years ago when my firm was involved in a lawsuit concerning this very subject and as a result I have had the chance to correspond and speak with many scientist on this subject and have made a few friends. I never claimed to to be an expert. I spoke of serious research only.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Without basic training in a given field, a person is most likely not going to be able to understand what the research in journals means. That's not their fault. Unless you're actually doing research of your own (working on something new and contributing back to the field), you stick with the standard explanations because the new stuff isn't ready to be widely used yet. It's incomplete and not reliable.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@benthemiester "It was you that gave me the line you don't have to have a PHD"
I made it explicit that I was reporting the the most current consensus of experts in the field where you were referencing fringe ideas by individuals.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 To say there is a consensus on the dynamics of the Cambrian explosion is a joke. This field is filled with controversy and confusion and this is well known. If we had it your way science would never grow and we would have to disregard all new data and stick to what is safe and familiar.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Then check wikipedia. That's where the most of my info came from. The rest came from those darned biology classes you've never taken.
"If we had it your way science would never grow and we would have to disregard all new data and stick to what is safe and familiar."
This is the Reducto ad Absurdium fallacy.
You don't understand how science works and you refuse correction.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 If your field is biology then why would you say that were only interested in non coding DNA? You then cited a paper claiming it backed you up, but it said nothing of the sort, which leads me to believe that maybe your kind of new at this stuff. In this post ENCODE world there is no such thing as an expert. Everyone is going to have to adjust there understanding. Even Coyne in the Locus of Evolution admits ignorance in this newer understanding of epigenetics & regulatory DNA.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "why would you say that were only interested in non coding DNA?" I SAID that when we compare genomes (that's the part that codes for proteins) we don't include the junk DNA. BECAUSEIT DOESN'T CODE FOR PROTEINS. Get this through your thick head.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 "BECAUSEIT DOESN'T CODE FOR PROTEINS. Get this through your thick head"
Your own citation says that major changes in chimps is not in our proteins.
You don't seem to understand that just because most do not code for proteins doesn't mean there useless junk. They do control how genes are regulated and expressed and man do code for RNA and a few may even code for proteins.
The genes centric Junk DNA paradigm is over. I could send u data & multiple confirmation but pretend it away.
benthemiester 1 year ago
.The articles did not say anything of the sort, please give the quotation that they were only interested in coding portions. As a matter of fact, many of this so called non coding regulatory DNA do in fact code for RNA I have more recent articles from Nature and others that verify this. You said that "The coding portions are the ones we're interested in" Yet your own citation takes great interest in pointing out regulatory DNA. If you call this research then it is very poor.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester "The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., [journal citation on the page])"
This references the genome, which is not the entirety of DNA. The genome is the portion which codes for proteins. Sorry for not making this clear as I assumed you knew this already.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 I don't know what you mean by assuming. I already knew this. This was my whole point. I even sent 2 citations of this, one from WIKI & one from Richard Buggs. I don't think you understand. If I were you I would go back and read very carefully at what the citations are actually saying. There's more to this than just SNP's and we have known this for a long time. The divergence is inferred not proven. We don't even have an established molecule clock much less an adequate fossil record.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Okay then, let's clear this up. True or false: the human and chimpanzee genomes are ~98% identical? (I believe you argued against this earlier.)
Secondly, the divergence you speak of is backed by a preponderance of evidence, one of the most striking of which is the human chromosome 2. All other apes have 24 pairs, while we have 23. This is because two chromosomes fused sometime in the past. Coupled with the similarity of the two genomes, that's pretty good evidence.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 "Now considering this video was about the Cambrian Radiation, I'm done discussing apes"
Wise decision since judging by your response you didn't seem to understand what was being said, I would also urge you to stop discussing Cambrian explosion until you research it more thoroughly.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester You've done none of the experiments. I have. You can't even get nomenclature correct. The long and short of this entire thing is that you pretend to knowledge and understanding that you don't have and attempt to come off as an authority. You are not. You have no degree, no training, and you've tried to shovel some of the worst things off to me as valid science/philosophy in hopes I wouldn't know better. Maybe you should you take your own advice.
