The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[PauloL]

For multicellularity to emerge, Earth had to have oxygen and it took billions of years for bacteria to create enough oxygen. They were quite visionary and did it with providential perseverance.

Multicellularity first emerged 2.1 billion years ago, but something "went wrong" and it extinguished. Then, 600 million years ago, it reemerged just before Cambric explosion only 60 million years later, in which all fila (except one) emerged.

[PauloL]

For multicellularity to emerge, Earth had to have oxygen and it took billions of years for bacteria to create enough oxygen. These bacteria were quite visionary and did it with providential perseverance.

Multicellularity first emerged 2.1 billion years ago, but something "went wrong" and it extinguished. Then, 600 million years ago, it reemerged just before Cambric explosion only 60 million years later, in which all fila (except one) emerged.

Once Cambric explosion didn't contemplate rabbits, for instance, Evolutionauts think Darwinism is in order. Cambric explosion was a hydrogen bomb. So, rabbits could have come in a smaller explosion, a grenade, let's say.

[PauloL]

Random genetic drift does not involve selection.

No. Neither explains it evolution tough.

People often confuse Genetics with Evolutionomics (Evolutionism is considered derogatory by Evolutionauts, so I avoid it).

[Londoner]

For multicellularity to emerge, Earth had to have oxygen and it took billions of years for bacteria to create enough oxygen. They were quite visionary and did it with providential perseverance.

Multicellularity first emerged 2.1 billion years ago, but something "went wrong" and it extinguished. Then, 600 million years ago, it reemerged just before Cambric explosion only 60 million years later, in which all fila (except one) emerged.

I do not think that is right. When you write 'Multicellularity first emerged 2.1 billion years ago' is this a reference to Eukaryotic cells? If so, they didn't go away. These cells developed into plants, fungi etc. and then we get multicellular forms around 900 million years ago, which themselves diversify.

I take it 'Cambric' is a typo for 'Cambrian'? The Cambrian Explosion starts about 540 million years ago. But before that there was no disappearance and reappearance of multicellular forms.

But I am not sure what point you are making. Is it that the emergence of multicellularity is inexplicaple by science? Or the Cambrian Explosion?

[PauloL]

Yes, I mean "Cambrian", that was a lapsus calami, i.e. a typo.

For multicellularity emergence 2.1 billion years ago, I mean the findings of macroorganisms near Franceville, Gabon. These macroorganisms extinguished before Cambrian explosion:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 01-10.html

I wouldn't say anything is inexplicable by science, but Cambrian explosion is a problem for Evolutionomics indeed.

It's inexplicable how an electron orbits a nucleus forever, like a perpetual machine, which doesn't mean there are supernatural forces operating of course.

But if you just tell me I'm wrong, I am ignorant of Physics, and so on, there's something wrong with your argumentation from the very scientific point of view. That's what happens when one queries Evolutionomics, people use irrational argumentation without being aware of that, or pretending not to be.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Well, it's really hard for you defining at once what a mass of cells is.

Sometimes its just a mass of cells, sometimes its gathered together into a brain. What's your point?

[PauloL]

Same as yours.

[Londoner]

Yes, I mean "Cambrian", that was a lapsus calami, i.e. a typo.

For multicellularity emergence 2.1 billion years ago, I mean the findings of macroorganisms near Franceville, Gabon. These macroorganisms extinguished before Cambrian explosion:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 01-10.html

I wouldn't say anything is inexplicable by science, but Cambrian explosion is a problem for Evolutionomics indeed.

It's inexplicable how an electron orbits a nucleus forever, like a perpetual machine, which doesn't mean there are supernatural forces operating of course.

But if you just tell me I'm wrong, I am ignorant of Physics, and so on, there's something wrong with your argumentation from the very scientific point of view. That's what happens when one queries Evolutionomics, people use irrational argumentation without being aware of that, or pretending not to be.

I'm sure others know better, but I understand that the mental picture we have of an electron orbiting a nucleus is just a way we visualise a mathematical function - and like all visualisations it is misleading. I think the same is true of a lot of the ways we think of science. (With evolution, I know people get stuck on those animations where a fish morphs into an amphibian and so on until it finally becomes a human.)

Isn't the problem that the way this stuff works is always going to seem irrational, in that it doesn't correspond to the way we normally make sense of the world? For example, we tend to assume change is incremental, so big changes must take longer than small ones - but the reality may be that you have near stasis followed by 'explosions'. Similarly we like to categorise things, define them into discrete groups, such that we can be logical about them. But at a certain level these categories are no longer meaningful. So with evolution, we want to say A evolved into B, but it would be equally valid to say that A and B are still the same thing.

In other words, I do not think we can trust that our notions of 'what makes sense' are necessarily reliable.

[PauloL]

True.

Are you prepared to discuss hemoglobin gene, one of Evolutionomics pearls?

[Londoner]

True.

Are you prepared to discuss hemoglobin gene, one of Evolutionomics pearls?

Prepared? No! But I will look it up.

[davidm]

1. The Cambrian "Explosion" is not a problem for evolution.

2. Natural selection and genetic drift, along with sexual selection, do not "explain" evolution; they are evolution.

3. Hemoglobin gene ... Hmm! What will we be treated to this time? "'Evidence" from the Answers in Genesis website?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'Theory' of evolution is a misleading term and open to abuse by religious nutters. Evolution isn't a theory, it just 'is'. You might as well say the 'theory of life', or the 'theory of colour'. The only 'theory' part is in some of the fine details of this change over time that we refer to as 'evolution'.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

For multicellularity to emerge, Earth had to have oxygen and it took billions of years for bacteria to create enough oxygen. These bacteria were quite visionary and did it with providential perseverance.

Multicellularity first emerged 2.1 billion years ago, but something "went wrong" and it extinguished. Then, 600 million years ago, it reemerged just before Cambric explosion only 60 million years later, in which all fila (except one) emerged.

Once Cambric explosion didn't contemplate rabbits, for instance, Evolutionauts think Darwinism is in order. Cambric explosion was a hydrogen bomb. So, rabbits could have come in a smaller explosion, a grenade, let's say.

Interesting how you pick and choose which scientific claims to accept and which not to. How do you know 'multicellularity first emerged 2.1 billion years ago, but something ''went wrong'' and it extinguished blah blah...' ? Were you there?

[Greta]

The answer, as always, is that unimaginable changes can happen over the unimaginable scope of deep time.

The intuitions of little humans with their little short lives don't mean much in context.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Dumb luck for an accident, creating multicellular life.

Unfortunately for us, in case of accident we'll most likely get cancer.

But mother Nature always has dumb luck and our [female] common ancestor (for which there's no fossil record, a geological imperfection, but as always Evolutionauts think it will come) instead of cancer in case of accident started lambing hordes of Homo sapiens-to be.

Can anyone venture a guess what the above nonsense babble is supposed to mean?

Obviously there has to be a most recent female common ancestor at some point, or are you saying there should be a fossil somewhere with 'MRFCA' imprinted on it?