Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

What do you base the statement that there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution"?Douglas Theobald a biochemist at Brandeis Univ. writes:"Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constitutencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the 'grand scale' resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).29+Evidences for Macroevolution, Douglas Theobald June, 2007This expert states that there is a very big difference between micro and macor evolution. Do you disagree with him, and if so on what Basis?

I have just finished a paper entitled "The origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" by Eugene V. Konnin chief investigator NCBI, NLM, NIH.I quote from page 1:"The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, appparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in emerging universals of evolution."His reasoning is that molecular, microbiological and genomic "revolutions" have destroyed the neo-Darwinian synthesis.The molecular revolution concluding that the majority of mutations fixed during evolution are neutal and thus purifying selection is more common than positive selection.The microbiological revolution explored prokaryotes, which were not explored by Darwin or the Modern Synthesis architects. The prokaryotes do not engage in regular sex, but exchange genes as he states"promiscuously, so species cannot be meaningfully defined, and the concept of the species was at the center of both the first, Darwinian, and the second, modern, synthesis of evolutionary biology.The genomic revolution which investigates the evolutionary relationships of hundreds of complete genomes has revealed a biological universe:"...a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the Modern Synthesis. The biosphere is dominated, in terms of both physical abundance and genetic diversity, by "primitive' life forms, prokaryotes and viruses. These ubiquitous organisms evolve in ways unimaginable and unforeseen in classical evolutionary biology."He discusses HGT not being a rarity, and mobile genetic elements are everywhere. He states:, the entire world of prokarykotes is a single large network of interconnected gene pools.He states the Tree of Life concept has been destroyed and a central tenet of Darwin, and the Modern Synthesis "gradualism" has been destroyed."Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection.""...all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone."Seem like he is pretty definite in his opinions, any thoughts by our Evolution experts?
http:http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/Edited by shadow71, : added link

tag writes, Are you farmilar with him or his reputation?

I have already stated my belief that Evolution has and continues to happen. To me the interesting part is that the experts in the field are now questioning the apparatus for this phenomen.
I don't see in the paper the author's acceptance of a natural origin of life.
As a matter of fact I don't see any fromidable hypothesis as to the origin of life.I read the paper as saying the author does not agree with a tree of life, but rather a forest of life, ie. we can't tell after these last 50 years of new discovery , what is actually going on.I am not sure the author is so sure of natural selection as per the Darwin or neo-Darwinian theory.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.There may be more to this theory than we realize.

Coyne and Dawkins are "money guys", they will not accept any suggestions that evolution is in any way different than what they say it is.
By money guys I mean they write their books and collect their royalties and really are not interested in any opinions that do not agree with theirs.They are not molecular or microbiologists and I am sure they would reject Koonin's paper out of hand.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

I never stated the theory of evolution was invalidated. Eugene Koonin the chief investigator of the National Center for Biotechnology, Natonal library of medicine, national institute of health stated that opinion.What I find interesting is his ideas for a new synthesis."I will mention two candidates. The first one is the population-genetic theory of the evolution of genomic architecture according to which evolving complexity is a side product of non-adapataive evolutionalry processes occurring in small populations where the constraints of purifying selection are weak.
The second area with a potential for major unification could be the study of universal patterns of evolultion such as the distribution of evolutionary rates of orthologous genes which is nearly the same in organisms from bacteria to mammals or the equally universal anticorrelatiion between the rate of evolution and the expression level of a gene."This suggest to me that his work and the work of people such as Giuseppe Damiani and his work in Natural Genetic Engineering Systems are the future to find the nature of evolution.Damiani wrote:"The discoveries of many natural genetic engineering systems, the ability to choose the most effective solution, and the emergence of complex forms of consciousness at different levels confirm the importance of mind-action directed processss in biological evolution, as suggested by Alfred Russel Wallace. Although the main Darwinian principles will remain a crucial component of our understanding of evolution, a radical rethinking of the conceptual structure of the neo-Darwinian theory is needed.""Corrections to chance fluctuations: Quantum mind in biological evolution?"This natural genetic engineering systems information is very interesting stuff.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

I merely stated the findings in a paper written by Eugene V. Koonin, chief investigator NCBI,NLM,NIH.
Please don't blame me for Mr. Koonin's findings and opinions.
Also there are many new papers that are also sounding the end of the Darwin, Neo-Darwinian theories as they are elucidated today.You really should have an open mind to scientific criticisms of the theories when they are written by evolutionist scientists in the field.
Too many people on this site get nasty when the theories are challenged.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

If the theory needs revision it should be revised. One cannot worry about what someone else is going to say. I think it was pretty brave of Koonin to set forth his findings and opinions. You all know that Lynn Margulis and Barbara McClintok were attacked and ridiculed by many of the leaders of the neo-Darwinism group, and now they are for the most part accepted theories..

You professionals in the field are much more familar with the progression from idea to hypothesis to theory than I am as you can see by my posts.
I have been reading Coyne's "evolution is a fact" blog and I an not really impressed by his self love, and almost child like writings.

I have no problem with Gould's statement. I believe what Koonin and many micolecular, micro, and genetic biologists are now finding is that the mode of the fact of evolution may be different than what the Darwin and neo-Darwinian theory state. That perhaps natural selection and random mutation are not as important as now stated. That the cells are restructuring their genome at rapid rather than gradual alterations.

I agree, but you must admit, when a new idea is championed it very often meets challenges that often result in ridicule and chastisement. So my point is that I admire someone who is qualified, when they dare state an idea or hypothesis that is significantly different from the present state of the established theory in the field.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

I do read Koonin's paper as falsifying parts of the Darwin and neo-Darwinian as he himself says when he states:"...in the postgenomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparaably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution."So I think my message was on topic. Perhaps a new topic is needed about the new findings in Molecualr, Micro, and genetic findings since the 1950's.

BAsis? Basis? I was responding to Percy's message here he mentioned natural origin of life.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

You read his paper as not challenging the Darwin and neo-Darwinian theory?He writes:"...in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspect of evolution."I read that as challenging the theories. He is talking about alot more than just lateral gene transfers.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.Edited by shadow71, : spelling

Thanks for your interpretation of the paper. I read more into it than you do.I download alot of the papers I post from so I do type in quite a bit of the quotes myself. I'll try to be more careful.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------