The Evolutionist Koonin at it again

[bob b]

Eugene Koonin seems to recognize that there is a problem with the conventional Darwinian hypothesis, but prefers to make up wild stories about what happened prior to Cambrian explosion to explain the data instead of admitting that creation of multiple types in the beginning (as Genesis states) is the real answer to his dilemma.

------

The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Eugene V Koonin
Biology Direct 2007, 2:21doi:10.1186/1745-6150-2-21 [open access]

From the Abstract:
Hypothesis: I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show the "explosive" pattern of emergence of new types of biological entities correspond to a boundary between two qualitatively distinct evolutionary phases. The first, inflationary phase is characterized by extremely rapid evolution driven by various processes of genetic information exchange, such as horizontal gene transfer, recombination, fusion, fission, and spread of mobile elements. These processes give rise to a vast diversity of forms from which the main classes of entities at the new level of complexity emerge independently, through a sampling process. In the second phase, evolution dramatically slows down, the respective process of genetic information exchange tapers off, and multiple lineages of the new type of entities emerge, each of them evolving in a tree-like fashion from that point on. [snip]

Conclusion: A Biological Big Bang ( BBB ) model is proposed for the major transitions in life's evolution. According to this model, each transition is a BBB such that new classes of biological entities emerge at the end of a rapid phase of evolution (inflation) that is characterized by extensive exchange of genetic information which takes distinct forms for different BBBs. The major types of new forms emerge independently, via a sampling process, from the pool of recombining entities of the preceding generation. This process is envisaged as being qualitatively different from tree-pattern cladogenesis.

Quote from the Background: "There seems to be a striking commonality between all major transitions in the evolution of life. In each new class of biological objects, the principal types emerge abruptly, and intermediate grades (e.g., intermediates between the precellular stage of evolution and prokaryotic cells or between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells), typically, cannot be identified."

 

[Supremum]

Conclusion: A Biological Big Bang ( BBB ) model is proposed for the major transitions in life's evolution. According to this model, each transition is a BBB such that new classes of biological entities emerge at the end of a rapid phase of evolution (inflation) that is characterized by extensive exchange of genetic information which takes distinct forms for different BBBs. The major types of new forms emerge independently, via a sampling process, from the pool of recombining entities of the preceding generation. This process is envisaged as being qualitatively different from tree-pattern cladogenesis.

This isn't new. This is what is shown in informational evolutionary-model simulations. He is simply giving a biological-language analog.

wild stories

:darwinsm:

 

[bob b]

From Koonin's paper:

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.

And

Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps – if they read that far into the paper. However, I am afraid that, if our goal as evolutionary biologists is to avoid providing any grist for the ID mill, we should simply claim that Darwin, “in principle”, solved all the problems of the origin of biological complexity in his eye story, and only minor details remain to be filled in. Actually, I think the position of some ultra-darwinists is pretty close to that. However, I believe that this is totally counter-productive and such a notion is outright false. And, the ID folks are clever in their own perverse way, they see through such false simplicity and seize on it. I think we (students of evolution) should openly admit that emergence of new levels of complexity is a complex problem and should try to work out solutions some of which could be distinctly non-orthodox....

Like multiple types at the beginning?

 

[Supremum]

Yep.

 

[Nineveh]

I was sort of wondering if merely disavowing ID at the outset would help him retain his credentials.

(I can't recall the scientists, but wasn't there a Canadian a few years back who offered a muti cell beginning and was outcast?)

 

[Mr Jack]

The first, inflationary phase is characterized by extremely rapid evolution...

What extremely rapid evolution? There's something like 2.3 Ga between the first life and the first signs of complex multicellular life, and 300 Ma between the Epicurian Fauna and the life of the Burgess Shale. This does not speak to me of extremely rapid evolution.

I take the view that the fossil record of the pre-cambrian is so very patchy that all "explosive" theories are basically explaining artefacts of the fossil record.

 

[jackiechan]

make up wild stories

rofl! You're a funny one.

 

[bob b]

What extremely rapid evolution? There's something like 2.3 Ga between the first life and the first signs of complex multicellular life, and 300 Ma between the Epicurian Fauna and the life of the Burgess Shale. This does not speak to me of extremely rapid evolution.

I take the view that the fossil record of the pre-cambrian is so very patchy that all "explosive" theories are basically explaining artefacts of the fossil record.

So like Gould, the evidence for your position is that there is no evidence.

:rotfl:

 

[Mr Jack]

So like Gould, the evidence for your position is that there is no evidence.

In a way, yes. There's overwhelming evidence of evolution through the entire period we have decent evidence for. I see no reason to assume, without evidence, that it is any different during the period we have only patchy evidence for.

