Modern Synthesis Can't Explain Speciation

Hi Larry,I changed the name of the thread, hopefully Thmsberry will find it anyway.--Percy

This has been a very productive dialogue, and very civil by the standards of many boards, but I thought I'd step in and encourage the participants to try not to let past history affect the discussion. I know the progress is slow and tortured and frustrating, but looking at this from the outside it does look like progress.On a related note, I am working on assessing this thread's prior incarnation, I swear. And on a personal note, thanks for having the discussion here. Warms my heart! More importantly, it excercises the site, which should eventually provide the necessary confidence that it is solid enough to promote outside just the Yahoo club. Plus, significant improvements are coming.--Percy

Thmsberry,I need to better understand your position on the Modern Synthesis. When you call it a partial theory I can only agree, but this is scant criticism since all theories are partial because of the principle of tentativity.You have talked about things like the Neutral Theory and Symbiosis as if they were alternatives to the Modern Synthesis, but this really puzzles me because the Modern Synthesis is fairly encompassing. Emerging in the early part of the prior century, it represents the union of Darwin's theory of evolution with modern genetic theory, with the work of people like JBS Haldane on population genetics and related areas providing the necessary evidence for scientists to accept the synthesis. I can't see how things like Neutral Theory and Symbiosis can be anything but specific aspects of the Modern Synthesis, not alternatives to it. Do you have a different viewpoint on this? If so, do you believe your understanding is widely accepted in the scientific community?One other question I have concerns your alternative to the Modern Synthesis for explaining the origin of biologic groups above the family level. You at one point said that both Intelligent Design (ID) and the Modern Synthesis (MS) account for this equally well, but we already know you hold the MS in low esteem, and you carefully refrained from advocating ID. What theory is it that you do advocate?I find I also don't have a solid understanding of what you're trying to say concerning change above the family level. It usually sounds like you're saying that evolutionary change above the family level isn't accounted for by the Modern Synthesis, which implies that some barrier to that change must exist since in most people's view this evolutionary change is precisely something that the MS explains very well. But when asked what that barrier would be you reply that you're not proposing a barrier. What is it exactly that you are proposing that prevents the MS from explaining such changes?--PercyPS - I've nearly completed assessing this thread's ancestor. I've also nearly completed my changes to this message board and will be releasing them soon - stay tuned!

quote:

---

Thmsberry: ?Your statements will be in quotes.?

---

Those are the funniest looking quotes I've ever seen. You probably need to turn off smartquotes (or whatever they call it in whatever editor you're using).

quote:

---

Thmsberry: "I know you are an anticreationist."

---

I'm not anticreationist, just a fan of science. So far you've been arguing from an evidentiary position, so none of the prejudices against traditional Creationism apply here, and I don't believe I've expressed any.

quote:

---

Thmsberry: "But as moderator, you need to be more objective."

---

I'm trying!! I once offered you a trial moderator role. Perhaps you'd like to give it a try now?

quote:

---

Thmsberry: "I decimated Larry's argument in my last post."

---

Declarations of victory in mid-debate?When I read the discussion between you and Larry I don't see either side as obtaining much advantage. You're to be credited for maintaining the cooler demeanor in what at times has become fairly heated, but your own interpretation of how well you're doing may be a bit biased and perhaps best kept to yourself. I might add that self-congratulatory expressions don't seem to be influencing the moderator.

quote:

---

Thmsberry: "No credible scientist argues that the Modern Synthesis is the same as the Current Unification of Evolutionary theories. Sometimes the Current Unification of Evolutionary theories is called the Current Synthesis of Evolutionary theories. But other than the fact that the word Synthesis is sometimes used in both theories. They simply are not the same thing."

