Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8144 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-24-2014 11:26 PM
78 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Happy Birthday: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,566 Year: 24,407/28,606 Month: 1,708/1,786 Week: 570/423 Day: 110/101 Hour: 3/14

Announcements: Emails Restored


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3334
35
3637
...
65NextFF
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4755
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 511 of 968 (600652)
01-15-2011 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 509 by Dawn Bertot
01-15-2011 11:47 PM


Osteology at Dawn
Is there a place where I could see side beside, these comparisons

I mean we have everything from spider monkeys to gorilla pusses and everything in between

perhaps we are just looking at a type of primate, not necessarily in some chain headed twords man

Of course enough evidence would support that, but i believe evidence of that nature is lacking and keeps people doubtful of its conclusions

Anyway it would be interesting to see these comparisons. so hook me up nature boy

There are a number of websites that you can access that sell replicas of most skulls and the important paleontological finds.

Try this one for a start:

http://www.boneclones.com/

They have an extensive collection of skulls and other bones. But you can't just look at the pictures. To learn about these specimens you have to do some detailed study, and really you would need to study under an expert. Two years of concentrated effort should be good for a start. (I did six years in grad school, half time, studying osteology and evolution and closely related fields.)

Edited by Coyote, : Change title


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2011 11:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 512 of 968 (600678)
01-16-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by Dawn Bertot
01-15-2011 10:37 PM


Re: Dawn's Incredulity vs Reality
Dawn, you are quite the most trite and empty poster we have had here in years. All you seem capable of doing is mindlessly repeating yourself.

I have always wondered what these things might look like intact, bodies and all.

Well go and study anthropology then.

At any rate the lack of intact creatures in the fossil record, the scarcity in the fossil record and the inablity to view them as they actually were, always leaves doubt as to what they might actually have been, muchless whether is some chain leading to chimpanzees and modern humans

I don't really care about your doubts, given that you don't know a single damn thing about what you're talking about.

If you want to have your opinions taken seriously, you need to learn more. You need to bring real objections, based upon real evidence. Your undereducated opinions count for jack shit.

great numbers of fossils that claim to be a certain type of species or type of humanoid or hominid would bolster the supposed chain in the examples you provide

You ask for "great numbers" and "tons" of fossils, but in actual fact, you haven't the slightest idea how many non-human Hominina fossils exist have you? Pathetic. You opine from a position of pig ignorance. How despicable.

I'm done with you. All you do is repeat yourself and fail miserably in your childish attempts at wit. You have no point, you have no argument, so I'm done wasting my time on you for now.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2011 10:37 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 11443
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 513 of 968 (600680)
01-16-2011 9:46 AM


Moderator Advisory
Threads in which Dawn Bertot participates tend to begin focusing on Dawn more than the topic. I have two choices:

  1. I can ask Dawn to stop participating in this thread; or

  2. Other participants can either:
    1. Ignore Dawn; or
    2. Figure out how to engage with Dawn on-topic.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
shadow71
Member
Posts: 704
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 514 of 968 (600740)
01-16-2011 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by RAZD
01-14-2011 8:32 PM


Re: yawn
Does the science of evolution include what causes the mechanisms of evolution to work, not just how they work?

razd writes:

Are you expecting us to debate Dr. Koonin's work against a blank slate? Clearly you seem to be enamored of his work, and to fail to support it after claiming that you find it compelling is rather ... somewhat ... disappointing? Perhaps you are not qualified (undereducated) to speak on this topic but present it because it reinforces some beliefs you have, but are honest enough to realize that you do not have the expertize to discuss it from a scientific basis (which is okay with me).

You have his paper to read. You can refute his findings if they are not accurate. I assumed all scientists read papers , agree, disagree etc.. and reply to the author's findings.
So I don't think you are working with a blank slate.

I have never claimed to be a biologist, but I do feel I have the education to read and understand what is being written.

Would you have the education to explain how product liability case law should be followed in order to prove a case in front of the jury in a case?
Probably not, but you could read it and form your opinions on it, correct?

razd writes:

That kind of sums it up in a nutshell. We already have a web of life at the early stages from other sources, and we already have horizontal gene transfer between bacteria as a means of genetic exchange for single cellular life. These are not new, nor are they earth shaking revelations that shake the foundations of the science of evolution or rattle the walls of the ivory towers of the scientists that study evolution.

