|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Modern Synthesis Can't Explain Speciation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
Larry,
You wrote:"Do you believe that the current diversity of life was derived from small genetic changes that "built-up" over time? Yes or no? " You keep asking me the very question that I was arguing. It does not make sense to me. I believe that a small part of the diversity of life on this planet was derived from small genetic changes. Thus, this is the reason why I have been arguing the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory. And a good one at that. Your concept of build up. If you mean extrapolation from species to higher taxa, come on. The theories of symbiosis, foriegn transposons, insertions of Dead DNA, and etc. show that such an argument is an exercise in futility because the scientific evidence shows that these theories are extremely valid. They are examples of a mechanism other than microevolution building up to form macroevolution. Assembly of living and nonliving DNA to form more complex living and nonliving organisms is a completely different way of looking at evolution. And it allows for greater genetic diversity than mutation. Also, most of the time during this discussion your side kept trying to trap me in a strawman. I have been saying that no evidence exists to my knowledge that says a genome can be altered above the family level due to genetic mutation. You have been trying to get me to prove that a limit exist in mutation above the family level. When I argue for no such limit. The point is if you have evidence that micro evolution can lead to macro evolution above the family level, the level of novel proteins with novel functions, I would love to see it. Our argument was a major example of how your side tries to back creationist into these weak arguments that Science has strong evidence to already destroy. Weak arguments that most creationist do not believe in anyway. Case in point. My modern synthesis is a partial theory argument has always been a strong attack on the Modern Synthesis' idea of extrapolation. Yet, you make the topic Modern Synthesis can't explain speciation. Which would by definition be a silly weak argument for a creationist to make nor would they ever have to? We are all intelligent enough and knowledgeable enough to remember that Scientist ambigously originated a classification of life called species. Some of these scientist were creationist so they believed that this unit of division represented immutatble divisions of life that "God" created. Then, when Scientist became naturalists. They showed that these divisions were in fact mutable. Life was capable of Evolving. In either case, it is not the evidence that made the difference, but by which philosophy the scientist interpreted it. This is just one of the typical weak arguments or straw mans that naturalist try to trap creationist into. "How old is the earth" "Can micro mutations lead to species?" "In order to be a creationist, you must some how ignore the current scientific evidence?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
Larry,
Thanks for this link. It was quite fair:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html Both sides do have a part in the ambiguity about what evolution is. Evolutionists allows incorrect definitions of Evolution to enter the public sphere. and The majority creationist do not read the scientific communities agreed definition of Evolution and act on these incorrect definition. Now, for the problem. In your last post, you attempted to make a couple claims to place me into a straw man. The first argument is you intentionally substitute the word Evolution with Modern Synthesis. At one point, you even went as far as saying let's just forget about the Modern Synthesis. This is one of the most classic straw man's. I am arguing that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory. Evolution is a scientific fact. Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool have varied and will continue to vary over time. Sometimes in the past, I used a short cut rather than writing the entire argument over and over again. Example: One of my arguments is that all life on this planet did not descend from a living common ancestor. I sometimes shorten the counter argument by simply saying descent with modification. If this practice confuses you, you will notice that I typically write the long form at least once before abbreviating. Once again, these are all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis, but not evolution. Do I have to repeat that it is a straw man to say that most or all Creationist do not believe in Evolution (life varies over time) or that they have to? The next point you are making is an intentional blur. The insertion of the genes in a genome that produces an entirely new biochemical systems. Such as the one that produces spicesomes, a Nucleus, and other organelles that makes the difference between Eukaryote and Prokaryotic cells is not an example of micro mutation. You want to redefine these macro changes into micro changes and then argue that symbiosis, foreign transposon, and etc. can be injected into the Modern Synthesis' micro to macro mutational extrapolation. First of all, the idea of micro and macro change in the modern synthesis is one of mutation. Foreign living and dead DNA is not even a part of the macro or micro mutation paradigm. They simply are not mutations. They are additions to a pre-existing genome from outside of the genome and not biochemically produced mutations within a genome. I do not want to dwell on this too much because it is pathetic attempt at mismatching of different theories. Sort of like what was attempted with Neutral theory. So anyway, these theories of acquisition of foriegn and living DNA in a