Discovery Institute's current focus: Pre-Cambrian fossil gap

[skeptigirl]

I received a pamphlet/booklet from the DI a couple days ago titled, "The Theory of Intelligent Design:A Briefing Packet for Educators". I was looking for any substance when chapter 15 caught my eye, "15 The Scientific Controversy Over the Cambrian Explosion".

This has been addressed scientifically. In addition, the genetic record resolves any issues with gaps in the fossil record. It's the same with their recent claim of 'no precursor to the mitochondria' after Behe's hypothesis of 'no precursor to the bacterial flagella' was disproved.

These guys just can't move on.

Sorry, forgot to add the link to the pamphlet:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

And I think it's important they are trying that back door again. Can't get in the science door? Elect school board members, go through the courts, and now, try to get propaganda materials directly to the teachers.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

They've switched to mitochondrion? Cool! I was wondering when they'd give up on the flagellum.

~~ Paul

[articulett]

Well, science keeps uncovering facts that explain the gaps faster than they can come up with more gaps to exploit...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3361,Single-Celled-Giant-Upends-Early-Evolution,Discovery

[Sefarst]

These guys just can't move on.

That's what happens when you don't even understand science well enough to get how your theories have been disproven. I'd bet money that none of these Creation "scientists" even have subscriptions to any professional journals.

Can't find a record of a particular transitional fossil after a ten minute Google search? Add it to the God Did It list!

[Wowbagger]

Well, science keeps uncovering facts that explain the gaps faster than they can come up with more gaps to exploit...Well, technically, I don't think that's true. It is much easier to "come up with" gaps, than it is to do the work to fill them.

But, we are finding evidence to fill those gaps faster than they are finding evidence of the Designer who "created" them. And, that's what science is all about.

[articulett]

Yes.

But their issue with the Precambrian explosion (the title of the OP) has just found an answer... or, rather, there is one less issue to exploit. There was confusion about what had left some trails at a time before bilateral symmetry in animals was known to exist-- enter the giant grape sized trail leaving protist! Awesome.

I'm sure they'll spin it to their twisted advantage, yet for real scientists this is a great piece of the puzzle in our piecing together the history of life on earth. To them, it's one less gap to exploit... though, I'm sure they'll make a big deal about how science is always "changing it's mind". Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute discovers nothing except new ways to obfuscate understanding. They thrive on ignorance and muddling understanding.

Their dishonest literature addressed to teachers pisses me off. Smarmy semantics. Vomitous.

[Macoy]

Perhaps it's important to understand that "Adam" is an enormous amoeba, and "Eve" has been separated from Him by Gawd to create another gigantic yet sinful amoeba yet to realise her sinfulness?

[skeptigirl]

They've switched to mitochondrion? Cool! I was wondering when they'd give up on the flagellum.

~~ PaulI missed the discussion but just before I joined the Seattle Skeptics Meetup group, our fearless leader invited 2 DI folks to the meeting to present their case. That's when they mentioned their hypothesis that there is no precursor to the mitochondria. I don't find anything on their site about this particular IC claim but they do continue to keep a 1996 summary from Michael Behe in the forefront:

Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry From a speech delivered at Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference
By: Michael J. Behe; Discovery Institute; August 10, 1996 (http://www.discovery.org/a/51)

The concept of following the evidence to the conclusion is lost in their cherished desire to fit the evidence to the conclusion. They project that desire on to mainstream evolution science by continually claiming "Darwinists" are only looking at confirming evidence for evolution theory. It's sad, really.

[skeptigirl]

Well, science keeps uncovering facts that explain the gaps faster than they can come up with more gaps to exploit...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3361,Single-Celled-Giant-Upends-Early-Evolution,Discovery

Here's a nice summary of the controversial questions which of course have absolutely zero to do with any controversy regarding the validity of evolution theory:

The Cambrian Explosion (http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm)The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian was as sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record. The discovery of new pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils help, as these transitional forms support the hypothesis that diversification was well underway before the Cambrian began. More recently, the sequencing of the genomes of thousands of life forms is revealing just how many and what genes and the proteins they encode have been conserved from the Precambrian. The explosion of external form in the fossil record is what we see, but more gradual adaptation was taking place at the molecular level. Wang et. al. (1999) for example, recently conducted phylogenetic studies divergences among animal phyla, plants, animals and fungi. These researchers estimated Arthropods diverged from more primitive chordates more than 900 million years ago, and Nematodes from that lineage almost 1200 million years ago. They furthermore estimated that the plant, animal and fungi Kingdoms might have split almost 1600 million years ago. Finally, they conjecture that the basal animal phyla (Porifera, Cnidaria, Ctenophora) diverged between about 1200 and 1500 million years ago. If their research is valid, at least six major metazoan phyla appeared deep in the Precambrian, hundreds of millions of years before the oldest fossils in the fossil record.



And another short summary of the hypotheses and unanswered questions, none of which support the hypothesis of IC:
The Cambrian Explosion: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html)

[skeptigirl]

Clearly evolution science is passing the DI by. This is a 1999 review:

Early Animal Evolution: Emerging Views from Comparative Biology and Geology (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/284/5423/2129)The Cambrian appearance of fossils representing diverse phyla has long inspired hypotheses about possible genetic or environmental catalysts of early animal evolution. Only recently, however, have data begun to emerge that can resolve the sequence of genetic and morphological innovations, environmental events, and ecological interactions that collectively shaped Cambrian evolution. Assembly of the modern genetic tool kit for development and the initial divergence of major animal clades occurred during the Proterozoic Eon. Crown group morphologies diversified in the Cambrian through changes in the genetic regulatory networks that organize animal ontogeny. Cambrian radiation may have been triggered by environmental perturbation near the Proterozoic-Cambrian boundary and subsequently amplified by ecological interactions within reorganized ecosystems.