---

I've never heard nor seen the terms "Current Unification of Evolutionary Theories" or "Current Synthesis of Evolutionary Theories." Where can I find more information about them?I'd really like to get the definition of the Modern Synthesis (MS) squared away. As much as everyone would probably like to move on, I'm finding that's it's a key point in judging the prior thread on this topic. Rather than trying to declare anyone right or wrong, at least at this point, I'd like us to work together at a consensus on the definition of MS in the scientific community. After looking at this for a while I find that the answer is not so simple as I would once have thought. Let me describe what I've discovered so far.The key issue is how strictly one defines the MS. If it specifically includes Natural Selection as the dominant factor in evolution, then the MS and NT (Neutral Theory) are two different theories. But to many scientists the MS is merely the recognition that genes are not only the basis of heredity but also of evolution, and Natural Selection and NT are merely alternative views within a common framework. I looked up the MS and NT in an evolution textbook this morning, and it parenthetically added in the NT discussion that some scientists call it non-Darwinian evolution, meaning that they view Darwinian Natural Selection as a key component of the MS and that they therefore also view NT as outside and independent of the MS. But if only some scientists see it this way, then obviously some scientists don't. Rather than trying to fix on some single definition of the MS perhaps it would be best if we just recognize that there are different but equally valid perspectives.This means it's fine if you make the underlying assumption that the MS and NT are independent theories, but I think it's important to first make clear why you are doing so, ie, that you define the MS in such and such a way and therefore NT cannot be part of it. I also picked up the impression that you believe there are other alternative theories besides MS and NT, and if so I think it important that you explain what those are and why you think they're outside the MS so that we may better understand your position.

quote:

---

Percy: "One other question I have concerns your alternative to the Modern Synthesis for explaining the origin of biologic groups above the family level. You at one point said that both Intelligent Design (ID) and the Modern Synthesis (MS) account for this equally well, but we already know you hold the MS in low esteem, and you carefully refrained from advocating ID. What theory is it that you do advocate?"

---

quote:

---

Thmsberry: "If you are trying to classify me as a person who believes in ID as commonly argued or biotic message or whatever, you would simply be wrong. If you make the claim that I have argued that ID explains the origin of groups above the family level, please quote where I have actually made this ID claim. Don?t just say I made this claim. Thank You."

---

I thought you made it clear in Message 52 that you're not an advocate of ID. That's why I asked what theory you do advocate.I'd like to stay focused on the MS issue for now, so perhaps I can address the rest of your post another time.All the best!--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 02-23-2001).]

I'd like to restate what I said about NT (Neutral Theory) in my previous message in slightly more detail. NT can only be classified as outside of the MS (Modern Synthesis) if you assume that:

1. The definition of the MS includes Natural Selection as a significant evolutionary force, and
2. NT does not include Natural Selection.
   ​

While I don't agree with the first point, finding it too specific and confining, I accept that some people might be of that opinion and am willing to engage in discussion under that definition. But I don't understand the second point at all. While there can be debate about degree and extent, the adaptation of organisms makes clear that selection has been and is going on. I don't understand how any viable theory could discard selection.So I've looked into NT a little more. It's a little difficult to boil their argument down to a single sentence, but Neutralists seem to believe that because favored mutations are very rare that selection therefore plays a very minor role in variation both within and between species, that the differences are more due to random neutral mutation.The obvious objection to this definition is that differences cannot arise if evolution consists primarily of neutral mutations. No matter how many neutral mutations one piles up, the net morphological difference between the mutated organism and the original organism is zero. Since organisms are obviously different, the Neutralists must be saying something different than this. So, what is it that they are really saying? I confess I couldn't answer this question.I did find a link that's part of an evolution course at Southern Methodist University ( http://gsoft.smu.edu/Evol/lect8.html ) that tries to make sense of the controversy. While I found it didn't help me to clearly state what Neutralists are saying, it did make a few explicit statements concerning the views of Neutralists on selection, and these statements make clear that NT fits within the framework of the MS. Here are a couple excerpts:

quote:

---

Some things the neutralist school does not say: Selection does not produce adaptation. All the neutralists are really saying is that such favorable changes are so rare that they have little or no impact on the divergences we see among species.

---

quote:

---

Some things the neutralist school does not say: Large morphological features of organisms are the result of drift. No one doubts that a bird's wing or a human's eye or a bat's ears are adaptive and the products of natural selection. Favorable mutations have ocurred to produce them. Since genes first produce proteins, that means again that favorable mutations of molecules have also occurred.

