Evidence against Evolution part 1 (disparity before diversity)

by hooberus 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hooberus

  According to the evolutionary teaching (of the descent of all life via universal common ancestry) diversity in the fossil record should precede disparity. ("Disparity refers to the extent of morphological divergence among members of a group, while diversity refers to the number of taxa within a group." Jim Gibson Geoscience Research Institute http://www.grisda.org/origins/23068.htm)
  

  The evolutionary prediction can be illustrated as below:

  http://id-www.ucsb.edu/veritas/JOURNEY/phyla.html

  The fossil record however shows that disparity precedes diversity for the major groups:

  http://id-www.ucsb.edu/veritas/JOURNEY/phyla.html

  "Remarkably, the number of fossil species (diversity) in the Cambrian is low, but the number of phyla and classes (disparity) is high, compared to the numbers in other portions of the geologic column. In general, each phylum or class of Cambrian fossils contains only a few species, while these same groups may have larger numbers of species in strata above the Cambrian. The strata above the Cambrian contain larger numbers of species and families, but few additional phyla. Thus the Cambrian fossils are highly disparate, but the number of species (diversity) is relatively low. This pattern has been called "disparity before diversity" by Stephen Jay Gould." Jim Gibson http://www.grisda.org/origins/23068.htm

  For more information:

  http://id-www.ucsb.edu/veritas/JOURNEY/phyla.html

  http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/STASIS/3.html
• 

  doogie

  hoob:

  attaboy. i like your style (i'm not being facetious...that is a gen-u-ine compliment ). this thread is probably a much better way to get any arguments against evolution out there than posting on the pro-evolution threads. great idea.

  "Remarkably, the number of fossil species (diversity) in the Cambrian is low, but the number of phyla and classes (disparity) is high, compared to the numbers in other portions of the geologic column. In general, each phylum or class of Cambrian fossils contains only a few species, while these same groups may have larger numbers of species in strata above the Cambrian.

  i'm still learning all this stuff, but isn't our whole taxonomical system existent only in hind sight? for instance, during any given period, we wouldn't necessarily say, "oh, well look at that! another new phylum! those suckers are popping up everywhere!" a 'phylum' is only available when we have enough similiar creatures to warrant a common label. we now label things as "100% Alligator" or "100% Seagull" or "All Mammal" but those distinctions are only clear (or possible) in hindsight.
• 

  doogie

  a 'phylum' is only available when we have enough similiar creatures to warrant a common label.

  or in this case no surviving evidence of similiar creatures, so a new phylum would be necessary (again, with the benefit of hindsight).

  just wanted to clarify (i'm only on my first cup of coffee...).
• 

  Narkissos

  Hooberus,

  According to the evolutionary teaching (of the descent of all life via universal common ancestry) diversity in the fossil record should precede disparity.

  How so?

  I know very little about paleontology but this sounds as silly as saying: if modern languages grew out from ancient languages then ancient languages should be structurally less complex (or offer a smaller number of dialectal variations). This is obviously not true and no linguist would "predict" that.

  Methinks your presentation of "the evolutionary teaching" is a strawman.
• 

  funkyderek

  hooberus:

  "Remarkably, the number of fossil species (diversity) in the Cambrian is low, but the number of phyla and classes (disparity) is high, compared to the numbers in other portions of the geologic column."

  How can the number of species be lower than the number of phyla or classes? Even if each species is assigned a separate phylum, there can never be more phyla than there are species. As any taxonomic grouping above species is somewhat arbitrary anyway, this argument falls apart very quickly. I'd be curious to know exactly what you, hooberus, think a phylum is.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  "Remarkably, the number of fossil species (diversity) in the Cambrian is low, but the number of phyla and classes (disparity) is high, compared to the numbers in other portions of the geologic column. In general, each phylum or class of Cambrian fossils contains only a few species, while these same groups may have larger numbers of species in strata above the Cambrian. The strata above the Cambrian contain larger numbers of species and families, but few additional phyla. Thus the Cambrian fossils are highly disparate, but the number of species (diversity) is relatively low. This pattern has been called "disparity before diversity"

  hi hooberus,
  

  yes, this is true. i don't quite see your point though. cambrian fossilization is a difficult thing with the exception of burgess shale, and maotianshan shale in china. there were not many exoskeletal organisms like trilobites (which appear in the lower cambrian). but the cambrian was also marked by an explosion of biological life. the cambrian period is practically the defining moment for different phyla, or phylum. an explosion of phyla, so-to-speak. since the harder bodied fossils of the post cambrian periods filled the different phylums that evolved in the cambrian, the quote above makes sense. so to recap:

  1. the lack of hard bodied organisms led to a lack of knowlege about the many species present in the cambrian, but we know enough about them to define a similar number of phyla to species. the fossils of later hard bodied species fell into the already existing phyla. it makes sense that more species would be seen in the fossil record in post-cambrian strata. surely there where more species than phyla in the cambrian.

  2. the gould quote above even says that the cambrian phyla had a few species within them (read: more species than phyla). the few species that we have observed. cambrian strata locations like burgess shale in BC canada, show us the cambrian explosion of "soft" organisms, and allow us to develop phylum (and species) that still have representation even down to our day.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Hey hoob,

  Nice thread. Here's the way I understand the issue you describe and its cause.

  The issue:
  The Cambrian era gives us fossils representing many phyla, but with relatively few species per phyla. Gradualism predicts a greater diversity of species within a phyla. Therefore, something is amiss.

  The cause:
  Imagine that Cambrian life is as life is now: many phyla, great diversity within a phylum. Eons go by - the Cambrian is long gone. Now, considering that fossilization is rare and we do not find every creature that lived, what do we find when we start digging in the Cambrian? We find a few representatives from many phyla.

  It would be like if we suddenly wiped out all life on earth today, and there was a one-in-a-billion chance of any particular individual being discovered later. Later archaeologists would probably find a couple species of monkeys, a couple cat species, a couple bird species, etc. It is more likely that species would be missing from the discoveries (they are smaller targets) than phyla. Therefore, a greater number of phyla would be discovered, and a smaller number of species relative to the phyla.

  Doesn't sound like an issue to me.

  SNG
• 

  seattleniceguy

  doogie,

  "100% Alligator" or "100% Seagull" or "All Mammal"

  Just wanted to say I had a good laugh over this stuff. :-) "New mammal bars, with 100%, all mammal meat!"

  SNG
• 

  Spook

  Likening fossils to "connecting the dots" reveals something worth noting. You will only ever have dots. One is personally responsible for how far they are willing to go in denying the consensus of authority of paleontology. If two fossils are similar, one can claim that they represent only different members in a constant population. If the fossils are dissimilar (from a layperson's standpoint. Experts have a much keener insight.) enough to be obvious, then cognitive dissonance allows for insisting that they were two seperate lineages from the start. If one expects a virtual flip book of evolution, one has set up a straw man.

  We are in a unique situation with biological engineering approaching the level that chemistry did a century ago. We can now take the genome of organisms A and B, notice the effect of a point mutation in base X to X^1, and observe the result. This can further be tested by transplanting the mutation manually and observing the new species. This is the ultimate test of "microevolution." Since we know that traits are genetically expressed, the mechanism for macroevolution is established. One can demand a macroevolutionary step, but even if done in a lab the hardened opposer could still claim that it was only the work of humans. Finally, if one could be demonstrated in nature, the denyer could claim that the species had always been around.

  I am a soft atheist. I am fully aware that it is possible a god exists since I can't disprove it. I am also fully aware of my standards for what I would need in order to believe in a particular god. I understand that nobody is responsible for those standards but me. Likewise, one can set up false standards for what to expect with anything.
• 

  doogie

  SNG:

  hey! you should get into advertising! you can point out the nutritional benefits of Mammals (or whatever), write a book, get booked on Oprah...this is gonna be HUGE...

  It would be like if we suddenly wiped out all life on earth today, and there was a one-in-a-billion chance of any particular individual being discovered later. Later archaeologists would probably find a couple species of monkeys, a couple cat species, a couple bird species, etc. It is more likely that species would be missing from the discoveries (they are smaller targets) than phyla. Therefore, a greater number of phyla would be discovered, and a smaller number of species relative to the phyla.

  i liked this. great way to put it, very simple.