genome show that all life on this planet can not be said to come from the accumulation of micro mutations to macro mutations. They are evidence and examples that evolution did not act this way all the time. Thus again, my argument. Modern Synthesis is a partial theory. The last straw man you tried to place me into is to say one of your side's favorite straw man. You intentionally tried to claim that I am attacking Evolution instead of what I am actually doing attacking the Modern Synthesis. So by using all Creationist are against Biological Evolution instead of the truth, we as a consensus are merely against the strongest philosophical arguments of naturalism/materialism/humanism, you challenge me to come up with a counter theory to evolution. Which no Creationist ever needs to do? It is the role of scientist to come up with additional theoretical mechanisms for Evolution other than micromutation building up to macromutation in Modern Synthesis and they have numerous times with foreign living and dead DNA entering the genomes of organisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
Larry,
Let me explain how your side uses straw man's. In the last post because I did not fall into the straw man that you tried to set up in one of your previous posts, so you in turn made the claim that you did not understand what I meant by my use of the term macromutation. When I had defined exactly what I was talking about in the exact same post and the previous post. Come on. Your more intelligent than that. Species and higher taxanomical differences amongst organism can be seen in the macro differences in their genomes. The Modern Synthesis argues that these changes result from mutations. But how? Micro mutations accumulate over time and by extrapolation the macro changes amongst the creatures are the result of this accumalation. Thus, if you believe in the theory, Genomes of two organism differ by accumulated micromutations or micro building up to macro mutational differences. We are obviously not talking about Goldsmidth's poorly considered theory of macromutation. Which is obvious? Because we are not talking about that theory nor have we been, but we are talking about the build up of mutations i.e. the extrapolation aspect of Modern Synthesis. Yet, you claim to be totally unaware or not to understand the exact topic that we are talking about. Next, you try to move to a different argument, without conceding the first. Do you accept that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory because the accumulation of mutations within a genome have been demonstrated as not being the only mechanism by which organisms evolve. For example, living and dead DNA elements can be added to pre-existing genomes to form new genomes which result in the formation of new organisms. If you concede to this phase of my argument, then we could move on to a new discussion of whether or not all the diversity of life on this planet has evolved from a common ancestor that was and/or is living.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
Let’s recap for a second.
In yahoo, I try to get agreement on two consensus points. 1) The measure of classical scientific theory is not whether or not the person who voices the theory is a scientist but rather or not the theory is verifiable and predictable.2) The fossil record taken alone can not be said to be evidence of the Modern Synthesis. In EVC forum.net, I began my stronger argument that the Modern Synthesis is not a complete theory but a partial theory. The previous parts of my argument ended in Post 9 of NUTFRFHE. And the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument began in Post 13 of NUTFRFHE, I began my argument by attacking the idea of extrapolation of micro mutations being responsible for the macro changes in creatures above the genus level. My opposition was not receptive to my mutations do not produce new gene with new function argument. Then, My opposition at one point claimed at one point Neutral theory was a part of the Modern Synthesis, then later claimed it to be the framework that Neutralist and Selectionist work in. Both if one studies the History of Biological Evolution, one will find is incorrect. The Modern Synthesis and Neutral theory are distinct theories which differ in their view of how the genetic drift function and the ways at which micro mutations can accumulate. But I won’t digress in this summary. So I used the theories of symbiosis, foreign transposons, horizontal transfer, and etc. to show that another mechanism not a part of the Modern Synthesis did in fact play a part in producing the variety of life on this planet. I.E. showing that the Modern Synthesis is in scientific fact a partial theory.QED Now, Larry is using the most pathetic argument technique. Conceding to the opponents argument by amnesia. He is a agreeing to the very thing we are arguing and saying that no one was even arguing that Modern Synthesis was a partial theory. Let’s examine Larry’s comments in Post 12 of Modern Synthesis can’t explain Speciation. He quotes me when I (Thmsberry) asked the question: Do you accept that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory because the accumulation of mutations within a genome have been demonstrated as not being the only mechanism by which organisms evolve. Larry replies: No one argues such a thing. But I'll accept that there are more than mutations that lead to increases in genetic diversity. Of course I have the entire discussion. Apparently you have a reading and writing problem. It’s not my reading or writing problem it is Larry’s convenient amnesia of the entire debate. When the debate began he knew what we were talking about. I’ll give you three examples that he knew what we were arguing. It’s pathetic that I even have to do this. Larry in Message 18 of NUTFRFHE: You wrote: This is, again, a silly argument that misunderstands the very basis of the claims made. Changes from generation to generation shouldn't be that radical as you claim are necessary and, in fact, the current rates of change are quite sufficient. The challenge for you--yes you sinc you misunderstand the modern synthesis at it core is to prove that minor changes can't add up to major changes over time. There doesn't appear to be a barrier--can you demonstrate one? Also, you wrote: No new mechanism is needed--you misunderstand the mechanism as it fits in the Modern Synthesis.You need to demonstrate that the rates of change are inadequate. You have offered no evidence that the rates are. This is part of his intial response to my Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument. He claimed that it was complete theory. No new mechanisms were needed. Yet, now he has abandoned this arguement Larry in 73 of NUTFRFHE: More of his argument that the Modern Synthesis is not a partial theoryLarry in 80 of NUTFRFHE: goes as far as saying the Modern Synthesis not only is not a partial theory but exist as the framework by which neutralist and selectionist work under. Percy, When you act as moderator of the discussion, I hope this helps you and whoever to see why I stopped debating in this forum earlier. I proved my argument. I should not have to waste my time trying to convince the other side when they have in fact conceded to my argument in a moderated discussion. The reason I responded to your end of the thread post was because I could have misunderstood you, but you appeared not to realize that the opposition agreed with the main argument that I presented in this forum. I have learned in life it’s a waste of time and that you gain absolutely nothing trying to get people to realize when they lost an argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
Larry,
Larry begins his post by attacking a summary of my argument. Isn’t that a waste of time. It’s already known that you disagree with some elements of the argument. But your side agreed to the extent that we could move on. Please let’s not forget that happened.Once again, It was just a recap. Your right. I do digress a little. But so does everyone in these forums. However, I typically won’t take it more than a few sentences in a paragraph. Like for instance, this one. You then, try to claim that I do not know what the Modern Synthesis is. This was a part of your Neutral theory is a part of the Modern Synthesis. However, this argument is totally irrelevant to my horizontal transfer, symbiosis, and etc. argument. Part or your argument that I even quoted in last post stated that mutation is the only mechanism in the Modern Synthesis. Changes from generation to generation shouldn't be that radical as you claim are necessary and, in fact, the current rates of change are quite sufficient. The challenge for you--yes you sinc you misunderstand the modern synthesis at it core is to prove that minor changes can't add up to major changes over time. There doesn't appear to be a barrier--can you demonstrate one? Your entire argument, like the modern synthesis, is only about mutations within a genome. Stop trying to quasi forget quasi blur argument. The modern synthesis deals only with mutation within a genome. Whether they accumulate through natural selection, genetic drift, or whatever way you choose to have it. The main claim of the modern synthesis and the only mechanism of changing a genome in modern synthesis is mutation within the pre-existing. Your side acknowledge this fact. That’s why you spent so much time discussing the observation evidence of rates of mutation. The fact that instead of mutation some evolution occurs by horizontal transfer, symbiosis, and etc it clear that I disproved your argument. The Modern synthesis because its mechanism for changing genomes is not the only mechanism in actuality makes it a partial theory. The main problem was. Your side tried so hard to back me into a (straw man) argument that I did not support that somehow a barrier must exist above the family level. You did not realize that all needed to do to actually prove my argument was to show that another mechanism for evolution existed that was not in Modern Synthesis. Which I did with my Eukaryote, Prokaryote example. As well as horizontal transfer, Foreign transposons example, and etc. Can we go on? Because I would really like to learn from you about common descent. I already suspect that you view this theory differently than I do. Because I refer to it as descent with modification, which is a major distinction as will see. But just because I want to move on with this discussion, It makes no sense if you won’t admit that either your side disagreed with my argument and later you discovered you were wrong or simply did not notice that I proved my argument or You should not have disagreed with Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument because it was right in the very first place. Because what you are doing now is pathetic. Your first argument: I agree but we weren’t arguing that or This new even worst argument: Well, I actually sort of agree and I don’t. Since we don’t agree that the Neutral theory is a part of the Modern Synthesis, I can claim that you don’t understand the Modern Synthesis. And because I say you don’t understand the Modern Synthesis. You can’t argue what is a mechanism and what is not a mechanism in the Modern Synthesis, even though I know that the argument that you presented by Symbiosis works effectively and is no way a part of the Modern Synthesis. And Even though, Once again, I sort of gree with you.What????!!! Once again, Can we move on.Theoretically, the moderator can intervene in such a discrepency. So can we move on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
Entirely new argument.