---

I have a feeling that part of the push from within scientific circles to classify NT as outside the MS is puffery stemming from a desire to make it seem as significant as possible. The larger and more inclusive the theory it purports to replace, the better the claim of making significant contributions, making easier the obtainment of such things as tenure, research grants, promising graduate students, lab space, etc. Even before looking into NT I already believed the vast majority of mutations to be harmless, so to me they seem to be saying something already patently obvious. The Neutralist challenge appears to be primarily mathematically based, and to me all they're doing is showing that under certain assumptions the mathematics of population genetics leads to absurd conclusions. It makes more sense to question the completeness and accuracy of the assumptions and/or the mathematical models themselves before considering the possibility that selection does not play a significant role in evolution.

quote:

---

Thmsberry says in Message 35:
It is the difference between saying the variation of life on this planet is based solely on intergenomic mutations versus my argument. My argument is that intergenomic mutation is a partial mechanism. The external genomic forces or what I simplify by saying horizontal forces play a major role in evolution.

---

quote:

---

The only mechanism that the Modern Synthesis advocates is that intergenomic mutations accumulated over time. This alone supposedly accounts for all of the biodiversity on this planet. Symbiosis and other Horizontal theories show that organisms also evolve by insertions of genes and DNA from outside of the pre-existing Genome. The most accepted mechanism for mutation at the Kingdom level is symbiosis. Kingdom is obviously a level above family.

---

quote:

---

Let's face it the Modern Synthesis’ main argument is that the biodiversity on this planet is the result of intergenomic mutation (descent with modification) from a common live ancestor.

---

I assume that by intergenomic mutation you mean the mutating of one gene into another via changes in one or a few base pairs in the DNA, and that you're assuming the MS restricts itself to this type of mutation. My understanding is that the MS does not restrict itself to just a single type of mutation. There are many types of mutation (Gene has a nice list that he can rattle off), and I thought that MS includes them all, horizontal and everything. Where are you getting your more restrictive definition of the MS? The definition cited by Larry from Futuyma in Message 73 just refers to random mutation, not any specific type of mutation. Isn't that definition of the MS acceptable to you?--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 02-23-2001).]

Hi Thmsberry!Before we move on in the discussion I'd like to see if we can come to an agreement on the definition of the MS (Modern Synthesis).I'm happy to define this term in any way that is widely agreed upon within the scientific community. I've always understood the MS to be very inclusive of any kind of mutational mechanism, and the definition cited by Larry from Futuyma is also very inclusive. The definition of the MS I found in an evolution textbook (Evolution, Third Edition by Monroe W. Strickberger) calls it a synonym for Neo-Darwinism and defines it like this:

Neo-DarwinismThe theory (also called the Modern Synthesis) that regards evolution as a change in the frequencies of genes introduced by mutation, with natural selection considered as the most important, although not the only, cause for such changes.

The problem I think Larry and I are having isn't that we don't understand your definition. We understand your definition just fine. We just don't see that anyone besides you is defining the MS in this way. But if you can show that your definition of the MS, which excludes what you term horizontal mechanisms of mutation, is the one preferred by the scientific community then that is the one I'm happy to use.Concerning moderating, who among us is objective? I think the best I can hope for is equal numbers of moderators from each side, and a commitment to try to be objective.--Percy

Hi Larry!I was a little surprised to see Neo-Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis defined synonymously, but I'd be hard pressed to say what the difference is. It doesn't surprise me, though, that there is no unanimity on this point.I'm pretty flexible about definitions. It's easier to use a definition I'm already familiar with, but I'll use any definition already in widespread use. And I guess I'd be willing to use a non-standard definition when the situation seems to demand it, ie, there's good justification. So far I don't see any justification for limiting the Modern Synthesis' scope to only certain types of mutation, and I've never seen the Modern Synthesis interpreted in this way.--Percy

Hi David, welcome aboard!

quote:

---

I agree with you that definitions are important. As a Creationist, the issue of helpful mutations is important. Giving a lot away, 99% of mutations are not helpful (maybe 99.99 bar). This is an important critique of neo-Darwinism.