 

[bob b]

In a way, yes. There's overwhelming evidence of evolution through the entire period we have decent evidence for. I see no reason to assume, without evidence, that it is any different during the period we have only patchy evidence for.

I find it odd that evolutionists refuse to consider the possibility that Genesis is correct: i.e. multiple types at the beginning.

This hypothesis solves many problems.

1) abiogenesis,

2) how the DNA/RNA/protein interrelated complex arose,

3) how sexual reproduction arose,

etc.

 

[Mr Jack]

I find it odd that evolutionists refuse to consider the possibility that Genesis is correct: i.e. multiple types at the beginning.

That's hardly "Genesis is correct".

1) abiogenesis

No, it doesn't. There was no life 13.7 Ga ago, almost certainly no life 4.6 Ga ago and then there is 3.8 Ga ago. Multiple origins simply moves the problem to how life arose multiple independent times on earth.

2) how the DNA/RNA/protein interrelated complex arose

Again, it doesn't. And it adds the extra problem of explaining why these multiple origin points all ended up in such similar creatures.

3) how sexual reproduction arose

Nope, as above.

Unless you put forward the view that life sprung forth fully formed, but then you're stuck with how it managed to do that.

Given the remarkable similarities between all life on earth, the most parsimonious explanation is that all life shares a single common ancestor.

 

[Granite]

I find it beyond stunning how easily creationists can misunderstand scientific literature or evolutionary theory in general.

 

[bob b]

Unless you put forward the view that life sprung forth fully formed, but then you're stuck with how it managed to do that.

Obviously it did but not "naturally".

Given the remarkable similarities between all life on earth, the most parsimonious explanation is that all life shares a single common ancestor.

Nope. The best explanation is that there was a single intelligent designer.

This hypothesis solves the numerous mysteries I outlined above.

 

[Mr Jack]

Nope. The best explanation is that there was a single intelligent designer.

Godditit is not an explanation. It makes no predictions. It cannot be tested. It answers no 'why' questions. It answers no 'how' questions. And it poses more questions than it answers.

This hypothesis solves the numerous mysteries I outlined above.

It's begging the question. Pure and simple.

 

[Mr Jack]

And, for that matter, when did this 'single intelligent designer' do this? Did he do it 3.8 Ga ago? Leaving no evidence of his multiple points of creation for 2.3 Ga? Or did he visit at multiple times? Popping in about 800 Ma to create the Epicurian Fauna before deciding they weren't all that much cop and starting again with the Burgess Shale?

 

[bob b]

And, for that matter, when did this 'single intelligent designer' do this? Did he do it 3.8 Ga ago? Leaving no evidence of his multiple points of creation for 2.3 Ga? Or did he visit at multiple times? Popping in about 800 Ma to create the Epicurian Fauna before deciding they weren't all that much cop and starting again with the Burgess Shale?

I have already explained multiple times that the universe is a mere 6 to 7 thousand years old.

Scripture says multiple times that God stretched out the heavens. This obviously would include light rays in transit and hence what we see iin our telescopes is what happened in the past. Note that the Red Shift is a function of how much expansion has occurred, NOT how long it took for the expansion to occur.

Thus the Earth was probably formed of material which seemingly had billions of years of radioactive decay in it.

The Greek idea of a billions-of-years universe is part of the modern scientific "fairy tale".

 

[Granite]

That is so much ignorant junk science, bob.:down:

 

[Supremum]

What extremely rapid evolution? There's something like 2.3 Ga between the first life and the first signs of complex multicellular life, and 300 Ma between the Epicurian Fauna and the life of the Burgess Shale. This does not speak to me of extremely rapid evolution.

I think what he is trying to get at is that when there are no net selective pressures on an ecosystem, populations speciate very rapidly. This happens in artificial life simulations both in the first few generations, and at "hot spots" later on.

seemingly billions of years old

Are you actually suggesting that we throw out data as flawed with absolutely no counter-evidence? Boggle.

 

[Mr Jack]

I have already explained multiple times that the universe is a mere 6 to 7 thousand years old.

Scripture says multiple times that God stretched out the heavens. This obviously would include light rays in transit and hence what we see iin our telescopes is what happened in the past. Note that the Red Shift is a function of how much expansion has occurred, NOT how long it took for the expansion to occur.

Thus the Earth was probably formed of material which seemingly had billions of years of radioactive decay in it.

The Greek idea of a billions-of-years universe is part of the modern scientific "fairy tale".

I think you've answered your own question then. Evolutionists have a problem with your ideas because they contradict all known evidence.

 

[bob b]

Are you actually suggesting that we throw out data as flawed with absolutely no counter-evidence? Boggle.

The raw data is not flawed, but the interpretation is.

Evolutionists have a problem with your ideas because they contradict all known evidence.

No, they only contradict their interpretation of the evidence.