Are you findings consistent with "Crick's Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" or do you agree that Crick's Dogma has been replaced by new findings by Temin and Mitzutant et. al. that have changed cellular informatics, and how the interpretation of changes in the genome take place?

razd writes:

Nor does the theory of common descent, that life is related to life by descent from common ancestor populations, fail if there is horizontal gene transfer that provides essentially the same contribution to descendants that sexual reproduction does in multicellular organisms. It just means that identifying the "mama" and "papa" may be a little more difficult, but that the process of changes in the frequency of hereditary traits in (gene exchanging) populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities still occurs and is still subject to the trials and tribulations of survival, reproduction, drift, etc, within those ecologies.

But the recent findings in Cellular information including a read write memory system view of the genome in lieu of the conventional 20th century view of the genome as a read only memory subject to an accidental change do change the explanation and the how of evolutionary change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

razd writes:

Rates of evolution change. Stunning. I fail to see any cause for a new synthesis nor any reason to say that current theory is in any jeopardy.

But , would you agree, that alterations to the genome that occur in bursts and novel adapatations that require changes at multiple locations in the genome that can arise within a single generation would cause a rethinking of the Modern Synthesis?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

I agree. Are you familar with the new concept of "natural genetic engineering? If it is valid it will mean many changes in the modern synthesis.

Thanks for the posting tips. I am trying to get a handle on them.

Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2011 8:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2011 8:56 PM shadow71 has responded

  
shadow71
Member
Posts: 704
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 515 of 968 (600844)
01-17-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by RAZD
01-14-2011 8:32 PM


Re: yawn
razd writes:

This again is his opinion. Opinion is not fact, nor is it able to alter facts in any known way, whether "mind-action directed" or not.

What will alter the theory of evolution is facts and objective empirical evidence of portions of evidence that the theory does not adequately explain -- that is how science works -- not by opinions.

Sorry Razd, this quote should have preceded my last reply in my previous reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2011 8:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
shadow71
Member
Posts: 704
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 516 of 968 (600846)
01-17-2011 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 486 by Dr Adequate
01-14-2011 9:31 PM


Dr. Adequate writes:

And if by "classical evolution theories" you mean everything we knew about genetics between 1850 and 1920, then what you say he is arguing is right. I for one would not roll the clock back on genetics 90 years.

Koonin clearly stated in his paper the was referring to events after 1960.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 9:31 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15958
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 517 of 968 (600943)
01-17-2011 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by shadow71
01-16-2011 8:50 PM


Re: yawn
Hi again, shadow71, and thanks for your reply.

Would you have the education to explain how product liability case law should be followed in order to prove a case in front of the jury in a case?
Probably not, but you could read it and form your opinions on it, correct?

Yes, I could form an opinion, and it would be the opinion of an under-educated layman, and not that of someone educated in the field of product liability law and competent to discuss it in depth.

Curiously, I would not have the presumption to assume that my opinion would matter to anyone that was educated in the field of product liability law, and most especially I would not presume to say that one lawyer's position was any better than any other. I would look to the common position as being most likely correct, and not any lawyer outliers, no matter how much they matched my personal under-educated opinion. If I was interested in the outlier position and wanted to know how possible it was, then I would ask other product liability lawyers about it: if they told me that the person with the outlier position was an attention seeking individual who published things like this to get attention even though what he actually said did not amount to a significantly different position from the common one, then I would accept that.

You have his paper to read. You can refute his findings if they are not accurate. I assumed all scientists read papers , agree, disagree etc.. and reply to the author's findings.

Again, this forum is not designed to debate by links, but by personal argument based on how well you understand the positions.

As I've stated, and as the critique posted by Percy showed, I don't see any significant change to the overall pattern of evolution, certainly not enough to call for the death of the ToE (but perhaps the terms "Darwinism" and "neo-Darwinism", which are neither accurate nor descriptive of the ToE today, can be dispensed with, to the greater clarity of understanding that accompanies the use of proper terminology).

I don't see anything he suggests as new or novel within the field of evolutionary biology.

So I don't think you are working with a blank slate.

Are we supposed to debate the contents of the paper among ourselves while you watch? We've done that: nothing really new in the paper. Done.