---

Maybe Larry can tell us why Larry Moran objects to Neo-Darwinism as a synonym for the Modern Synthesis. Is it just because it's antiquated, which I agree with? Or does he actually draw a distinction?Thmsberry has built a strong case against the Modern Synthesis for being only a partial theory, but his case rests upon the assumption that the Modern Synthesis is very restricted in the types of mutations it considers. Is this an assumption anyone can justify for us? I'd like to settle this, because this particular debate can't seem to move forward while the difference of opinion about the definition of the Modern Synthesis persists.

quote:

---

Now let me see if I can see how to title my post.

---

Threads have titles here, not individual posts, but the ability to give each individual post its own title, call it a subtitle, seems a pretty good idea. I'll put this on my list of future improvements to work on.--Percy

Hi Thmsberry (do you have a more convenient nom de plume we can use?),My participation on this thread is as moderator, not as debater. My assessment is that a clear and agreed upon definition of the Modern Synthesis is important to further progress.To that end, and as I already stated in Message 40, I'm happy to use any definition of this term that is widely agreed upon. I also stated that Larry and I already understand the way you're defining the Modern Synthesis. The problem we're having is that, as far as we can tell, you're the only one defining it this way.

quote:

---

Thmsberry writes: Modern Synthesis. One genome changing based on any number of types of mutations within the same genome.

​

Horizontal Mechanism. One genome changing based on any number of insertions of foreign DNA from outside the same genome.

​

Modern Synthesis: All mechanisms involve genomic mutations within the genome of an organism.

​

Horizontal Mechanism: All mechanisms involve DNA insertions coming from outside the genome of an organism.

---

Like Larry in Message 49, I not only don't agree with your definition of the Modern Synthesis as being so restrictive, I've now poked around reading here and there quite a bit and can find no clue of where your view of the Modern Synthesis is coming from.While you've reiterated your definition in more detail, you have yet to demonstrate that your definition is the one accepted in scientific circles. I'm not a biologist, Gene's not a biologist, Larry's not a biologist, Canon's not a biologist, Nibelung's not a biologist, Schrafinator's not a biologist. None of us are trying to develop new definitions of the Modern Synthesis. All any of us have done is some reading and formulating of impressions of the definition of the Modern Synthesis, and those impressions are, in the main, fairly consistent with one another. You're the odd man out.Now, it is not only possible but perhaps even likely that we have all just picked up some common misimpression of what the Modern Synthesis really is, but you cannot correct that misimpression by simply restating your definition. You have to somehow show that your definition is the one used by biology.Our understanding is that the Modern Synthesis is the fusion of Darwin's ToE with the science of genetics. It is not the fusion of Darwin's ToE with the state of the science of genetics as it existed in the 30's and 40's, and is therefore definitely not exclusive of mutational mechanisms that have only become accepted and understood since that time, such as the horizontal mechanisms you mention.

quote:

---

No widespread reputable definition of the Modern Synthesis has a horizontal mechanisms in it...

---

Perhaps, but simply declaring this is not the way to make the point. Futuyma's definition disagrees with you, the definition from an evolution textbook disagrees with you (Evolution, Third Edition by Monroe W. Strickberger), Larry Moran's definition disagrees with you, all the other debaters here disagree with you based on their interpretation of what they've read, and near the end of this message I cite yet another perspective that disagrees with you. All you have to say in support of your definition is this:

quote:

---

...because "People who presented these arguments at the Modern Synthesis, like Margulis and others were either not considered feasible or not even known about" at the time that the theory was formulated.

