No Way Out
The emergence of multicellular animals or metazoans from their single-celled ancestors is one of the most important evolutionary transitions in the history of life. However, little is known about how this transition took place.
Indeed. Little is known about how multicellularity evolved simply because it is not plausible to begin with. The result is vague speculation that sometimes looks more like just-so stories than scientific hypotheses:
We have proposed that the evolution of soma involved the co-option of ancestral life-history genes whose expression was conditioned on environmental cues (as an adaptive strategy to enhance survival at an immediate cost to reproduction), through shifting their expression from a temporal/ environmentally-induced into a spatial/ developmental context.
Of course evolutionists must believe that it occurred—someway, somehow. And in typical fashion, even if evolutionists cannot explain how something evolved, at least they can provide the usual fitness rationale and draw up the usual evolutionary trees depicting when it evolved and how it propagated along the evolutionary tree according to evolution’s pattern of common descent.
Unfortunately for evolutionists this exercise usually frustrates the theory as the various biological wonders inevitably do not follow the pattern of common descent, but instead arise independently more than once.
That is nowhere more true than with the miracle of multicellularity which, if evolution is true, must have independently evolved more than, err, twenty-five times.
Evolution not only is apparently quite good at constructing biological wonders, it does it over, and over, and over again.
The theory is saved, however, because we know it is a fact.
Another excellent post! Keep 'em coming.
ReplyDeleteAbout the evolutionist just-so story: How is multicellularity enhancing survival? And what's with an "immediate cost to reproduction"? Isn't selection all about reproductive success?
Just wondering, in what way is biological evolution considered a scientific fact?
ReplyDeleteRich:
DeleteThe theory of evolution refers to the details of how evolution occurred. The fact of evolution refers to evolution per se, that is, that the species arose via natural law and chance events. Evolutionists claim the latter is true, beyond any reasonable doubt and on the same level as the fact the Earth is round, heliocentrism, and gravity. IOW, there is no room in rational discourse for any doubt about the fact of evolution, even though the details need to be worked out.
Since the physical details concerning the shape of the Earth and the physical facts demonstrating that the Earth indeed rotates around the Sun are known, these can certainly be entertained as scientific facts.
DeleteSince you acknowledged that the details of biological evolution "need to be worked out" and recognizing that science cannot just assume facts to be true, would you agree that biological evolution can only exist as a philosophical fact - not a scientific fact?
Rich:
DeleteYes, I agree. From a scientific perspective it is worse than merely "need to be worked out". The theory is astronomically improbable. Evolution assert it is a fact on the basis of their metaphysics. I don't have a problem with that so long as we remember the underlying reasoning that led to the conclusion that it is a fact. It all comes from certain theological and philosophical assumptions.
Earlier this year evolutionists gathered in Barcelona to discuss the evolution of multicellularity. It is yet another challenging topic because it contradicts the evolutionary model.
ReplyDeleteIf little is known about how multicellularity emerged, it also means we don't know whether or not it contradicts evolutionary theory.
It is creationists who commit the Hoyle Fallacy not evolutionists. And miracles are the province of your side not science.
Indeed. Little is known about how multicellularity evolved simply because it is not plausible to begin with.
Ignorance does not mean the same as implausible.
Of course evolutionists must believe that it occurred—someway, somehow.
If anyone has a better explanation, let's hear it.
Unfortunately for evolutionists this exercise usually frustrates the theory as the various biological wonders inevitably do not follow the pattern of common descent, but instead arise independently more than once.
That is nowhere more true than with the miracle of multicellularity which, if evolution is true, must have independently evolved more than, err, twenty-five times.
If something can happen once, in other words it's possible, then it can happen other times as well, if circumstances are favorable. So this is a problem exactly how?
Ian: If anyone has a better explanation, let's hear it.
DeleteJ: There is no explanation of biological history. It would take more propositions to imply the relevant observations than humans are willing to spend. Thus, there is no better or worse explanation. All that exists are stories told as histories. The so-called "religious" ones at least explain the reality of a moral order, etc. The naturalistic ones explain nothing that the "religious" ones don't.