Are you findings consistent with "Crick's Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" or do you agree that Crick's Dogma has been replaced by new findings by Temin and Mitzutant et. al. that have changed cellular informatics, and how the interpretation of changes in the genome take place?

http://ezinearticles.com/?Cricks-Central-Dogma-of-Molecul...

quote:
From this affirmation and the knowledge that RNA was the immediate precursor for protein, Francis Crick proposed in a 1954 paper - and reasserted in 1970 - formulated a flow diagram which has become known as the central dogma of molecular biology: DNA to RNA to Protein.
... however modern advances in molecular biology and genetics have shown that this idea was too simple. ...
Modern discoveries have highlighted that the flow of genetic information is much more dynamic. ...

That's from the first google reply to "Crick's Central Dogma of Molecular Biology".

Dogma does not belong in science, as all concepts are subject to change over time, even if it is just refinement of previous concepts in light of additional information that it is likely correct.

Genetics is a new field however, essentially starting with the finding of DNA.

Do you think nothing new has been learned in the last 40 to 60 years in the field of genetics? Do you think Koonin somehow is the only person to have noted this? Again, what he presents is not news, nor does it require massive rewriting of current knowledge.

But the recent findings in Cellular information including a read write memory system view of the genome in lieu of the conventional 20th century view of the genome ...

If by "conventional 20th century view" you mean a 40 to 60 year old non-current genetics view, then once again we are dealing with things currently known. Much ado about nothing.

... as a read only memory subject to an accidental change do change the explanation and the how of evolutionary change.

And yet, curiously, evolution is still the change in the frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities, and the theory (that this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it) is still valid.

What he is quibbling about is whether there is a new mechanism within the arsenal of biology to effect change.

That horizontal gene transfer occurs in bacteria is not new.

That viruses can insert genes into other DNA sequences is not new.

That the processes of life are found to be more complex and more dynamic the more we study them is not new.

etc etc etc

So is it a molehill of incremental changes incorporated into the science of evolution or is it a mountain of attention grabbing sensationalism to pile all these up and say "this is all new since 50 years ago" and that the 50+ yr old ideas need to be changed when they already have been changed?

But , would you agree, that alterations to the genome that occur in bursts and novel adapatations that require changes at multiple locations in the genome that can arise within a single generation would cause a rethinking of the Modern Synthesis?

One of his examples was the Cambrian "Explosion" -- a period of change that occurred over millions of years, and seemed sudden in geological time due to the paucity of early fossil finds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

quote:
The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively rapid appearance, over a period of many million years, of most major Phyla around 530 million years ago, as found in the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.[3] Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble todays.[5]

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.


The rate of evolution has been observed to vary widely in other cases as well -- such as following mass extinctions -- this is not an explosion in the normal sense of the term.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/...losion#Developmental_explanations

quote:
A range of theories are based on the concept that minor modifications to animals' development as they grow from embryo to adult may have been able to cause very large changes in the final adult form. The hox genes, for example, control which organs individual regions of an embryo will develop into. For instance, if a certain hox gene is expressed, a region will develop into a limb; if a different hox gene is expressed in that region (a minor change), it could develop into an eye instead (a phenotypically major change).

Such a system allows a large range of disparity to appear from a limited set of genes, but such theories linking this with the explosion struggle to explain why the origin of such a development system should by itself lead to increased diversity or disparity. Evidence of Precambrian metazoans[19] combines with molecular data[96] to show that much of the genetic architecture that could feasibly have played a role in the explosion was already well established by the Cambrian.


This was the main thrust of Schwartz's book, "Sudden Origins", however his concept has been unable to overturn modern evolutionary theory, as he also claimed.

Message 515 Sorry Razd, this quote should have preceded my last reply in my previous reply.

I agree. Are you familar with the new concept of "natural genetic engineering? If it is valid it will mean many changes in the modern synthesis.

Will it?

http://www.suite101.com/...atural-genetic-engineering-a22575 (May 31, 2007)

quote:
Firstly, they encode instructions for the plant to manufacture certain amino acids that are the favoured food of the bacteria. These amino acids, called opines, are never naturally produced by the plant, nor are they easily utilized by other organisms. The Agrobacteria, however, are specifically adapted to eat them, and in having the plant manufacture them, the bacteria have created themselves a cozy niche, free from competition.