---

First, you don't say where this quote comes from. Second, I tried to find some information on the net for your citation of Margulis as supportive of your definition of the Modern Synthesis but I could find none, including Maruglis' own website ( http://www.bio.umass.edu/faculty/biog/margulis.html ). I examined every page where Margulis is mentioned in my aforementioned evolution textbook (mostly just citations, but also a 3/4 page essay by Dr. Margulis), and there was no hint that her views lay outside the Modern Synthesis. Perhaps you have a website or a citation I could examine that would illustrate other scientists using your definition?While looking around I did find another definition of the Modern Synthesis at http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/hoffmeyr.html , quoting Depew and Weber in their 1995 book Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection:

quote:

---

The modern synthesis appears as a call for explanatory unification among a variety of disparate disciplines in biology...

---

I also found a hint of where your views may be coming from at http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/darwin01.html , a Creationist website: [QUOTE]"What excites Margulis is the remarkable incompleteness of general Darwinian theory. Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes. A number of microbiologists, geneticists, theoretical biologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists are saying there is more to life than Darwinism. They do not reject Darwin's contribution; they simply want to move beyond it. I call them the `postdarwinians.'" (Kelly, Kevin Wired[/i], "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines," [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, pp470-471. Emphasis in original)[/QUOTE]This doesn't actually mention the Modern Synthesis, but it clearly gives the sense that Margulis sees her views as lying outside currently accepted theory. However, the words are those of Kevin Kelly, executive editor of Wired magazine, as quoted in an article in the magazine Fourth Estate. They have no scientific credibility whatsoever.Unification is the raison d'etre for the Modern Synthesis. It is not one theory among many, but the very fabric upon which subsequent developments in biology are writ. Only a ToE which excludes either Darwinian natural selection or the science of genetics (or both) can be a rival theory. If this view is in error you will have to demonstrate this by reference to lay-scientific or scientific literature. Simply repeating your definition, which is already well understood anyway by Larry and myself, is not the answer.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 03-06-2001).]

Hi Thmsberry (Oh unpronounceable one),I have time for only a quick reply.Can you provide one or more references in the lay-scientific or scientific literature that uses the Modern Synthesis in the way you're defining it, either explicitly as a definition or implicitly from context.--Percy

Hi Thmsberry!I know you haven't had a chance to respond yet, but I have a little time now, so let me add a little to my previous post.

quote:

---

Thmsberry writes:
This is what sad. You are in fact a debater or are so much in agreement with the anticreationist side that if they fail to make their arguments you agree with them anyway. And you do not appear to actually read the posts in great detail.

---

Well, I'm trying real hard, hopefully getting better at this as time goes by. I wasn't trying to make it seem as if I had taken sides in the debate, and I apologize if I've overstepped the bounds of moderator. But I need you to work with me here. As I've said, I think the definition of the Modern Synthesis has become a sticking point, and I'd like us to reach a consensus.I was attempting in my earlier post to make clear I recognize all the evolutionists could be in error and you could be correct, but I need your help. I have already been searching the web, and I have already been looking things up in actual books (remember them? ), and I can find nothing consistent with your definition of the Modern Synthesis. You've got to give me some kind of thread to grab on to so I can read someone authoritative who sees things as you do. Right now I've got nothing but your assertion that your definition is right.If you look at the Rules of Debate under "Criteria for Judging Debate" you'll see that a key facet of assessing the strength of an argument is utilization of factual data. That's all I'm looking for, facts and hard information.I'm gratefully indebted to you for your participation here during this longer-than-expected ramp-up period. I had hoped things would be busier by now. I'll look at the login-id/password issue the next chance I get. I find it annoying, too. By the way, do you use Netscape or Internet Explorer, and which version?--Percy

Hi Thmsberry,

quote:

---

Thmsberry writes:
The problem that I am having with this line of argument is that it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of Evolutionary theory on your side.

