A Darwinian apparatchik rallies the faithful.

Latest Cambrian Explosion "Explanation" Qualifies as Propaganda

Evolution News & Views October 9, 2015 10:37 AM

Many of us remember Pravda and Izvestia, the official propaganda organs of the former USSR. Having silenced the free press long ago, these "newspapers" were free to dole out the party line without opposition, giving the impression to unwary readers that there was no opposition. Well, another major science journal has followed this strategy. Fortunately, social media provides a "black market" for samizdat publishing.

To celebrate its 25th anniversary, Current Biology offers a special issue on "The History of Life on Earth." The 16 open-access articles amount to a treasure trove of evolutionary thinking on a wide variety of subjects: RNA World, insect evolution, bird evolution, and more -- all presented by big-name Darwinian proponents who ignore alternative views. A case in point is the primer on "The Cambrian Explosion" by Derek E. G. Briggs. Any mention of Stephen Meyer? No. Or critiques of the Darwinian explanation? Nope. Intelligent design? Are you kidding?

One might think that the editors would find it strategic to allay the fears of readers worried about the challenge to Darwinism raised by Meyer's best seller Darwin's Doubt by answering it. Instead, they chose to ignore it. That seems a risky strategy, considering that Meyer and others cogently responded to their critics' best objections in the follow-up book released this summer, Debating Darwin's Doubt. It's hard to imagine Briggs or the editors being unaware of these books. Apparently they think that enough of their readers don't know of the controversy, or they don't wish to give Meyer publicity. To illustrate our love for freedom of the press, we'll encourage you to hear both sides.

It's interesting to see what Briggs admits about the Cambrian explosion (emphasis added):

1. It's real: "We now know that the sudden appearance of fossils in the Cambrian (541-485 million years ago) is real and not an artefact of an imperfect fossil record," he says.
2. It saw diverse body plans: "In effect, the major body plans or phyla were established during the Cambrian explosion," but how? (Keep reading.)
3. Hard parts were not required: "Exceptionally preservedCambrian fossil deposits, such as the famous Burgess Shale, yield examples of 14 of the 19 soft-bodied phyla" of the ~33 animal phyla recognized today.
4. Not oddballs: "The affinities of some of the Cambrian creatures that were dubbed 'weird wonders' are still debated but phylogenetic analyses have shown that most of them are much less weird than first thought -- they do not represent extinct higher taxa, but are early offshoots of the lineages leading to modern groups."
5. Complex parts: "Various arthropods from the Cambrian of China have recently been shown to preserve evidence of the brain and nervous system, which were fossilized in rapidly precipitating minerals," Briggs says.
6. No answers: "The drivers behind the Cambrian explosion were varied and complex, and there is no simple explanation of either the timing or ecological mechanisminvolved." All he can do is offer possibilities.
7. Bottom line: Briggs still is looking for clues about how "all the major animal groups evolved in a relatively short timeduring the Cambrian explosion."

We see that Briggs doesn't dispute the observable facts. He knows that all the major animal body plans appeared quickly. So what is his explanation?

1. He stretches out the explosion, giving it the largest possible range of 56 million years. 10 million years is more widely accepted, but no matter how many years are granted, the problems of missing ancestors and abrupt appearances remain.
2. He considers the Ediacaran period ancestral to the Cambrian, asserting that this resolves "Darwin's dilemma" about the missing Precambrian fossils. "Darwin's dilemmaregarding the absence of Precambrian fossils was not resolved until the 1940s when a diversity of large animals of Ediacaran age (635-541 million years ago) was discovered in South Australia, providing spectacular evidence of life prior to the appearance of the first shells." This is very misleading, as most biologists do not consider the Ediacaran organisms ancestral to the Cambrian animals.
3. He makes the most of early arrivals: "However, a number ofEdiacaran fossils are interpreted with reasonable certainty as early offshoots (stem taxa) of lineages leading to modern groups -- including sponges (Palaeophragmodictya),cnidarians, and bilaterians such as molluscs (Kimberella) and possibly arthropods." This misdirects attention from the complexity of these phyla, and fails to account for at least 15 more new body plans that exploded onto the scene in the early Cambrian.
4. He puts a lot of trust in molecular inferences: "Molecular clock dates indicate that the ancestors of most modern marine phyla had evolved by the Ediacaran, but identifying their representatives, even among the remarkable range of Ediacaran forms, is not straightforward." His conclusion is more confident: "Phylogenies calibrated by fossil occurrences allow molecular clocks to estimate the timing of branching even where fossil evidence is wanting."
5. He uses the power of suggestion: "The rise of oxygen levels in the earth's atmosphere and oceans has often been implicated in initiating rapid diversification." We responded to this hypothesis before. Another suggestion: "The rise of zooplankton allowed particles to sink to the sea floor as fecal material which significantly augmented the nutrient supply," he speculates. "Such increases in environmental complexity during the Cambrian may well have resulted in a proliferation of diverse ecological strategies that were not present earlier." Should we call this the crap theory?
6. He offers promissory notes: "And in due course, experiments on the role of control genes in the development of animals from embryo to adult may provide clues to how all the major animal groups evolved in a relatively short time during the Cambrian explosion."