Secondly, the bacteria send genes that instruct for hormone production, causing the affected cell to multiply rapidly, and indeterminately, very much like cancer. These virulence (vir) genes essentially multiply the effect of the bacterias efforts, so that an entire mass of food-supplying GM plant cells can be cultivated. The result is that tumorous growths occur on the affected plants, which we recognize in our garden as galls.


and

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/infobio01/shapiro1/ (Mar 15, 2001)

quote:
Natural Genetic Engineering -- the Toolbox for Evolution: Prokaryotes
Dr. Jim Shapiro, Chicago

Interesting synopsis that is 10 years old.

Once again this is an issue that is old news in evolution science ... nor does it mean that "many changes in the modern synthesis" will be needed: this is still the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities - where in this case the ecology includes the bacteria. The theory is still that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it. Providing a more comprehensive accounting of the ecological factors is not a major rewrite of theory.

Thanks for the posting tips. I am trying to get a handle on them.

You're welcome, their use makes reading your posts easier. I generally use the [qs](pasted quote)[/qs] for message quotes and [quote](pasted quote)[/quote] for quotes from books and articles (with references and links of course)

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by shadow71, posted 01-16-2011 8:50 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2011 3:57 PM RAZD has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 518 of 968 (601010)
01-18-2011 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by shadow71
01-13-2011 7:21 PM


The fact of evolution.
shadow71 writes:

I find it very interesting that the theories are so much more complicated or complex than has been expounded by the evolutionist such as Jerry Coyne, Dawkins et al. Who arrogantly state Evolution is a fact. Perhaps there is more to evolution than what these guys are stating.

That is why I find Koonin's paper so interesting. Koonin is not a creationist.

Koonin would certainly agree with Coyne and Dawkins that evolution is a fact. He treats it as a given in the paper you quoted from. There's nothing arrogant about stating this. It's true. And neither Coyne nor Dawkins think that we know everything about the processes by which evolution happens. Just like Koonin.

It's hard to see what point you're trying to make. Koonin certainly believes in common descent, natural selection and drift. The point about the lines of descent being blurred at the genetic level, especially in prokaryotes, is well known, and could possibly have been inferred to some extent when horizontal gene transfer was discovered (1959 I think). So is the point about jumps in change, like the endosymbiotic event that many think is the origin of eukaryotes.

What he's discussing is the ongoing research into the fine details of exactly how evolution happens, and there's nothing particularly exciting about his paper, IMO.

shadow71 writes:

I don't see in the paper the author's acceptance of a natural origin of life.

That's because it's not the subject he's discussing in that paper! He certainly discusses it elsewhere, and he certainly believes it's natural. What else should it be? He's not a fantasist (creationist), as you said above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by shadow71, posted 01-13-2011 7:21 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2011 4:14 PM bluegenes has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5269
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 519 of 968 (601033)
01-18-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by shadow71
01-14-2011 7:28 PM


First of all, when I posted Koonin's paper, I did not mention the creationist argument.

I have mentioned it. I don't see how Koonin's argument helps the creationist argument. Do you?

Koonin is stating that evolution as stated in the neo-Darwinian Synthesis is not corrobated by the findings of molecular, micro, and gentic biological findings since the 1960's.

This is why we do not use the neo-Darwinian Synthesis from the 1960's. We use the modern verison which incorporates everything that Koonin is talking about.

I think he is arguing for a more developed theory based on the research since the 1960's.

That theory already exists. It is called the Modern Synthesis of the year 2011.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by shadow71, posted 01-14-2011 7:28 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2011 4:08 PM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5269
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 520 of 968 (601037)
01-18-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 509 by Dawn Bertot
01-15-2011 11:47 PM


Re: Bump for ICANT
perhaps we are just looking at a type of primate, not necessarily in some chain headed twords man

You have things backwards again. First of all, we are looking at types of primates. Humans are primates, as was our common ancestor with chimps, and as were the proposed transitional species between us and that common ancestor. So of course we are looking at types of primates.

What you are ignoring is that the predictions made by the theory of evolution preceded the discovery of these fossils. You keep ignoring how science works, and this relates back to the OP of this thread. The theory of evolution predicts that we should find fossils with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THESE FOSSILS EXHIBIT. As we move through time the primitive features go away and modern features appear, JUST AS THE THEORY PREDICTS WE SHOULD SEE. Therefore, these fossils are evidence in support of the theory.

