Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?

Depends on what one refers to as "predictive power". Evolution of a population is steered by external as well as internal forces. It's possible to give certain predictions if we are working in a laboratory and we have control of every single condition that works to select the individuals. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depends on how you look at it), nature hardly ever works like a laboratory that we know of. It's a much bigger laboratory than any we possess, which makes it impossible for us to account for every possible thing that works to promote evolution.So, I really don't see how we can ever predict outcomes accurately and dependably in the near future.

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

I was thinking beyond the lab. Sorry.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I want to change the environment and predict down to the genes what set of changes will evolve.

---

If anyone is able to do this, I may want them to pick my lotto numbers as well. I can search around a little bit, but I have heard of specific mutations occuring in separate bacteria under the same environmental pressures. However, in bacteria we are dealing with very small genomes as compared to larger genomes such as those found in mammals. Bacteria (in comparison) have very little intergenetic sequence and very few pseudogenes. Combine this with their sheer ability to multiply and you would expect exactly what has been observed, the same mutation arising in two different bacteria. Also, mutational hotspots can be found in bacterial genomes, so while this is still random mutation, the occurence of some mutations is higher than the background rate. On the other hand, we still see divergent mutations in other studies, such as a paper I read on nylonase where a bacteria developed the ability to subsist on nylon derivatives due to mutations unrelated to the more famous nylon bug (the mutations in this paper were not plasmid encoded but in the genome itself).Getting back to the point I was trying to make, I find it very improbable that the same selective pressure will always involve selection of just one mutation, especially in a genome with superfluous sequence like that in mammals. Instead, we may see the same phenotypic adaptation from different genotypic sources. That is, we might see the same physiological/morphological adaptation but it may be caused by separate mutations in separate experiments. I would say, however, that in developing ecosystems science is getting close to predicting the niches that are available for specialization through adaptation. The lemurs of Madagascar are a great example. These primates filled quite a few empty niches by becoming specialists (eg insectivores that developed sharp hearing and a long, probing fingernail to get grubs out of trees). The kiwi is another great example, a bird that filled the niche usually occupied by mice and rats.

quote:

---

Asking a lot I know.

---

Yeah, it is. And the problem lies in the very mechanisms that you want to be predictable but in fact defy rules of predictability. Even human nature is unpredictable, and we have a pretty good understanding of that. My guess is that we will be able to predict weather patterns before we are able to predict direct evolutionary genotypic change.

Weather is nonlinear, so obeys chaotic dynamics, hence is sensitively dependent on initial conditions. I'd suspect evolutionary processes to be chaotic as well. I'd be surprised if there has not been research along these lines. Anyone ?

Why would finding fossils of monotremes in Argentina be a problem for evolution? Mammals, including monotremes, first appeared and began to radiate into Antarctica, South America and Australia before they broke away to become separate land masses. Finding fossil monotremes in Argentina shouldn't surprise anyone.KC

I didn't know that they were a problem.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The finding of the Ceolacanth,Nosyned, was an embarrasment to evolution as I understand it.
First this was thev exact creature that Darwin said was evidence of an intermediarie.
Therefore it was said to be extinct.
And extinct for 70 million years no less.First it shows how somebody big up there is on our side (creationist I mean)
Dawin said, and thought this fish had leg things and so went aha an intermediary. This proves it. Also of coarse since it was on its way to the land it disappeared from the sea.
Not so fast.
First it was found alive and NOT walking. It was an incompetant or imaginative restrictive error. Its legs are used for its envirorment fine and fit.
Not evidence of an intermediary. Just a kind of fish.
Also in all that time no real changes to its form while humans went from a mouse to our present glory. (speaking for myself) Unbelieavable and a direct slap to evolution's ideas of change and all great change over time taking place. The picture of it all overthrown.You folks should have no trouble admitting a loss when you take one.
Rob

Robert, Robert, Robert . . . you really need to study science instead of a creationist distortion of evolution.

quote:

---

The finding of the Ceolacanth,Nosyned, was an embarrasment to evolution as I understand it.
First this was thev exact creature that Darwin said was evidence of an intermediarie.
Therefore it was said to be extinct.

---

I don't remember Darwin ever mentioning coelacanths anywhere. If you could, would you point me to where Darwin mentions coelocanths?Even if the coelocanth was proported by Darwin to be the intermidiate between fish and land amphibians, this still doesn't mean that coelocanths should not be alive. Evolution is not a ladder with a species moving together at the same time towards a goal. If this was true, then humans would be the only organisms alive since evolution states that everything shares a common ancestor.Also, the current theories state that it was a lobe fin fish that was probably the ancestor to terrestrial quadrapeds. Through DNA analysis, the lobe finned lungfish is the best candidate, not coelocanths.Also, the extant species of coelocanth is found nowhere in the fossil record. The fossil species are actually quite different than the living species, so much so that they are placed in different genera.

quote:

---

First it shows how somebody big up there is on our side (creationist I mean)

---

Why, because we found a species of fish found nowhere in the fossil record? Are you telling me that rotifers are also a sign from God since they aren't found in the fossil record either? Or how about passenger pigeons? They aren't found in the fossil record either.

quote:

---

Dawin said, and thought this fish had leg things and so went aha an intermediary. This proves it. Also of coarse since it was on its way to the land it disappeared from the sea.
Not so fast.
First it was found alive and NOT walking.

---

You might want to stop sniffing glue so often. Evolution is a bush, not a ladder. For the same reason that you are descendant from your parents and your parents are still alive, parent and daughter species are expected to be alive at the same time.

quote:

---

Also in all that time no real changes to its form while humans went from a mouse to our present glory.

