hooberus, when I made the post (on page 6 of this topic) that
Haldane and Dawkins said that Precambrian rabbits would disprove
evolution, it was not just to say that they think such. It was also
because for me it would be a huge problem for the idea of biological
evolution being a fact and of the idea of the correctness of the
prevailing Modern Synthesis theory (and its proposed extension) of
biological evolution being correct. [I would also consider it as further
disproof of the Genesis chapter one account of creation, since that
account says that the first land animals were created after the first
fish and not before the first fish.] Regarding the "extended
evolutionary synthesis" see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis . hooberus, you might appreciate an expect of that extension of the theory, for the article says the following. 'Notably, Dr. Müller concluded from this research that Natural Selection
has no way of explaining speciation, saying: “selection has no
innovative capacity...the generative and the ordering aspects of
morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.”
'
For me, the prevailing known fossil record is a big
pat of the evidence proving biological evolution. The evidence from it
(including the radiometric dating of fossils and of geologic layers)
combined with the evidence from comparative anatomy and from
biogeography are sufficient to convince me that biological evolution
happened, and the modern evidence from DNA (showing common ancestry)
makes the proof much stronger. But if fossil rabbits were found in the
Precambrian and without any other vertebrate fossils (even of fish) found in the Precambrian and
without any fossils of land plants found in the Precambrian, that would
be extremely perplexing for me and a huge problem to me. Not only would it be
very hard to make sense of from the point of view of biological evolution, but
it would also be perplexing as to how could the rabbits (even if
specially created by a god) survive without vegetation on land to eat?
The rabbits could not live under water and I don't think they could dive
into water to eat submerged plants without drowning. Perhaps they could
swim and eat plants which were sticking up out of the water; I do not
know about that. But they would have to spend much of life in the water,
and it would be very hard for me to believe that Precambrian rabbits
would spend much of their life in the water, hence I think there would
be a contradiction.
If fossil rabbits were found in
Precambrian without any other vertebrate fossils (even of fish) and
without any fossils of land plants also being found in the Precambrian
that would be extremely strange. While it would not disprove the idea of
the evolution of life which came into existence after the Precambrian,
it would make it extremely hard to believe that the Precambrian fossil
rabbits evolved from life of other genera than the genera of the rabbits. To me it
would be strong evidence against the evolution of the Precambrian
rabbits. I think that because I strongly believe that fossil record is not incomplete
in regards to not showing the existence of fish, reptiles, non-Rabbit mammals, and
land plants in the Precambrian. I think the absence of fossil evidence of such is evidence that such life did exist in the Precambrian, and thus if fossil rabbits were found in the Precambrian it would be very hard to explain how those rabbits came to exist by an evolutionary process.
Fossils
of Precambrian rabbits would cause me to wonder if humans from the
future time traveled to the Precambrian and brought many rabbits with
them to that time. But it would be extremely hard to also accept that
idea. But perhaps if Precambrian fossils were only a very recent
discovery, then perhaps I would think that fossils of Precambrian
fossils of other mammals and of other vertebrates would be found,
including ones which would show transitional features supporting the
idea that the Precambrian rabbits evolved from other general of
Precambrian animals.
Regarding the https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution saying "First of all, it must be remembered that the fossil record is merely supporting evidence for evolution ... Indeed, natural selection was initially formulated without the aid of fossil record, and subsequent DNA evidence can stand completely without it", I say the following.
It is true that the fossil record is supporting evidence for biological
evolution, but prior to the discovery of the genomes of many species it
was also key evidence for evolution (though some evolutionist
scientists during the 1970s -1995 said the fossil record did not prove
evolution, while admitting that other scientific evidence did collectively prove
evolution). When I read scientific literature printed before 1995 I see
the fossil record as providing a great deal of the evidence for
evolution, though I wish it provided provided many more examples of
animals with transitional features. Fortunately after 1995 many more
examples of fossils of animals with transitional features have been
discovered. Now we can see a clear progression of transitional features
from fish without paired fins, to fish with paired fins, to fish with
lobe fines, to fish with proto-legs and proto-feet, and to true
amphibians.We also we can see some of the stages of progression of
transitional features from amphibians to reptiles and from amphibians to
mammal-like synapsids (formerly called mammal-like reptiles and
sometimes still called such), and from mammal-like synapsids to true
mammals. Likewise we see fossils of animals with transitional
features between other taxonomic groups, including of non-avian
feathered dinosaurs, of whales with legs and feet, and of that which is
commonly called ape-men.