At the same time, the theory predicts that we should NOT SEE fossils that violate the nested hierarchy. We should not see fossils with a mixture of primitive ape features and derived canine features, as an example.

Let's ask a simpler question. According to you, if these fossils are not evidence then what characteristics does a fossil need in order to evidence the transition between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps? If these fossils are not evidence, then what would the real evidence look like? If you can't answer these questions then you have no argument.

Also, the theory of evolution does not predict the rate of fossilization. This is dealt with in geology, not biology. All the theory of evolution can do is use the fossils we do have to test the theory, and everytime we do this the theory passes.

Of course enough evidence would support that, but i believe evidence of that nature is lacking and keeps people doubtful of its conclusions

What is it about the hominid transitional fossils that you find lacking? Be specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2011 11:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

shadow71
Member
Posts: 704
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 521 of 968 (601071)
01-18-2011 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by RAZD
01-17-2011 8:56 PM


Re: yawn
----
Razd writes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Genetic Engineering -- the Toolbox for Evolution: Prokaryotes
Dr. Jim Shapiro, Chicago
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting synopsis that is 10 years old.

Once again this is an issue that is old news in evolution science ... nor does it mean that "many changes in the modern synthesis" will be needed: this is still the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities - where in this case the ecology includes the bacteria. The theory is still that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it. Providing a more comprehensive accounting of the ecological factors is not a major rewrite of theory.

Shapiro updated his paper and wrote a summary of his work in natural genetic engineering as per the abstract below.

Mobile DNA and evolution in the 21st century
James A Shapiro

Correspondence: James A Shapiro jsha@uchicago.edu

Author Affiliations
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago, Gordon Center for Integrative Science W123B, 929 E 57th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA

Mobile DNA 2010, 1:4 doi:10.1186/1759-8753-1-4

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.mobilednajournal.com/content/1/1/4

Received: 14 August 2009
Accepted: 25 January 2010
Published: 25 January 2010

2010 Shapiro; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract
Scientific history has had a profound effect on the theories of evolution. At the beginning of the 21st century, molecular cell biology has revealed a dense structure of information-processing networks that use the genome as an interactive read-write (RW) memory system rather than an organism blueprint. Genome sequencing has documented the importance of mobile DNA activities and major genome restructuring events at key junctures in evolution: exon shuffling, changes in cis-regulatory sites, horizontal transfer, cell fusions and whole genome doublings (WGDs). The natural genetic engineering functions that mediate genome restructuring are activated by multiple stimuli, in particular by events similar to those found in the DNA record: microbial infection and interspecific hybridization leading to the formation of allotetraploids. These molecular genetic discoveries, plus a consideration of how mobile DNA rearrangements increase the efficiency of generating functional genomic novelties, make it possible to formulate a 21st century view of interactive evolutionary processes. This view integrates contemporary knowledge of the molecular basis of genetic change, major genome events in evolution, and stimuli that activate DNA restructuring with classical cytogenetic understanding about the role of hybridization in species diversification

In his paper he writes:

"Although there remain many gaps in our knowledge, we are now in a position to outline a distinctively 21st century scenario for evolutionary change. This scenariio includes the following elements.

(1) hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering;

(2) major disruptions of an organism's ecology trigger cell and genome restructurilng. The ecological disruptions can act directly, through stress on individuals, or indirectly, through changes in the biota that favour unusual interactions between individuals (cell fusions, interspecific hybridizations). Triggering events continue until a new ecology has emerged that is filled with organisms capable of utilizing the available resources;

(3) ecologically-triggered cell and genome restructurings produce organisms which, at some frequency, will possess novel adaptive features that suit the altered enviroment. Novel adaptive features can be complex from the beginning because they result from processes that operate on pre-existing functional systems, whose components can be amplified and rearranged in new combinations. Competition for resources (purifying selection) serves to eliminate those novel system architectures that are not functional in the new ecology;

(4)once ecological stability has been achieved, natural genetic engineerinig functions are silenced, the tempo of innovation abates, and microevolution can occur to fine-tune recent evolutionary inventions through successions of minor changes.