---

So coelocanths and the ancestors of humans must have been under different selective pressures. Nothing in evolution says that morphology MUST change. This is another creationist misconception (read lie) that you have fallen for.

quote:

---

You folks should have no trouble admitting a loss when you take one.

---

You have no problem swallowing lies and deception as long as it has "christian" in front of it.

No, the coelocanth was not any sort of embarassment for evolution.The coelocanth is a member of a group (the lobe finned fishes) from which land animals are descended. Anyone with any understanding of evolutionary theory would know that that does not in any way imply that the group overall should be extinct or have left the sea. This is juat a variant of the silly argument "if humans came form apes, why are there still apes ?" argument and is just as nonesensical.There was no expectation that the coelocanth would "walk" (it still has the fins from which legs evolved). And the coelocanth was found in deep sea regions so there is abolutely no reason to expect that it would find any advantage in adaptions to enable it to move on land!Nor is there any embarassment to evolutionary theory in the fact that the coelocanth is "still a fish" (and contrary to common creationist belief the modern coelocanth is quite distinct from ancient forms).So there is no "loss" here for our sid e- but in using sch a hopelessly wrong argument you have scored an own goal. I hope you will have no trouble admitting that.

With respect your info is wrong. A basic history by book of visual creations on the subject are available.
The idea was most certainly that it proved the transition between a fish and a land creature by evidence that it had the means to walk. It was only underwater photagraphy that showed this was not so.Its extinction was seen as a result of obviously evolving up and not dying out.
This fish has caught evolutionism in its errors of speculation divested of evidfence.
Rob

My knowledge of this subject is from non-creationist sources.Whether it was Darwin or his followers it is the history that it was presented as a classic case of a creature that while a fish still had deveoped leglikes that led to its walking on the land. It was presented as proof of a intermidiate creature between land and ocean.
The idea of its extinction was a part of their theory. It didn't die out but rather evolved out. That was their great point.Currant theories were influenced by the embarrasment of the discovery and observation of this fish.Loudmouth say it ain't so. Your retreating to "this isn't the same fish anyway"
Then it should be announced to the world it was an error to say a living fossil fish 70 million old was discovered. And all the past 70 years hubbub was wrong. No way. It is so the same creature as in the fossil record exactually as presented in all discussions on it.
If its an error to say this fish is the same one in the fssil record then thats all that needs to be said. Case closed. Yet you brought up other ideas to help.
I recommend all to any history of the story of this fish.
Rob

quote:

---

It was presented as proof of a intermidiate creature between land and ocean.
The idea of its extinction was a part of their theory. It didn't die out but rather evolved out. That was their great point.

---

Darwin and others were wrong about speciation and evolution in this respect. Darwin is not the last word on everything evolution. In fact, if you burned every last copy of Origins of Species the theory of evolution would not be hurt one bit. Also, if you take their ideas to the ultimate conclusion, then there should have only been one species alive throughout the history of earth. This isn't what Darwin was arguing anyway.

quote:

---

Currant theories were influenced by the embarrasment of the discovery and observation of this fish.

---

Will you please show me one evolutionist who has a problem with this fish. What is embarrasing is that creationists are so lacking in logical skills that they fail to realize what they are saying.

quote:

---

Loudmouth say it ain't so. Your retreating to "this isn't the same fish anyway"

---

What am I supposed to do, lie? It isn't the same species, period. Show me that I am wrong. You might as well make me admit that the great white shark and a nurse shark are the same species since they are both called "sharks". The living coelacanth species is not found anywhere in the fossil record. The class of fish that it belongs to, coelacanths, was thought to be an extinct TYPE of fish. The discover of a living coelacanth in DEEP OCEAN WATERS was quite a shock since none had been seen since the dawn of civilization except in the fossil record. However, new species are found almost every single day and there is no fossil record of these species either. This supports Gould's argument that the fossil record is incomplete due to the chances of fossilization.

quote:

---

It is so the same creature as in the fossil record exactually as presented in all discussions on it.

---

Can you show me one discussion involving a biologist or taxonomist that claims that they are the same fish. It is up to you to support your claims. I have my support already, they are classified as different species in different genera. From Coelacanth. W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London, 1991.

So you are talking about putting a quantified pressure on a population of known genotypes and predicting how the population genetics will shift?I mean if mutations are random that would imply to me they are unpredictable, but shift in ratios of genes in different environments might be predictable.Or have I totally misunderstood you.lfen

I'll admit it Rob. I lost. God has delivered another miracle. You don't understand science, genetics, or ToE but with the help of divinely inspired web sites and recasting the problem in easy to understand but false terms you have overthrown science. May I be the first to congratulate you. We are closing down the labs and turning them in to chapels to study the Bible. We don't need science or any education beyond what it says in the Bible. No more programs in math, physics, chemistry or biology are necessary you have shown the Bible is inerrant, science wrong and unnecessary.Thank you,
lfen

Yes, I think that is what I'm talking about. The fact that mutations are random doesn't matter. I think that there is at least a chance that Gould was wrong in some of his contingency idea. At least for a short period of evolutionary time.What I mean is that given a starting position and specific selective pressures then what mutations will happen is random but which ones will survive are a very, very small subset of all that will happen. I would guess that there are frequently only a few paths that are open to respond to the selective pressures. So a stochastic answer is possible.However, there might be some dependency on the order in which the surviving type mutations occur. Maybe we can simple never get this far but I would like to see that answered over the next 50 years.