I am not sure that the claim of "natural selection was initially formulated without
the aid of fossil record" is true. Darwin became convinced of evolution
(which he and other people initially called transmutation of the species)
largely from a combination of the fossil record and of comparative
anatomy. For Darwin, another major factor was biogeography. Darwin
started seriously thinking that evolution was true from his
contemplation of the fossils he discovered during his voyages on the
Beagle and from his observations of biogeography during his voyages on
the Beagle. He came to believe in transmutation of the species
(evolution) before he thought up the theory of natural selection as the
primary mechanism of evolution. Such is seen in the notes which Darwin
made (if my memory is correct about such).
hooberus, since
you wrote 'So we see that evolutionary theory is flexible enough to
accommodate “Precambrian rabbits” ' and because you wrote 'ReMine documents how natural selection is composed of
numerous mechanisms operating discordantly over a complex “fitness
terrain” ', I think think you might find interesting the following words from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015 (in an article called "Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary").
"The theory of evolution is the fundamental conceptual framework of
biology all scientific explanations of living phenomena must be
consistent with. As it does not describe a universal law regarding a
single natural phenomenon, such as gravity, but rather the principles of
organismal change over time, based on the highly complex inputs and
interactions of a multiplicity of different factors, evolutionary theory
cannot be expected to remain static but is subject to change in the
light of new empirical evidence.
... Evolutionary biology, as practised today, does not represent a single
coherent approach but includes sets of different topics and research
programmes. "
The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis lists the following predictions of extended evolutionary synthesis.
"Predictions
The
extended synthesis is characterized by its additional set of
predictions that differ from the standard modern synthesis theory:
- change in phenotype can precede change in genotype[4]
- changes in phenotype are predominantly positive, rather than neutral (see: neutral theory of molecular evolution)
- changes in phenotype are induced in many organisms, rather than one organism[4]
- revolutionary change in phenotype can occur through mutation, facilitated variation[4] or threshold events[39][54]
- repeated evolution in isolated populations can be by convergent evolution or developmental bias[4][31]
- adaptation can be caused by natural selection, environmental
induction, non-genetic inheritance, learning and cultural transmission
(see: Baldwin effect, meme, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, ecological inheritance, non-Mendelian inheritance)[4]
- rapid evolution can result from simultaneous induction, natural selection[4] and developmental dynamics[55]
- biodiversity can be affected by features of developmental systems such as differences in evolvability[4]
- heritable variation is directed towards variants that are adaptive and integrated with phenotype[4]
- niche construction
is biased towards environmental changes that suit the constructor's
phenotype, or that of its descendants, and enhance their fitness[2]
- kin selection[3]
- multilevel selection[4]
- self-organization[40][56] "
See also
https://www.templeton.org/discoveries/extended-evolutionary-synthesis
. So far I have only browsed the above mentioned articles about the
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, but I intend to read much more of their content
since their ideas seem very interesting and very helpful to me. Some of their ideas
remind me of what Francis Hitching wrote in his book called
Neck Of The Giraffe. Despite a number of severe criticisms made by numerous
evolutionists about that book and its author, Francis Hitching got many
things right in that book and his book fascinates me. One edition of his
book even had the subtitle of "Darwin, Evolution and the New Biology"
(see
https://www.amazon.com.au/Neck-Giraffe-Francis-Hitching/dp/0451624343
). What Hitching wrote about "the New Biology" includes a number of the
ideas which are now referred to as part of the Extended Evolutionary
Synthesis!