---

I think everyone here, including myself, not only agrees with your brief history, but is to varying degrees already familiar with it. The difference of opinion does not therefore stem from a misunderstanding of history.You have defined the Modern Synthesis as a combination of Darwinian evolution with the science of genetics, as that science existed in the 30s and 40s. By this definition, subsequent developments in the science of genetics are not part of the Modern Synthesis.Those on the other side define the Modern Synthesis as the union of Darwinian evolution and the science of genetics. Period. Subsequent developments in the science of genetics are part of the Modern Synthesis. The huge significance of the Modern Synthesis is its encompassment of Darwinian evolution and the science of genetics, once viewed as mutually antithetical, into a single perspective.I'm going to modify my approach here, but first I must reiterate that it is incumbent upon you if you wish to score a point on this issue to provide a reference to someone authoritative who defines the Modern Synthesis as you do. It is not that your arguments do not make sense. They make perfect sense, and your definitions and viewpoint are self-consistent. The problem is that I receive a different impression of the Modern Synthesis when I read elsewhere, whether it's at Talk.Origins, or the Britannica, or my evolution textbook, or any number of other books, and we will not be adopting a definition here that is in use nowhere else. So, please, I'm trying to be fair to you because I don't want to have to say in the end that, "Thmsberry's arguments were very strong but he could provide no references," so please, I beg you, give me something solid to go on and PROVIDE A REFERENCE!Now, to my modified approach. Since I have no reference from you as yet I'll challenge the evolutionists to provide further support for their view by asking them to show how a particular example fits within the Modern Synthesis.Let's take a careful look at the origin of eukaryotes. A widely accepted view is that "eukaryotic cells evolved by physically incorporating prokaryotic organisms into their cytoplasm." (Evolution, Third Edition by Monroe W. Strickberger). If a mutation is, "A change in the nucleotide sequence of genetic material" (ibid.), and the Modern Synthesis "regards evolution as a change in the frequencies of genes introduced by mutation," (ibid.), then since incorporation of one organism into another is not a mutation, how can the origin of eukaryotes be considered part of the Modern Synthesis?By the way, about this:

quote:

---

Read the Moran article and see an interesting quoting mistake. The Futyama quote appears to be referring to the Modern Synthesis correctly. Futyama writes:"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were ... " Be observant. He is talking in the past sense. If he was claiming that the Modern Synthesis is the Current Synthesis, it would say that The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis are, in the present sense. Even his use of the word "then" confirms this.

---

My own view is that it's a bit Talmudic to make an analysis so dependent upon a single word that has many forms of usage, but since those on both sides of this issue believe that the definition of the Modern Synthesis has not changed since the term first arose it should make no difference whether Futyama is talking in the past or present tense.Hoping to have a reference soon in hand, I remain your obediant servant and moderator...--Percy

Hi Thmsberry,I'm going to address your specific points in a new thread, but I'd like to call attention to one facet of this discussion that has been missed so far.You've been calling the Modern Synthesis a partial theory, but you've also been defining it simply as the union of Darwinian evolution with Mendelian genetics as it existed as a science in roughly the 1940s or thereabouts. You do not view subsequent developments in evolution or genetics as part of the Modern Synthesis. Rather, to you the first significant subsequent development formed a new theory that replaced the Modern Synthesis, and further subsequent developments formed even newer theories, so that what we end up with is a sequence of theories, each invalidating and/or replacing and/or superceding the previous. Given the rather minor and inconsequential role you're assigning the Modern Synthesis, criticisms of it have little relevance to the current state of evolutionary theory, which I'm sure is what we all really want to discuss. I propose we abandon the term Modern Synthesis and instead use Evolutionary Synthesis. For this discussion, the Evolutionary Synthesis is defined to mean the union, at a minimum, of Darwinian evolution and the science of genetics as it exists not only now but on indefinitely into the future. In other words, the Evolutionary Synthesis is not intended to be interpreted as a theory but rather as the union of a multiplicity of biological sciences, such as evolution, genetics, paleontology, cladistics, and so forth. Future developments in any biological science that bear in some way on evolution and/or genetics are considered to be part of the Evolutionary Synthesis.Discussion of the definition of the Modern Synthesis moves to a new thread: Definition of the Modern Synthesis.--Percy

The debate in this thread is not concluded, but it has picked up again in Problems w/ the Current ToE. I will close this thread and wait for debate in the other thread to conclude before evaluating the outcome.--Percy