Here's another key passage expressing hope for an answer:

Although the fossil record is silent on mechanisms to explainhow morphology could have evolved so rapidly, developmental biology investigates how genetic mechanisms affect body plans. Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) may provide clues to how such a remarkable range of morphology evolved so quickly, at least in organisms amenable to experimental manipulation.

There's really nothing new here. All these hypotheses have been answered in Darwin's Doubt and Debating Darwin's Doubt. Our job is to get the information past the censors, so that the organs of propaganda are defeated by free and open inquiry.

Today's supernatural is tomorrow's scientific revolution.

Science and Credulity

David Klinghoffer January 31, 2013 5:15 AM

The Center for Science & Culture's John West did an interesting interview with the Australian-based commentary/news site Mercator, commenting on the recent Discovery Institute Press book The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society ("Exposing scientism"). The interviewer asked about a seeming paradox in Lewis's thought:

MercatorNet: C.S. Lewis claimed that science has made us more gullible. But how can this happen if science is based on empirical facts?

West: Lewis observed that many non-scientists simply checked their critical faculties at the door when they heard claims made in the name of science. People who didn't think we could know anything with confidence about historical figures like Julius Caesar or Napoleon because they lived such a long time ago had no problem accepting the most outlandish claims made about "pre-historic" man, because the latter claims were dressed up as science. Lewis was concerned that this kind of blind deference to scientific authority opened the door to tyranny. That's one of the reasons it's so concerning today when people are routinely attacked as "anti-science" just for raising thoughtful questions about claims made in the name of science. If we want to avoid the abuse of science, we need to encourage that kind of questioning, not suppress it.

This reminded me of a comment I came across by Harvard geneticist George Church, about whom, on reflection, I think I was probably too harsh and quick to judgment the other day when he was in the news on the subject of cloning Neanderthals (see here, here, and here). For which, if so, I apologize. Church has done a lot of important work that we've highlighted at ENV -- in fact, we do so in our current cover story ("Demonstrating, Once Again, the Fantastic Information-Storage Capacity of DNA").

Church has tangled honorably and creditably with Jerry Coyne -- see his response to Coyne's criticism at the end of this post from Why Evolution Is True. Among other things he remarks on the different ways that a "considerable amount of faith drives everyday science."

Incidentally, a noteworthy aspect of Coyne v. Church is that George Church has said things that make Coyne wonder if he's "somewhat of a creationist, or at least sympathetic to intelligent design." Coyne demands from his more distinguished colleague, yes, a statement of faith in Darwinian evolution: "If he's not [an ID sympathizer], and firmly adheres to the naturalistic theory of evolution, let him state that."

Church's reply is intriguing:

I like the theory of evolution -- I even harness it industrially to make practical materials. Perhaps, another less-than-ideal dichotomy here is between "naturalistic" and "supernaturalistic." "Natural" is what is known to science at the moment. If we discover next year quantum computing and/or aliens capable of transferring bits of information to minds or DNA, then we might reconsider past "naturalism." I like a simple Occam's razor, but not if it gets in the way of a revolution.

He "likes" evolution -- microevolution, he means, since that's the only kind you'll ever have a chance of observing at work.

As I say, that's very interesting, coming form a Harvard geneticist. Note the smart deconstruction of "natural" v. "supernatural." This line is a keeper: "'Natural' is what is known to science at the moment." So for science to continue insisting on "naturalistic" explanations of everything guarantees that knowledge can't advance further than it already has done. True.

Yet more iconoclasm II

Lee Spetner on Darwin’s iconic finches

Published on October 9th, 2015

Written by: News

Further to What’s happened since Icons of Evolution (2002)? Well, for one thing, Darwin’s textbook finches took a beating (no speciation)

From The Evolution Revolution by physicist Lee Spetner:

The proximate biochemical signal evoking the change in beak shape [of Galapagos finches] has been discovered to be a protein growth factor Bmp4. The more Bmp4 that is made, the broader and deeper is the bird’s beak. This protein acts as a signal to the development of the craniofacial bones which determines the beak’s shape. If my suggestion is correct that the hormones triggered by environmental inputs affect embryonic development, then those hormones induce these growth factors to form the finch beak….The built-in mechanism of the NREH [Non Random Evolutionary Hypothesis] enables the bird population to adapt to a new environment quickly and efficiently without having to call upon the slow and wasteful neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection. p. 76

Note from reader:

Spetner’s Non Random Evolutionary Hypothesis proposes that certain genetic traits lie dormant within the genomes of various living things until environmental cues turn them on and they appear in the next generation. In other words, living things are front loaded with a host of options which allow for rapid and specified adaptations for various enviroments. There is neither chance nor selection in this process. Moreover, it also accounts for the rapid return of smaller finch beaks when the drought ceases. It points towards exquisite design and accounts for the variability of Darwin’s finches without invoking the confusions of natural selection. If mutations are random, why is it that thicker, larger beaks appear reliably with every drought on the Galapagos Islands? Why don’t longer tail feathers or unusual colors appear? If natural selection works slowly and imperfectly, why are the changes in beak size so rapid? If the mutations are embedded in the genomes of the birds, why do they disappear so quickly when conditions change?

Here for more on Spetner’s The Evolution Revolution.