This 21st century scenario assumes a major role for the kind of cellular sensitivities and genomic responses emphasized by McClintock in her 1984 Nobel Prize address.
Such a cognitive component is absent from conventional evolutionary theory because 19th and 20th century evolutionists were not sufficiently knowledgable about cellular response and control networks. This 21st century view of evolution establishes a reasonable connection between ecological changes, cell and organism responses, widespread genome restructuring, and the rapid emergence of adaptive inventions. It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties. In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical science."

I understand this to mean he is saying that major changes are the result of planned, engineered functions in the cell that do not rely on gradual, random changes.

That these changes can be novel in nature, and after that micro evolution settles in.
Since the cells responce is to "stresses" very quicky, he does not see a role for natural selection, except when the novel adapations are completed and micro evolution fine tunes the changes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2011 8:56 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2011 12:39 AM shadow71 has responded

  
shadow71
Member
Posts: 704
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 522 of 968 (601075)
01-18-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Taq
01-18-2011 11:58 AM


tag posts,

I have mentioned it. I don't see how Koonin's argument helps the creationist argument. Do you?

I think it helps some creationists because of the complexity involved. One can construe this as planned.

This is why we do not use the neo-Darwinian Synthesis from the 1960's. We use the modern verison which incorporates everything that Koonin is talking about.

I posted James A. Sapiro's abstract in re "natural genetic engineerilng" that goes beyond the 20th century theory in regards to randoness and natural selection.

Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Taq, posted 01-18-2011 11:58 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by Taq, posted 01-18-2011 5:29 PM shadow71 has responded

  
shadow71
Member
Posts: 704
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 523 of 968 (601076)
01-18-2011 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by bluegenes
01-18-2011 8:51 AM


Re: The fact of evolution.
blugenes posts,

Koonin would certainly agree with Coyne and Dawkins that evolution is a fact. He treats it as a given in the paper you quoted from. There's nothing arrogant about stating this. It's true. And neither Coyne nor Dawkins think that we know everything about the processes by which evolution happens. Just like Koonin.

The problem I have with saying evolution is a fact is that it assumes the process and the cause of the process are fact. I agree the evolution is a fact, but the cause and the manner of the process is still not fully determined.

One can see historically that evolution has happened but not how or what caused it to happen. That is the theory and theories are not fact.

Edited by shadow71, : add to sentence

Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by bluegenes, posted 01-18-2011 8:51 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by Cat Sci, posted 01-18-2011 5:02 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 526 by Taq, posted 01-18-2011 5:33 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 527 by bluegenes, posted 01-18-2011 6:34 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

  
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 9508
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 524 of 968 (601087)
01-18-2011 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by shadow71
01-18-2011 4:14 PM


Re: The fact of evolution.
The problem I have with saying evolution is a fact is that it assumes the process and the cause of the process are fact.

Its meant to be the exact opposite, though. When people say evolution is a fact, they are talking about what "One can see historically that evolution has happened" and not about the Theory of Evolution (which should not be called a "fact").


This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2011 4:14 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

Taq
Member
Posts: 5269
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 525 of 968 (601094)
01-18-2011 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by shadow71
01-18-2011 4:08 PM


I think it helps some creationists because of the complexity involved. One can construe this as planned.

Where did Koonin argue this?

I posted James A. Sapiro's abstract in re "natural genetic engineerilng" that goes beyond the 20th century theory in regards to randoness and natural selection.

Mobile DNA elements do insert randomly with respect to fitness. These mobile elements can and do result in deleterious phenotypes, as well as beneficial and neutral phenotypes. It's not as if a bear started experiencing colder winters and in response the entire species specifically mutated a single base that resulted in white fur across the entire species. That's not how it works. Environmental stresses can and do result in DNA mutations, genome restructuring, and the rest. However, these changes are still random with respect to fitness.

What neo-Darwinism states is that mutation and selection are independent of one another. That is, mutations are blind to what is good or bad for the individual. This is exactly what we see with mobile DNA elements. They insert all over the place, and the helpful ones are kept through natural selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by shadow71, posted 01-18-2011 4:08 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by shadow71, posted 01-19-2011 5:22 PM Taq has responded

RewPrev1
...
3334
35
3637
...
65NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014