Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:
- Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?
- Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
- How does evolution produce new and complex features?
- Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?
Darwin - "On Origin of Species"
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by
numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.
Along came a better knowledge and understanding of the cell - with its DNA, and its code of instructions.
The theory of Evolution galloped on.
Along with the fact that the fossil record was not supporting the theory, the Cambrian exploded,
BOOM!
Over 60,000 fossils in the Cambrian Explosion.
95% - 20 phyla of the 27 fossilized of the 36 in the history of life.
...and the search began for a solution - evidence to make the theory fit the facts. The events of the Cambrian explosion are subject of ongoing debate and research.
Fix...
1. The cry that the fossil record is incomplete.
2. Artifact Hypothesis
3. Punctuated equilibrium.
Now that I mentioned punctuated equilibrium, I think it's fitting to mention the "brilliant" mind behind the idea -
Stephen Jay Gould
...see
Conflicts of Minds
4. Now...
Evolution’s Clock Ticked Faster at the Dawn of Modern Animals
This so-called Cambrian explosion kept Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, awake at night, as he worried that his theory of natural selection couldn’t explain the sudden proliferation of species. Now, researchers have combined evidence from the fossil record with clues in the genes of living species to estimate the speed of that evolutionary explosion. Their finding - that the rate of change was high, but still plausible - may put Darwin’s fears to rest.
They found that when some early branches of the arthropod family tree were splitting off, creatures were evolving new traits about four times faster than they did in the following 500 million years. The creatures' genetic codes were changing by about .117% every million years - approximately 5.5 times faster than modern estimates, the group reports online today in Current Biology. Lee calls this pace “fast, but not too fast” to reconcile with Darwin’s theory.
This combined model for genes and anatomy represents “quite a stride forward,” Wills says. The results not only show that the evolutionary clock ticked much faster around the time of the Cambrian, but also hint at what may have sped it up. The fact that genes and anatomy evolved at roughly the same rate suggest that pressures to adapt and survive in a world of new, complex predators drove both, the authors speculate. Innovations such as exoskeletons, vision, and jaws created new niches and evolution sped up to fill them. Wills agrees that the new research makes this explanation for the Cambrian explosion “look a lot more probable now.”
Others caution that such analysis is in its infancy. “It’s an excellent first step,” says Douglas Erwin, a paleontologist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., but the exact rates of evolution in the study might not be reliable. He points out that while the study uses fossil data to determine when a given arthropod branch emerged, it doesn’t include the known characteristics of these extinct ancestors in its comparisons of physical traits, which involve only living creatures.
Some of the assumptions the authors make in estimating these emergence dates are also problematic, says Philip Donoghue, a paleobiologist at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom. But he believes future iterations of this approach - incorporating fossil traits into the analysis - will yield a powerful new tool: “All the cool kids will be doing it soon.”
Major fossil study sheds new light on emergence of early animal life 540 million years ago
...new research from the University of Oxford in collaboration with the University of Lausanne suggests that for most animals this 'explosion' was in fact a more gradual process.
The new analysis presents a challenge to the two major competing hypotheses about early animal evolution. The first of these suggests a slow, gradual evolution of euarthropods starting 650-600 million years ago, which had been consistent with earlier molecular dating estimates of their origin. The other hypothesis claims the nearly instantaneous appearance of euarthropods 540 million years ago because of highly elevated rates of evolution.
The new research suggests a middle-ground between these two hypotheses...
...and the theory gallops on, as the algorithms are built up as evidence to support the undeniable facts that evolution fails to account for the diversity of living things.
Yet there is no evidence for intelligent design.
Just modern day myths.
The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary Complexity
...
recently some scientists and philosophers have suggested that complexity can arise through other routes. Some argue that life has a built-in tendency to become more complex over time. Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection - the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed “the blind watchmaker.” To some extent, it just happens.
Darwin's Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush
Researchers at Vanderbilt University are tied up in knots trying to locate Darwin’s branching tree in contradictory data.
......
Read the article as well as the source -
Untangling the Tree of Life
Evolutionists have been concocting Darwin trees in spite of the evidence ever since Darwin acknowledged the Cambrian explosion as a real problem that lodged a valid objection to his theory ...
Darwinism is a classic case of Finagle’s Rule #3, “Draw your curves, then plot your data.” Guru Charlie drew his little tree sketch by faith, then sent his disciples out on a hopeless quest to find evidence to support it.
Now, ... these guys are still telling us the tree vision is in conflict with the data!
They have to finagle their methods (“novel approaches”) to try to force a match with the uncooperative genes.
...they are even willing to lie, tossing out “uninformative” data sets and only using data that appear to support their foreordained conclusion. Were you told
*the above* in biology class? Did your textbook mention
*the above*? No; but you hear it here on CEH all the time, because we bring out into the open the dirty deals
evolutionists whisper to themselves in the journals.