Theory of Evolution and model of evolution

I have to say its not clear how plausible this actually is. I can't get the whole article and Williamson has not published anything in the general scientific literature on this, only in a couple of books.Where is the genetic evidence that should be evident if these larval forms all derive from the Rotifers. Do clams and snails have clear rotifer like sets of genes which are more similar between clams and snails than between either and the octopus/cephalopods?I'd be much more inclined to a convergent explanation of "these larval forms use several primitive cellular elements such as cilia or flagella and when you only have a matter of dozens of cells there are limits to how you can arrange them to perform a particular function" than hypothesising, only on morphology as far as I can tell, that there have been these multiple 'hybridisations' between rotifers and other organisms which have led to larval forms but have failed to leave any genetic trace.I can see this multiple transfer thing getting some traction, its almost like a multicellular elaboration of the endosymbiosis hypothesis except without any of the compelling genetic evidence which actually lends the endosymbiosis hypothesis its strength.Sounds a whole lot more 'hooky' than convergent evolution to me.TTFN,WK

You mean to say that an importrant scientist like you can't access an American Scientist article. Ask your library to get it for you and then read it. I'm not going to sit here and argue Williamson's case for him.And, WK, if you want to believe in "convergent evolution" then I've got an "Ontogeny-Recapitulates-Phylogeny" lapel pin to sell you.”HM

Well American Scientist is a pretty insignificant publication and the University I am at currently doesn't carry it. I could get it but I'm not sure what the point would be since you don't wish to talk about it.Are you saying you think the hypothesis is interesting but not interesting enough to discuss? Just interesting enough to randomly post and then disown then, and to be snotty when someone suggests that it isn't as good as you seem to think.If you don't want to believe in convergent evolution then clearly you still prefer to pontificate rather than look at evidence and current research. It may not explain the similarity of larval forms but to doubt that the phenomenon exists just suggests a total lack of understanding of pretty much anything to do with comparative morphology and genetics.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Insignificant! Well, let's look up the magazine Scottish Scientist and see how significant that is. Ha! Doesn't even exist! How's that for insignificant!Seriously, American Scientist is a pretty neat magazine, and both its subscribers are very pleased with it! Anyway, I don't mind scanning in the article if you guys decide you want to discuss it, but probably not in this thread unless you can figure out how it addresses the topic. The OP asks a general and relatively high level question, and the topic of this article seems very detailed and controversial. It looks to me like Hoot Mon's November/December issue of American Scientist just arrived, he found this article interesting, so he tried to find a thread where he could try to shoehorn it into the topic.--Percy

Hey, calm down! I'm not saying its a bad journal, just that it isn't one that a library would have to have to keep at the cutting edge of research. It has an impact factor greater than 1 so it can't be that bad, none of the various Edinburgh Societies' journals get that high.TTFN,WK

Welcome to EvC, Mr. 666! One thing I must stress is that we keep faith issues out of the science forums here.Statements such as are not appropriate in a biological evolution forum. Edited by AdminPhat, : checking signatureEdited by AdminPhat, : oops

---

I was almost sure somebody like you would have to come along and put me down for all the trouble it took to introduce the larval-transfer hypothesis, which was right on the OP topic. Check it out! And save your condescension for those on your puddleduck forum who actually deserve it.”HM

I'm not playing a moderator role in this thread, but what I said was "unless you can figure out how it addresses the topic." Just declaring that it's "right on the OP topic" is a bit weak.It seems pretty clear to me that even if we accepted that some evolutionary history currently interpreted as convergent evolution is actually hybridization, it would have a minimal effect on evolutionary timelines, which is what would be the result of rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian or humans co-existing with dinosaurs, the examples given in the OP.--Percy

Welcome to the fray, newflyer. It is true that evolution is a theory ... But it is just not true that it is “simply a theory.”The difference is due to a couple of factors.One of the reasons we talk about “the theory of evolution” is because it is a theory, but it's a scientific theory (which is different from a simple hypothesis because it is bedded in the scientific method that uses evidence as a basis for forming theories, and then tests the theories against reality to see if they are sound concepts), a specific kind of theory, not just any kind of theory.Another of these factors is that the theory is based on evidence that shows instances of evolution (the change in heritable traits in populations from generation to generation) where evolution is an observed fact. Evolution is also a number of different processes by which changes are instigated, selected, and passed on to following generations. Finally evolution is also a science that studies the change in species over time. So evolution is theory, fact, process and science, and anything that is {theory} AND many other things that are {not theory} cannot really be called “simply a theory” by any usage of those terms that I am aware of.Finally, the “the theory of evolution” is not just a single theory, but a number of different theories covering different aspects. See The Definition for the Theory of Evolution - the definition of "the theory of evolution" Message 215:

quote:

---

The conclusion is that there is no one overall theory of evolution, but we can arrive at a statement that is a synthesis of numerous tested and validated theories for how evolution happens. This can be stated at different levels of detail as follows:

​

Message 1

(1) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time.

​

(2) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected.

​

... etc.

​

Evolution is the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time, and these theories explain different mechanisms and processes that occur.

