Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-22-2017 12:24 AM
362 online now:
anglagard, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie (6 members, 356 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Happy Birthday: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,796 Year: 27,402/21,208 Month: 1,315/1,714 Week: 158/365 Day: 0/62 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   extended evolutionary synthesis (EES)
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1000 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 16 of 20 (739226)
10-21-2014 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by herebedragons
10-21-2014 9:01 AM


Re: iterative feedback response to different ecological challenges and opportunities
Some questions a creationist might ask.

Is EES divorcing itself from formal reductionism?

Is there anything new under the sun here? How does EES affect basic biochemical research defining evolution, is comparative genomics improved? Remember evolution is also Paleontology, how do you take a “whole biome approach” in Paleontology? I suppose a updated version of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is in order because Haeckel’s fabrication is a bit worn out.

Noting that observable changes in genotype are beyond empirical observation, genotype changes can be rejected out of hand. So that leaves phenotype variance as related to the “whole biome approach”… Wait a minute that would be adaptation by natural selection.

quote:
I see this "whole biome approach" taking shape and becoming more and more integrated into our study of organism and their evolution. So an extended synthesis should simply be an attempt to help focus our efforts in evolutionary biology into a more inclusive, extensive understanding of how and why organisms change. I think the WHY issue is at the heart of the need for an EES. Natural selection working on random mutations, while it may be accurate enough, is simply too basic and unsatisfying. I think we can provide better answers for WHY organisms evolve.

I think “if” should be at the heart of EES. Just my opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by herebedragons, posted 10-21-2014 9:01 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by herebedragons, posted 10-22-2014 1:09 PM zaius137 has responded
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 10-22-2014 5:51 PM zaius137 has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 17 of 20 (739288)
10-22-2014 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by zaius137
10-21-2014 11:29 PM


Re: iterative feedback response to different ecological challenges and opportunities
Is EES divorcing itself from formal reductionism?

Well first of all, there is not currently an EES. What we are discussing is should there BE an EES.

So, should an EES divorce itself from reductionism? Well, I would say yes and no. Whenever you are trying to understand a complex system, obviously you will need to break it down into its constituent parts. But on the other hand, the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. However, I would also add that your characterization that the current synthesis is married to the concept of reductionism is not really valid. Perhaps you could clarify.

How does EES affect basic biochemical research defining evolution

That's a good question. Those that suggest that there is no need for an EES would say that it would not affect biochemical research, which is why there is no need for it. My thought is that we are already approaching biochemical research from a non-genecentric approach and an EES would be more about incorporating this into a more formal framework.

I suppose a updated version of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is in order because Haeckel’s fabrication is a bit worn out.

It is worn out. I am tired of hearing creationists bring it up.

Noting that observable changes in genotype are beyond empirical observation, genotype changes can be rejected out of hand.

What does that even mean? Observable changes are beyond empirical observation?

So that leaves phenotype variance as related to the “whole biome approach”… Wait a minute that would be adaptation by natural selection

Yeah, I don't get your point here.

I think “if” should be at the heart of EES. Just my opinion.

"If" what? If evolution occurs? That evolution does occur is a forgone conclusion. There is no "if." If humans evolved from apes, or if mammals evolved from reptile ancestors, or if birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, is that what you are talking about? Certainly those questions will never be answered to the satisfaction of creationists, but our current knowledge suggests that the "if" question is already answered.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by zaius137, posted 10-21-2014 11:29 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by zaius137, posted 10-22-2014 10:19 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 18 of 20 (739326)
10-22-2014 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by zaius137
10-21-2014 11:29 PM


Re: iterative feedback response to different ecological challenges and opportunities
I suppose a updated version of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is in order because Haeckel’s fabrication is a bit worn out.

Haeckel's ideas were never widely accepted, and his drawings were really not that far off from accurate.

Noting that observable changes in genotype are beyond empirical observation,

We can empirically determine when mutations occur and where.

We have examples of a child's genome being compared to the parents' genomes. We have measurements of mutations caused by polymerases in PCR. There are tons of empirical measurements of mutagenesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by zaius137, posted 10-21-2014 11:29 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by zaius137, posted 10-22-2014 10:14 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1000 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 19 of 20 (739338)
10-22-2014 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Taq
10-22-2014 5:51 PM


Re: iterative feedback response to different ecological challenges and opportunities
quote:
We can empirically determine when mutations occur and where.
We have examples of a child's genome being compared to the parents' genomes. We have measurements of mutations caused by polymerases in PCR. There are tons of empirical measurements of mutagenesis.

My mistake… I wrongly associated changes in genotype with a broader definition of evolution. Your description is more accurate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 10-22-2014 5:51 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 1000 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 20 of 20 (739341)
10-22-2014 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by herebedragons
10-22-2014 1:09 PM


Re: iterative feedback response to different ecological challenges and opportunities
quote:
What does that even mean? Observable changes are beyond empirical observation?

I do say that my statement is incorrect… my apology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by herebedragons, posted 10-22-2014 1:09 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017