Larian1975 1 year ago
If your more interested in the extended evolutionary synthesis I have posted video entitled "Will the Real Theory Of Evolution please Stand Up". In it Stewart Newman who was there at the Altenberg meeting tries to explain it, and even he admits that it is not fully understood or even yet proven but never the less it is well on its way. He even criticizes the Dover verdict and the hand waiving that goes on by his own colleagues and the public being told things that aren't true.
benthemiester 1 year ago
This is false.The initial radiation event referred to as the explosion or biology's big bang is estimated at 3-10 million years. It is a blink of an eye on the geo time scale. It's the Cambrian record that last about 40- 60 million years. Ediacara biota is not new, know one denies that it ever existed, your being lied to, however Ediacara biota goes extinct millions of years before Cambrian and there is dispute whether they were even multicellular. The had no mouths, anus or internal organs.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester It would appear then that I am being lied to by Creationists, since that's where I heard the argument. In fact, one imikewillrockyou makes the claim in this very thread that Darwin's tree of life appears nowhere in the fossil record. Biologists I've spoken with seem to have no problem with this event.
Larian1975 1 year ago
the cambrian explosion has been well understood for several years. it has been a favorite of creatonists because, as you said, they hear what they want to hear about it and do not understand the science behind it. the reason for this accelerated development of aquatic life is that oxygen production in the sea skyrocketed, shifting life to aerobic metabolism which is far more effective in the production of atp. this is not a mystery not does it make scientists who understand biology confused.
tyrannosaurusinf14 1 year ago
Larian1975, We are wrapping our life around this one fact? Are you serious? Darwin's problems are much larger than just no tree of life exists in the Cambrian fossils. Darwin's tree of life appears NOWHERE in the fossil record top to bottom. Unless you imagine it's there. It's a complete myth.
watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY&feature=player_profilepage
And then we see stuff like this and just laugh at the whole thing. It getting funny now.
watch?v=DWoCyz3577k&feature=player_profilepage
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
Mike,
I'm afraid your assertion is unfounded. I worked in a microbiology lab. The "tree of life" most certainly does show up in the fossil record. We use it every day.
What are your qualifications on this subject which would make me take your assertions seriously? No biologist I've ever met, nor even heard of, agrees with your assessment.
Larian1975 2 years ago
Larian1975 appeals to authority will go nowhere with me. I couldn't care less if you have five doctorates in biology. Darwin's tree is life is not in the fossil record. If you have a resource that will refute that then please send me the link. And I mean a real tree of life representing actual known fossils showing the actual evolutionary process not speculative models. Examples like Pakicetid falls under speculative with a million missing steps in between.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
Appeal to authority? Do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds? What do you call those links you sent me? You're trying to demand special treatment for your arguments (and they're not even your arguments, by the way), and then insist that I am unable to vouch for my own credibility on this subject. Even if I had "five doctorates in biology". some random schoolteachers would trump me in your sight. That's stupid, sir.
You're a real piece of work Mike.
Larian1975 2 years ago
Larian1975, Can I assume that everyone that might disagree with you must be a piece of work? No offense but I only invited you to a debate I'm not your enemy. You did in fact respond with Appeal to Authority and I merely called you on it. Wouldn't you do the same? And now you are calling me names. Look I'm sorry I won't bother you anymore. Peace, Mike
watch?v=DWoCyz3577k
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
I don't mind a discussion, but this whole thing started off in precisely the wrong way. You opened negotiations in a manner I found to be unfounded, and you have yet to address this in a satisfactory fashion.
Your post about appeals to authority was, frankly, rude, and in my exasperation I responded in kind. You lecture me in logical fallacies while committing them by the fistful, and this too wears on my sense of decency.
And Appeal to Authority is not always a fallacy. (more)
Larian1975 2 years ago
Appeal to Authority is a fallacy -only- when the authority you appeal to is unrelated to the subject at hand. For instance, if I tell you that Issac Newton would disagree with a claim that objects in near Earth orbit fell at a rate greater than 9.8 meters per second, that is acceptable.
Saying that Stephen Hawking uses Brand X toothpaste and you should use that particular brand too because there's no way you're smarter than Stephen Hawking is a fallacy.
Feel free to get back in touch.
Larian1975 2 years ago
@Larian1975 You cant do a simple goggle search. It takes years of study, and people are still trying to put this puzzle together and its not just creationist who are saying that this is a great mystery. The science literature is field with these problems concerning the theory. There are tons of hypothesis out there and just as many disputed opinions. Even Dawkins admits to sudden appearance "as if just planted there" with no known ancestry.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester It doesn't take years of study to read current data. There is a difference between saying "we don't yet know for certain" as Dawkins does and saying "we DO know and it was God" as creationists do.