---

Another way you can state “the theory of evolution” is that the process and mechanisms of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it from present day life, from history, from the fossil record, and from the genetic record.This means that it is not just a simple theory, but a consortium of theories that all work together in a consistent manner, but where the failure of any one theory does not undermine the whole. That makes it a very robust system. Thus evolution is a complex multifaceted and integrated set of theories, and not “simply” a (single) theory. Let me see if I can tell you why “origins” is really inconsequential for evolution.First off, the evidence we start with is that life exists today. Life is a fact, a part of objective reality, and this fact is independent of the natural history of life on this planet.Second, we have of evidence of evolution in the present: the hereditary traits of all populations of organisms are observed changing from generation to generation. Evolution is a fact, a part of objective reality, and this fact is independent of the history of natural life on this planet.This modern day evidence is used to formulate various theories of how evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - occurs, and the testing of these theories also occurs in the present, with observations of changes from generation to generation. This present day theoretical foundation and testing of theories is independent of the history of life on this planet, and they would be equally valid if every life currently on the earth suddenly came into existence 200 years ago (to pick an arbitrary pre-Darwin date).Now, we take the second definition of the theory of evolution above and state it this way: “the theory of evolution” is that the process and mechanisms of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - that occur in the present day are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it from present day life, from history, from the fossil record, and from the genetic record.What we are doing is not basing the theory on this diversity and natural history of life, but testing the theory with it. If the theory is wrong it will not be able to explain the changes in life we see in the historical, fossil and genetic record. If the theory is wrong we will not be able to explain the relation from one type of organism to another in explaining the diversity of life we know today.For this testing of the theory against the evidence, the facts, the natural history of life we are only concerned with the evidence and whether it invalidates the theory. The origin of life is irrelevant to this testing process.We may not be able to explain everything, as there are some places in the fossil record where the current evidence is slight or even non-existent. This is not a problem for explaining the evidence just because we don't know what is missing - these missing fossils are not fundamentally different from the missing record of the coelacanth order of species over a period of some 65 million years, evidence that conclusively shows that direct descendant species can be missing from the fossil record for a long time.Finally, when we take this process back to 3.5 billion years ago, to the earliest fossil of life we know of (yet), we find our evidence is limited to one type of life, a cyanobacteria similar to cyanobacteria living today. This is also the oldest surviving fossil bearing rock that has not been subject to metamorphic processes that destroy fossils, so the rock that is older than that does not show life.So can we conclude that life developed from self-replicating chemicals or that it was created? No. We don't have the evidence one way or the other. We don't know.That uncertainty about life developing or being created 3.5 billion years ago does not in the slightest affect the validity of testing the theory of evolution against the complete present day, historical, fossil and genetic record: it is irrelevant to the soundness of the theory in studying the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. I think that's all creationists have - just an assertion based on faith (“Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.“). That and a bunch of misrepresentations, falsehoods and outright scams (nothing to be proud of, and which are better ignored than embraced).Science is content with “we don't know - yet (but we're looking)” while faith assumes an answer without evidence and some people seem to think that makes it a better answer. As for me, I don't know about that.Creationism is more concerned with “we don't want to know ... and we don't want YOU to know either.” A rather narrow-minded approach to reality imh(ysa)o, as truth is only dangerous to false beliefs.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : shorter ...

From the OP, EighteenDelta asks : Please take a look at Message 30 and tell me why my post is irrevelant or off topic.”HM

It's not an explanation, because it does not explain the variety of life, especially in the fossil record, and it does not explain the evidence of common ancestry in the genetic record.Creationism is also bankrupt because it is based on falsehoods, misrepresentations and outright fraud and con scams. If it is true then why does it need to lie about it?For part of what evolution explains see Message 39 ... just for starters.Enjoy.

---

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

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yes please do. The fact is that creationists are the ones lying about Lucy. You are just another gullible person that is just regurgitating this nonsense without checking to see if it really is true. Are you interested in the truth? In getting your facts right? In being honest?See Lucy - fact or fraud?Seeing as this is also accomplished by every single religion known to man this is not really a special result of creationism. What does creationism do that is special, that is not part of any other faith and that is not covered by science or philosophy?What does it do to validate, test that the claims are actually true and not just made up? One can make up explanations for anything - the question is, what is the real explanation and how do you determine that?Blind assertion doesn't tell you when you are wrong.Enjoy.

---

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

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

newflyer That is good to hear.I have longed to hear someone explain how magic works to produce life.
Please,by all means, grace us with your insight.

---

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."Albert Einstein

{Inserted by edit by Adminnemooseus - The above highlighted in red is off-topic. It not only does not belong in this topic, it does not belong in this forum (Biological Evolution). Someone take it to a proper place, if that line of discussion is to continue.}"IT" is abiogenesis, and you will probably be surprised to see how much they know already. Never eh? Keep telling yourself that. A mundane and non-exclusive answer that doesn't tell us about how we can find - and test and verify - the truth about reality. Ah yes, you can always declare victory and run from the evidence. Almost ALL of which is based on outright falsehoods and misrepresentation of the facts. Can you explain why such falsehoods (like the Lucy PRATT) persist on creationist sites long after they have been shown to be outright falsehoods and misrepresentations ... if creationism is true and these sites are interested in providing the truth?If you want to take up the challenge and actually (GASP) produce your "evidence" there is Discussing the evidence that support creationism, you'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : last quote and reply.Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by Adminnemooseus, : See red large font text.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Made comment font even larger.Edited by RAZD, :

Subtitle, also see my objection to moose moderation , on the proper place to discuss perceived moderation problems and issues.

Edited by RAZD, : fixed formatingEdited by RAZD, : removed red

---

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

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It is difficult for me to enter a discussion of this nature until someone answers a basic question and I think you may be the person who can do it. Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics correct or not?