[Taxacom] Darwin's Doubt
kinman at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 12 20:24:02 CDT 2019
Here is a weblink to a paper published in 2017 ("First macrobiota biomineralization was environmentally triggered") which states that "Our findings support the assertion that the calcification was an independent and derived feature that appeared in diverse groups where an organic scaffold was the primitive character, which provided the framework for interactions between the extracellular matrix and mineral ions."
Therefore, a relatively sudden explosion of hard parts occurred in a variety of different animal phyla that were previously soft-bodied, and predator pressures then escalated the numbers of other taxa needing the protection of hard parts from predators with hardened mouthparts. It was a sort of "arms race".
From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of David Campbell <pleuronaia at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Darwin's Doubt
is an extensive article specifically on the issues relating to the Cambrian
radiation, aimed at ID and young earth claims.
https://biologos.org/articles/reviewing-darwins-doubt-introduction has a
series of articles specifically reviewing Darwin's Doubt (and noting that
the ID crowd has misrepresented this response).
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:52 AM Frederick W. Schueler <bckcdb at istar.ca>
> On 10-Mar.-19 9:17 p.m., Kenneth Kinman wrote:
> > Challenging intelligent design by a "creator" is very difficult when it
> comes to the origin of life (and its biochemistry)....
> > From: David Campbell <pleuronaia at gmail.com>
> > "Intelligent Design" is highly challenging to deal with because it's
> > protean....
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 6:08 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> >> I'm not sure what there is to discuss - scientifically that is.
> * thanks for these general thoughts on Intelligent Design - but I was
> wondering about commentary on this particular book, and its assertions
> about the Cambrian diversification of Animal phyla, and more
> particularly on the general ID assertion that there hasn't been
> sufficient time for mutations to originate and be organized into
> adaptations by natural selection. This seems absurd to me, but ID sorts
> constantly make it. Rather than seeing the punctuations of punk-eek as
> the Red Queen unleashed by a lack of stabilizing selection, they affirm
> that this is the finger of God poking lineages along in a divine
> direction, and that anything that can be observed to happen isn't
> "macro" enough to count as real evolutionary change. I wonder if there's
> a published straight-on refutation of this?
> If there isn't, I'll chew my way through the book, and see where it
> goes. So far, I think it's charming the way the author blames Darwin for
> not being up on all the nuances of the evolution of protein folding...
> >>> Taxacomers,
> >>> I'm in a discussion group with some intelligent design enthusiasts, and
> >>> this week we're going to be discussing "Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive
> >>> Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design" -
> >>> https://darwinsdoubt.com/ - which seems to me so far to be based on
> >>> argument from personal incredulity, but I don't know much about the
> >>> evolution of protein folding, and I wonder what others have thought
> >>> about this. I have seen this book called "a masterwork of
> >>> pseudoscience," and it doesn't seem to explore the Great Unconformity,
> >>> or the selection pressures that would have been present on an unsettled
> >>> animate morphology moving into a completely vacant niche space... -
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Taxacom