And this one is from 1998:
A Vendian-Cambrian boundary succession from the northwestern margin of the Siberian Platform: stratigraphy, palaeontology, chemostratigraphy and correlation. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11542817?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed)Siberia contains several key reference sections for studies of biological and environmental evolution across the Proterozoic-Phanerozoic transition. The Platonovskaya Formation, exposed in the Turukhansk region of western Siberia, is an uppermost Proterozoic to Cambrian succession whose trace and body fossils place broad limits on the age of deposition, but do not permit detailed correlation with boundary successions elsewhere. In contrast, a striking negative carbon isotopic excursion in the lower part of the Platonovskaya Formation permits precise chemostratigraphic correlation with upper-most Yudomian successions in Siberia, and possibly worldwide. In addition to providing a tool for correlation, the isotopic excursion preserved in the Platonovskaya and contemporaneous successions documents a major biogeochemical event, likely involving the world ocean. The excursion coincides with the palaeontological breakpoint between Ediacaran- and Cambrian-style assemblages, suggesting a role for biogeochemical change in evolutionary events near the Proterozoic Cambrian boundary.


I do like the fact these incidents stimulate my interest in diverse science areas.

[fishbob]

I received a pamphlet/booklet from the DI a couple days ago titled, "The Theory of Intelligent Design:A Briefing Packet for Educators". I was looking for any substance when chapter 15 caught my eye, "15 The Scientific Controversy Over the Cambrian Explosion".


Don't worry too much. That pamphlet is all full of words and stuff. Hardly any pictures.
And just like the bible, the true believers will never get all the way through it.

[skeptigirl]

Actually, fishbob, it is a very slick propaganda tool. It is intended to present a case that there really are serious scientific questions regarding the validity of evolution theory when there are no such questions. There may be a number of undetermined specifics within evolution theory, but nothing of any substance actually puts the theory in doubt. Nor is there anything other than "you can't rule out the negative" regarding irreducible complexity. For every DI challenge answered, they can just bring up another.

Prove there are no dogs which can clearly speak a human language. Prove there are no cats on the planet which have perfectly square claws.

Obviously that is no way to conduct scientific investigation. Yet this propaganda pamphlet implies they have legitimate scientific evidence supporting their failed hypothesis. And it is very slickly done.

[Mojo]

I received a pamphlet/booklet from the DI a couple days ago titled, "The Theory of Intelligent Design:A Briefing Packet for Educators". I was looking for any substance when chapter 15 caught my eye, "15 The Scientific Controversy Over the Cambrian Explosion".


It's basically just the old trick of finding some issue that scientists disagree and argue about (or have done in the past), and implying that there is therefore "controversy over evolution".

Then they'll be off somewhere else complaining that science is monolithic and dogmatic.

[fishbob]

Actually, fishbob, it is a very slick propaganda tool. . . . . .

I guess I should just take my giant single-celled protist and go home.

See, my implication was that the effort of actually reading and understanding the 'slick tool' is beyond the capabilitites of the intended audience. You were supposed to find a bit of sarcastic humor in my comment.

[Gregoire]

This all reminds me of an article from The Onion. Did anyone see this?:D

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_believe_in_evolution_except

[articulett]

I guess I should just take my giant single-celled protist and go home.

See, my implication was that the effort of actually reading and understanding the 'slick tool' is beyond the capabilitites of the intended audience. You were supposed to find a bit of sarcastic humor in my comment.

:fg:

(how can we play if you take the single-celled protist!?)

[articulett]

This all reminds me of an article from The Onion. Did anyone see this?:D

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_believe_in_evolution_except

:fg:

I concur

[MattusMaximus]

Yup, there is no surprise here, though it is good to know about the specific pamphlet in question. The Disco Institute is simply recycling a time-honored creationist tactic of bypassing any and all official channels (the scientific community and courts, for example) in an attempt to get their message out.

One thing's for sure - these creationists sure are persistent. And we must be equally (if not more) persistent and vigilant.

[MattusMaximus]

It's basically just the old trick of finding some issue that scientists disagree and argue about (or have done in the past), and implying that there is therefore "controversy over evolution".

Then they'll be off somewhere else complaining that science is monolithic and dogmatic.

Creationists in the United States are already using this tactic - it is, in fact, the next stage of their assault on science education. When Expelled came out last April, within weeks there were numerous bills introduced in state legislatures across the country pushing "academic freedom" (this was no coincidence). The only one to pass was, no surprise here, in Louisiana - and the damned law is so loosely written that not only will they push garbage views of evolution in schools, I wouldn't be surprised if someday some nutjob started to justify Holocaust denial in history class via this law.

[skeptigirl]

I guess I should just take my giant single-celled protist and go home.

See, my implication was that the effort of actually reading and understanding the 'slick tool' is beyond the capabilitites of the intended audience. You were supposed to find a bit of sarcastic humor in my comment.Oh no! (http://www.examiner.ie/story/world/qlsnsnsnau/rss2/)