Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
Short 6 minute video from Prager U. on why scientists are doubting Darwin

https://youtu.be/DOIbcOoaxuY
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
...why scientists are doubting Darwin

Statements like this are really misleading. It is like saying that quantum physicists doubt Newton. They don't. Like Darwin's, Newton's theory is incomplete, not surprising for something over a century old. But it is still foundational to modern physics just as the theory of evolution is foundational to modern biology.

Your Stephen Meyer video is remarkable for either being ignorant or purposefully misleading. He focuses on two issues, the Cambrian explosion and evolution by mutation and selection.

For the first he claims novel body types emerged suddenly during the Cambrian "without evidence of earlier ancestors". He further claims that scientists today can give "no satisfactory answer". Both are simply and clearly untrue.

In actuality there is growing fossil evidence for the ancestors of these complex body forms existing prior to the Cambrian. This is from an article written in 2011.

"Now, new evidence by a team of biologists, paleobiologists and ecologists suggests that the sudden explosion of new life forms may not have been so sudden after all. In their paper published in Science, the teams says that it appears likely that most of the new life forms that show up in fossil finds, were well on their way to development before the Cambrian period and that many of them, by their behaviors, may have helped pave the way for others." https://phys.org/news/2011-11-team-explanation-cambrian-expl...

A more recent paper extends that to conclude: "...that while the Cambrian Explosion represents a radiation of crown-group bilaterians, it was simply one phase amongst several metazoan radiations, some older and some younger." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0821-6

One explanation for the "explosion" is that prior to the Cambrian oxygen levels were low, which meant that animals were mostly simple, immobile, and soft skinned (the latter by the way means you get few fossils). Oxygen levels increased significantly during the Cambrian, allowing for greater mobility that in turn led to such things as the evolution of predators that hunted other animals. The evolution of hard body forms is a good defense against predation and these are also more easily fossilized. That provides one explanation for why so many more fossils are "suddenly" found for the Cambrian. In addition, oxygen levels fluctuated substantially, which may have increased environmental stress. In any case, more complex forms and behaviors were now heavily selected for leading to a dramatic increase in diversity. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190506111436.h...
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/caos-ovc0505...

Point is that there are multiple explanations for the Cambrian explosion. It is just a matter of gathering the evidence to decide which is the right one.

As for Meyer's second problem, he is making an obsolete argument based on a strictly population genetics version of evolution that dates back to the 1940s. He ignores more recent inclusions to evolutionary theory of developmental biology, epigenesis, niche construction, not to mention the role of emergence in the creation of pattern and body forms. It is like using Newtonian physics to argue the impossibility of quantum computing. You can do it, but what is the point?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10128/
https://dev.biologists.org/content/130/10/2027
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/artl.2010.16.2....

Your link is a classic example of the kind of dishonest argumentation used by the Discovery Institute. They make statements that are demonstrably not true (scientists have no explanation for the Cambrian explosion; novel body types emerged with no antecedents) and ignore new developments in evolutionary theory that they don't have an answer for.

Lies, lies, and more lies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I ignore articles like this. No offense intended to the poster, but it's BS unless it appears in a proper journal.

Statements like this are really misleading. It is like saying that quantum physicists doubt Newton. They don't. Like Darwin's, Newton's theory is incomplete, not surprising for something over a century old. But it is still foundational to modern physics just as the theory of evolution is foundational to modern biology.

Excellent analogy. Spot-on.

I read a quote from Dr Francis Collins, head of the human genome project and a fundamentalist xian**, that just based on genetics evolution is irrefutable at this point and xians should stop denying it.

1poorguy

**He has a book, too. I haven't read it, but apparently he encountered a falls while hiking that was frozen in three streams and accepted Jesus as his lord and savior on the spot. Brilliant man, but how he could come to such an irrational conclusion and compartmentalize that is beyond my pay grade.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Point is that there are multiple explanations for the Cambrian explosion. It is just a matter of gathering the evidence to decide which is the right one.

Sure, you can cite to numerous stories about the Cambrian explosion, but do they amount to explanations? "Oxygen" doesn't explain the new information needed to create new body plans, tissue types, etc. in any meaningful way. Its just more evolutionary yarn-spinning. You and Meyer are not using "explanation" to mean the same thing.

I think you've become accustomed to accepting such "explanations" uncritically. Again, Meyer's point is not can you wave your hand at something, but can you scientifically explain it. And he cites experts in the field to back up his point, at least in his writings. A short video is not the place for that, its a summary.

He ignores more recent inclusions to evolutionary theory of developmental biology, epigenesis, niche construction, not to mention the role of emergence in the creation of pattern and body forms.

Once again you are faulting him for participating in a summary video. He deals with all of those suggestions in his writings and dispenses with them by citing experts.

Your link is a classic example of the kind of dishonest argumentation used by the Discovery Institute. They make statements that are demonstrably not true (scientists have no explanation for the Cambrian explosion; novel body types emerged with no antecedents) and ignore new developments in evolutionary theory that they don't have an answer for.

Not at all true. They cite scientist in their technical writings and make careful arguments based on facts, and deal with any relevant new developments, despite it being really just more of the same.

Look, in the past you have admitted that scientists are "doubting Darwin". Your reply was to the effect, "Yeah, but they are not looking for some non-materialistic explanation as a replacement". I think your criticism is unjustified.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Sure, you can cite to numerous stories about the Cambrian explosion, but do they amount to explanations? "Oxygen" doesn't explain the new information needed to create new body plans, tissue types, etc. in any meaningful way. Its just more evolutionary yarn-spinning.

Of course they are explanations. What you call "stories" are testable hypotheses, which is how the scientific process works. One hypothesis is that the precursors for the many Cambrian body forms existed before the Cambrian explosion. There is growing fossil evidence that this is the case. This means that much of what you call "new information" already existed prior to the Cambrian explosion. They are just hard to find in the fossil record because they were present at low abundance prior to the explosion.

Another hypothesis is based on the observation that oxygen levels increased coincident with the Cambrian explosion. A 2019 paper further demonstrates that large changes in the diversity of body forms as seen in the fossil record correlates with significant changes in oxygen levels. These changes created environmental stresses that selected for different preexisting body forms, which thereby increased in abundance making it more likely that they are found as fossils. In other words, the changes in oxygen levels created a more complex environment that in turn selected for greater biological diversity.

That is a lot more detailed and testable explanation than your alternative of an unexplained intelligence taking 10 million years to create a plethora of primitive body forms by an unknown process for unknown reasons.

They cite scientist in their technical writings and make careful arguments based on facts, and deal with any relevant new developments, despite it being really just more of the same.

So you claim. But you've made many posts on this board have yet to demonstrate this to be the case.

Look, in the past you have admitted that scientists are "doubting Darwin". Your reply was to the effect, "Yeah, but they are not looking for some non-materialistic explanation as a replacement".

This is simply untrue. I've stated and provided examples of evolutionary theory expanding beyond the simplistic notions described by the Discovery Institute. I've also recall arguing that evolutionary theory says nothing for or against the existence of God. But I've always firmly believed that the stuff the Discovery Institute puts out is mostly religion pretending to be science and has no place in a science curriculum.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is simply untrue.

If I misrepresented you, I apologize.
Print the post Back To Top