I think your Dawkins quote was a little disingenuous. He also postulates, (as I did above before I looked it up) that "it might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize". (This book is horribly out of date, by the way.)
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 They didn't leave bony fossils or imprints, but they most certainly left stromatolites. Stromatolites were produced by blue green algae and they diminished by 80% by start of Cambrian and I know of no one who has made a case in academia for blue green algae evolving into Cambrian phyla. Stromatolites still appear on earth today. Blue green algae didn't have bony fossils. The are cyanobacteria.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I'm not suggesting that cyanobacteria are the direct precursors to the fossilized creatures found in the cambrian layers. I'm suggesting that, since we see evidence of all these creatures in the cambrian radiation, and prior to that we see stromatolites, there -may have been- more complex organizms living in the pre-cambrian alongside the cyanobacteria that did not have bones or shells.
Larian1975 1 year ago
@Larian1975 I never said you had to be a PHD and you can cite any paper you like. Whether you truly understand it is a different story, and judging by your video I don't think you do.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Then you would be in error. Sorry for misleading you.
The points I laid out in this video are the consensus of the biological community. The fact that someone (or a group of someones) in China are making controversial claims doesn't constitute proof. If they had something rock-solid it would be all over the news and a Nobel prize would be given. Right now, they've just not proven anything. Hence, we stick to the theory we've got and try to fit oddities into the model.
Larian1975 1 year ago
Wikipedia has been edited by creationist and is a straw man setup.
Under evolution, all they talk about is random mutation and chance. Little to do with evolution and natural selection.
gregrutz 2 years ago
AALSHERRRI,
I have no idea what you're talking about, because "everything is like it is because of random chance" is not the argument evolutionary biology makes. It seems you misunderstand the theory's claim.
And he's your god. You go to hell.
Larian1975 2 years ago
I'll take Jap anus relations for $300...
goobergel 3 years ago
Goobergel...
You're just goobergel. That's all I can say.
Larian1975 3 years ago
Your mother's a whore Trebek!
goobergel 3 years ago
God created the sea creatures first. The animal fossils in the cambrian explosion geological record are all aquatic.
Gen 1:20 - "And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures"
mathewjohn5174 3 years ago
Why should we accept that as being true? First we would need irrefutable evidence that God even existed. We know that the creatures themselves did, but there is no such evidence of a creator. In fact, all the evidence available, as a whole, points to God being imaginary.
Larian1975 3 years ago
The Cambrian explosion happened over a period of 70 to 80 million years?
Who told you this?
bornagain001 3 years ago
All the scientific literature on the subject that I've ever seen. Give wikipedia a shot. Check out "Cambrian Explosion." It's right in the header. Scroll down and pay particular attention to the "How real was the explosion?" section.
Larian1975 3 years ago
Wikipedia????
You put your FAITH in Wikipedia???
Sorry...Wikipedia heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else.
bornagain001 3 years ago
Actually...I find wicki to be a rather decent source when taken with a grain of salt. We scientist do tend to edit it's content.
goobergel 3 years ago
Well, 20 to 50 million years at min.
goobergel 3 years ago
There are no fossils of man from the Cambrian period.
How do creationists explain that?
baconeater 3 years ago
That's easy. They say that there was no Cambrian period and the speed of light is Jesus. These were animals deposited during the great flood. My penis itches. :P
Larian1975 3 years ago
Another important thing to remember is that animals tend not to fossilize unless they have hard parts like shells, bones, carapaces or the like. The Cambrian "explosion" merely marks the period in history where organisms developed these traits.
h8uall66 3 years ago
True. However the presence of soft-bodied organisms can be inferred in the fossil record by the trace elements they leave behind in sediments from decomposition and their waste products.
Who would've thought Jarheads knew anything about science?
Larian1975 3 years ago
Yes, this is true. But in reality, the Cambrian "explosion" merely marks the period in history where life forms evolved that were just statistically more likely fossilize. Another trick I have seen creationists use is the fact that all the known animal phyla are present in the Cambrian. They argue that this is evidence that all life appeared suddenly, and with no evolution occurring. This statement sounds quite impressive unless you actually know where phyla sit in the classification hierarchy.
h8uall66 3 years ago