Okay, let's say that "perfect parallelism" occurred and all phyla have 50 million years. No matter how you look at it, you have 70 animal phyla in 50 million years. It doesn't really matter whether you have 50 million or 50 trillion. Again, think about it: you're talking about tens and tens of thousands of good mutations ( with a good/total mutation rate of .0001 or less!) sequenced correctly in order to produce unprecedented diversity of animal life. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt!
And for the record, I am trying to be open about the idea of macrevolution. There are great intellects that I respect (because of their integrity, knowledge and sheer computing power) who believe in macroevolution. So if you'll notice I rarely get involved in post-Cambrian discussions of macroevolution even though I don't buy into it myself. But<= Cambrian, "There ain't a snowball's chance..."
Okay, let's say that "perfect parallelism" occurred and all phyla have 50 million years. Sigh... ANOTHER STRAWMAN, did *I* ever use the term "perfect paralleism". NO I DID NOT. There is NO point in debating with you SHOE since you like to completely fabricate what I said so you can more easily attack it. No matter how you look at it, you have 70 animal phyla in 50 million years. It doesn't really matter whether you have 50 million or 50 trillion. Again, think about it: you're talking about tens and tens of thousands of good mutations ( with a good/total mutation rate of .0001 or less!) sequenced correctly in order to produce unprecedented diversity of animal life. TOO LATE SHOE. You already ASSERTED that 3 million years WAS ENOUGH.... it was your ***FINAL OFFER*** remember?? Yet, they had 50 million years ACCORDING TO YOU!! You have caught yourself red handed. You have ALREADY ADMITTED that they had PLENTY of time to evolve according to your very own words. You have already clearly lost the debate. There is nothing to debate. peace axeman
BIOCOSMOLOGY Chris King Department of Mathematics University of Auckland, New Zealand Stochastic Accident versus the Relentless Limits of Selection Evolution is a partly stochastic adventitious process and partly an optimizing selective response to bifurcations in the eco-landscape, as T.H. Waddington emphasized in "The Strategy of the Gene" in his concept of the 'chreode'. The balance between the adventitious and the selectively optimized is a reflection of the deeper underlying process of quantum complementarity. <IMG SRC=http://www.dhushara.com/book/bchtm/f25.jpg> Fig 25: Two aspects of evolution, adventitious mutation and cumulative selection are contrasted. Left: Cantharanthus rosea makes the unusual indole vincristine, unusual in structure and almost unique to the biological world. While this has occurred through natural selection, it is an unusual avenue which appears to be the result of an initial fortuitous mutation. Right: By contrast, the development of the camera eye (Dawkins 1996), despite being touted by creationists as impossible for evolution, is virtually inevitable by natural selection, because its formation results from a simple topological bifurcation of a photoreceptive hollow and the fact that directional photon reception is a core quantum interaction as fundamental as photosynthesis itself, evidenced by the same carotenoids in both vision and as accessory pigments in photosynthesis. These two examples contrast the aspects of evolution which do and do not converge to the statistical limit as quantum phenomena. In an interference experiment, the trajectories of individual photons are unpredictable by quantum uncertainty of position. The pattern of wave interference only becomes established statistically through the passage of many photons, which through their statistics of particle absorption by individual atoms demonstrate the wave amplitude variation of the interference pattern. This convergence to the probability interpretation is even more marginal in the complex macroscopic biological world than it is in the quantum world of small numbers of events, and for the same reason. Although their effects are large in macroscopic organisms, mutations themselves are unique kinetic events in the quantum world of molecules and molecular orbitals, vastly rarer than the photons in a conventional interference experiment and tending at all times to the unique uncertainty of the single unrepeated event. And as Richard Dawkins (1976) has pointed out so ruthlessly and effectively, it is gene selection which drives the organism rather than vice versa. This is exactly what causes evolution theorists to emphasize the non-universal, idiosyncratic nature of mutational evolution, but it also confirms that evolution is potentially subject to the covert laws of quantum non-locality and rife with the consequences of quantum uncertainty. Evolution is always a counterpoint between the adventitious and the inevitable beneficiaries of selective advantage, and selective advantage is itself an almost infinite gain mechanism which will exploit any bifurcations or optimalities in the physical environment. Thus many of the marvels of evolution such as the camera eye, far from being an impossibility are inevitable because of the immense optimality of accessing the fundamental quantum mode of directional photon absorption. This point is well-illustrated by Richard Dawkins in the evolution of the camera eye as illustrated in fig 25. <IMG SRC=http://www.dhushara.com/book/bchtm/f26.jpg> Fig 26: Homeotic genes. Left: Sequence of homeotic genes is compared in the insect and vertebrate, showing their common role in segmental organization (De Robertis et. al.McGinnis et. al.), Top right: Knotted maize mutants have a mutation in a homeobox gene regulating differentiation. Similar homeobox genes have been found in tomatoes and rice (Homeobox Harvest Scientific American June 91). Lower right: A mammalian regulatory gene, pax6 is able to elicit ectopic eyes on the leg of a fruit fly, showing the genes even have comparable action. (Dawkins 1996).
Gordon, do us a favor and give us a definition of evolution. While you are at it, consider these words of a well known scientist. Robert Jastrow pointed out over twenty-five years ago: âAccording to this story, every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is noneâ Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton). That's right. There is none. Many scientists have criticized evolution. Michael Denton wrote this in his 1985 book: In this book, I have adopted the radical approach. By presenting a systematic critique of the current Darwinian model, ranging from paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework, and that consequently the conservative view is no longer tenable. The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of the Origin; and throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless. The anti-evolutionary thesis argued in this book, the idea that life might be fundamentally a discontinuous phenomenon, runs counter to the whole thrust of modern biological thought.... Put simply, no one has ever observed the interconnecting continuum of functional forms linking all known past and present species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature. ** Gordon Gekko sees evolution everywhere. Some agnostic molecular biologists don't. Give us a definition Gordon.
I was joking with you on the 3 million years. Didn't think you'd take it seriously. Sorry to be confusing... What I mean is this: it doesn't matter whether it's 1 or 50 million.
How convenient of you. So are you in fact saying that 50 million years is NOT ENOUGH time for these phyla to evolve? Previously you gave us the benefit of the doubt and allowed the 50 million number. Are you gonna back pedal now? Is 50 million not enough???? peace axeman
That evolution doesn't explain creation doesn't imply obligatory Creationism thesis. For example I have already posted an article against Evolution Theory as incomplete theory from Wolfram but it doesn't mean that it demonstrates God: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=378894&highlight=Wolfram#post378894 Wolfram http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html "One of the most esteemed documents of modern paleontology is Stephen Jay Gould's doctoral thesis on shells. According to Gould, the fact that there are thousands of potential shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual shell forms, is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in fact, there are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them exist in the world. In other words, you don't need natural selection to pare down evolution to a few robust forms. Rather, organisms evolve outward to fill all the possible forms available to them by the rules of cellular automata. Complexity is destinyâand Darwin becomes a footnote. "I've come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural selection is not all that important." The more sciences he probes, the more Wolfram senses a deeper patternâan underlying force that defines not only the cosmos but living things as well: "Biologists," he says, "have never been able to really explain how things get made, how they develop, and where complicated forms come from. This is my answer. " He points at the shell, "This mollusk is essentially running a biological software program. That program appears to be very complex. But once you understand it, it's actually very simple."