Entirely new argument. This deals with a major problem in Modern Synthesis. Why must the ancestor of all life be a living or once living organism? These theories are based on a belief that some sort of unicellular organism or protounicellar organism is the origin of life on this planet. I am sure you are aware that life or being alive is defined by being able to perform numerous functions. I am not sure what you believe on the topic, but if you believe that it must be a living common ancestor explain why? All of the evidence points to the fact that all life contains DNA, Ribosomal RNA, Transfer RNA, Messenger RNA, and etc. All of these stuctures work together, but why must they have all evolved together in one or only a few protounicellular organisms. Sort of like symbiosis and other what I call horizontal versus vertical mutation processes. Why must the early history of life on this planet be based on a vertical mutation process of one organism? DNA self replication is a separate process (extremely easy in comparison) than the process used to produce proteins and read the messages contained in genes. Why is it not a more valid or equally valid theory that before cellular organism there were loads of self replicating or more precisely approximating structures using nucleic acids most of which simply did nothing more than self approximate. Then came along Ribosomes. Let's face it DNA uses Ribosomes to make Ribosomes. So it is a big paradox where they come from. Unless you know of a theory. The same thing with Messenger RNA, Transfer RNA, and Splicesomes. But they are not attached to any DNA structure they live independently in cells. So Let's assume there existence. Until they were trapped in a another entity called cellular membrame, Why wouldn't the genetic information that makes Ribosome keep making Ribosomes and self replicating itself quite easily just as long as it was could not be decifered by splicesome or ribosomes. But could continue to exist simply because they could self approximate quite easily in a sea of nucleic acid. If your not following me, let's make it real simple. Creating a cellular membrame or some sort of trapping mechanism that could trap Ribosomes and TRNA and loads of free floatin DNA molecules could have easily created a ridicolous amount of cells that performed at a minimum the basic functions that we called life. But each differed considerable in what the rest of their message said. Most had messages that could have been gibberish. But there is no need for there to be just one cell containing just the right combination. It actually is more naturalistic to believe that there were loads of first cells containing loads of different messages. And what we deem as basic living functions are the few intances where the messages are in agreement. But most of the time in comparing DNA we would see gibberish that does nothing and vital genes responsible for basic cellular function would occur all over the place in different organisms. This is exactly what the evidence suggest. I mean this particular discussion could go on for ever. For instance, Transposons represent a different strategy other than self replicating for conveying information and growing nucleotide sequences. The same transposon, for instance one that produces ribosomes or a cellular membranes, jumps from one nucleotide sequence to the next spreading its sequence all throughout the soup. The basic life functions could all be transposons. Who know? Unless you know of another theory. I'll stop there for now. Because I do not want to keep rambling on. If you have a reason why all the basic functions of life had to assemble in only one or even a few organisms, I would benefit a lot more from hearing that than rambling on. This assumption was one of Darwin's main premises, one of neodarwinism, and one of the Modern Synthesis, and etc. But when was it shown to be more probable given that unlike in Darwin's time we know that different independent genetic structures together perform life's most basic function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
Larry,
I wrote: Sort of like symbiosis and other what I call horizontal versus vertical mutation processes. Why must the early history of life on this planet be based on a vertical mutation process of one organism? Larry wrote: Who really argues such a thing anymore?Lateral transfers are thought to have occurred after divergence from a common ancestor, though I suppose if you want to argue for multiple abiogenesis events, panspermia (directed) or some other event producing life, it is possible though I know of no hard evidnce for these ideas. In one respect you could say that one one common ancestor doesn't have strong evidence either, but by its simplicity it seems more likely. Here is the problem that I constantly have in discussing things with you. You attempt to make the claim that your side does not make the arguments that it in fact does make. For example, www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html If you check this link, the entire website for that matter, which your side refers to almost as if its your bible, it makes these sort of claims all of the time. In the link, note: the reference to Douglas Futuyma. He writes, Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." Now, I must point out that Futuyma is correct, obviously, in what constitutes biological evolution. His definition is so exact because it avoids the mechanisms of evolution debates and gets right to the unifying element. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. But note the foremention quote ends with him speaking of the Modern Synthesis idea of extrapolation. And furthermore, it states that evolution embraces the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to etc. Here is one of the most respected books in the field making the very argument that you claim no one makes any more. In addition, you wrote: Lateral transfers are thought to have occurred after divergence from a common ancestor. You claim no one makes the argument anymore and then you went and made the very same argument that you said no one makes anymore. Finally, One of the biggest problem with your counterargument was the statement: In one respect you could say that one one common ancestor doesn't have strong evidence either, but by its simplicity it seems more likely. What does this mean? I am going to need more clarity. Because one common ancestor large enough to contain all the functions that we now call life is just not more simpler than a sea of small nonliving molecules randomly forming a variety of the independent functions until one of these randomly forming molecules that with the aide of ribosomes(another small nonliving molecule) could produce cellular membranes which can capture nucleic acid chains. I mean let’s say to be called alive requires six functions.You are saying that the belief that all of these functions assembled together in one protorganism with only one DNA sequence is some how simpler than what I am arguing. I am saying: The functions of life were assembling in a sea of molecules that mostly did absolutely nothing from a life forming perspective. Simple self replication began with DNA or some precursor of just nucleic acids that could not have the function of producing proteins. It could just self replicate or self approximate. There are ridiculous number of possible combinations of these self approximating molecules that could be formed. Most of which would not be able to communicate with Spliceosomes and Ribosomes when they as well "randomly" formed. But more than one could and we know this because all the various sequences of DNA on our planet are able to communicate with Spliceosomes and/or Ribosomes. Many of these sequences would code for cellular membranes that would trap nucleic acid chains. Some of these would trap more than just nucleic acid, they would capture Ribosomal RNA, Transfer RNA, and etc. all the way until they could trap other whole cells or protocells that would become what we call organelles. Please show why emerging from a single complex protoorganism is a simpler theory. Also, please show why such a theory is more probable than the perspective that I have briefly sketched.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
Larry,
You quoted me saying somewhere: The evidence shows, though arguably, that microchanges can cause changes up to the genus,family level. These micro mutations alone can not account for the differences at higher taxa. Why don't you clarify the meaning of this statment?Cheers, Larry I thought you wanted to move on. This is the very straw man that your side wants to trap me in. If you know of evidence that the genomes of organism at the family level of distinction differ by micromutations please present it. I am not arguing that this is a fact (the strawman). I am arguing that it has not been observed nor is there cooberating evidence for this speculation. Do you have actual evidence to the contrary and not speculation based on extrapolation? Also, the biggest problem with this speculation is that the evidence shows that it is not responsible for the differentiation between Kingdoms on this planet. I.e a higher taxa differentiation. You see, what is the point of arguing the possiblity of extrapolation from micro mutation to macro mutation at higher taxa if the evidence shows that it in fact did not happen this way at higher taxa. Why are you trying to get clarity on the very argument that we just finished and you said you wanted to move on from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
Larry,
Thmsberry wrote:Why are you trying to get clarity on the very argument that we just finished and you said you wanted to move on from? Larry wrote:You really are dense. This is what I kept asking you to move on to. The argument before was over what the Modern Synthesis is. You argue a restrictive definition similar to Gould, I argue that it isn't actually a theory, but a set of theories that marry genetics with the mechanisms of evolution.Larry quotes: The current Synthetic Theory has grown around that original synthesis. It is not just one single hypothesis (or theory) with its corroborating evidence, but a multidisciplinary body of knowledge bearing on biological evolution, an amalgam of well-established theories and working hypotheses, together with the observations and experiments that support accepted hypotheses (and falsely rejected ones), which jointly seek to explain the evolutionary process and its outcomes. These hypotheses, observations, and experiments often originate in disciplines such as genetics, embryology, zoology, botany, paleontology, and molecular biology. Currently, the "synthetic" epithet is often omitted and the compilation of relevant knowledge is simply known as the Theory of Evolution. This is still expanding, just like the "holding" business corporations that have grown around an original enterprise, but continue incorporating new profitable enterprises and discarding unprofitable ones. pg 7961.Ayala, Francisco J. and Walter M Fitch. "Genetics and the origin of species: An Introduction." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. USA Vol 94 7691-7697. July 1997. Larry wrote: It is over what is included in the Modern Synthesis that we disagreed before just as Gould disagrees with the above. Though you might find it interesting that Stebbins and Ayala in 1981 point to specific cases where the scientists credited with the the Modern Synthesis specifically discuss drift and its relative impact within the framework. I don't have the cite handy, but they do mention both Fisher and Wright. However, since Gould and others disagree, I thought we should move on to the substance of the disagreement which wasn't over the definition of the Modern Synthesis, but the claims you may be making, but choose not to elaborate in relation to common descent. Larry, this is classic example of what I am talking about. You say that you want to move on but all you really want to do is to try and trap me into the same straw man. But I will bring up one point. Look at the quote. You are arguing somehow that the synthesis that the quote is speaking about the Modern synthesis that we were arguing about. This is a horrible misrepresentation. It is merely talking about a new theory of Evolution that occasionally makes use of the word Synthesis. I quote: Currently, the "synthetic" epithet is often omitted and the compilation of relevant knowledge is simply known as the Theory of Evolution. In addition, the quotes makes it quite obvious that this theory of Evolution is not the Modern Synthesis, the original synthesis. I quote:The current Synthetic Theory has grown around that original synthesis. Once again, your quote is an excellent illustration of my argument that the Modern Synthesis is merely a partial theory. Why are you trying to bring up this strawman over and over again? Extrapolation from micro mutations within an organism genome over time is not the sole mechanism that we know of for evolutionary change. Thus, the evidence shows that the Extrapolation claim in the Modern Synthesis simply did not occur. Thus, like most scientific theories, we should not completely throw it away. The Modern Synthesis becomes and is a good partial theory. That was my argument. Why do you keep trying to make one of my subarguments a straw man when the main argument was demonstrated by me and agreed on by you? And once again, it is quite pathetic for you to try to make the claim that the Modern Synthesis is the same as Current Synthetic theory. My goodness. Can you make such a claim with a straight face? Also, if you are just genuinely confused because both theories have the word Synthesis in them, it would explain to me why you made the erroneous claim that the Neutral theory is a part of the Modern Synthesis. On another note, you keep bringing up genetic evidence. If you notice in our new discussion that you are not addressing, I am arguing that the variety of life that we see on the planet did not descend from a living organism. Living organisms, not a single organism, emerged containing all the functions of life with varying Self replicating structures (which we now call DNA, but could have been an RNA precursor). These organisms emerged from a enormous amount of self replicating or self approximating molecules manipulating non self approximating molecules (the ones that make up Ribosome, Spliceosome, Tranfer RNA, and cellular Membranes). Because horizontal processes are involved. The evidence suggest that the small number of similarities in Genomes at higher taxa are based on horizontal processes. When you talk about genetic evidence at above the family level what are you exactly talking about? Remember the argument before this was that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory. Does your evidence deal with Mammals. .1% of animal life or how about vertebrates 2% of animal life. Or does represent all known kingdom classification. In terms of the evidence with animals, does it deal with the actual similarities in the animal genomes or does it just limit itself to common genes. Or does it avoid the nuclear DNA all together and concentrate on Ribosomal RNA, Mitochondria DNA, and/or etc. which in my argument would be very similar anyway. In a nutshell, do not just say you have genetic evidence. Evolution shows that at some point all the life on this planet was not complex, multicellular, or even vertebrates. The evolutionary mechanisms that caused the variety of life to change when it did not have vertebrates, and when it was not multicellular, and when it was not complex would be responsible for greater than 99% of all the variety that has ever existed and evolved on this planet. Personally, I have not seen any genetic evidence that accomplishes much more than showing that the Modern Synthesis is a good partial theory discussing evolutionary mechanisms for less than 1% of the variety that have existed on this planet. And Great for sub family changes in Mammals and other Vertebrates. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. What is your genetic evidence? If you truly want to move on, why did you totally avoid addressing my argument that common descent from a complex living organism is not simpler than descent from a series of simple structures each containing some of the functions that we no define as life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thmsberry Inactive Member |
Larry, <> < You quote me: This would require one of two things. A: You believe in macromutations. I.E. Hopeful monster. Which is not a part of the Modern Synthesis. Or B: You believe nonfunctional changes accumulate in a genome caused by mutation and at some point these neutral changes come together in just the right combination of individuals or individual, thus producing a new function. A function that may remain neutral or is selected. This would be a sort of combination of Neutral theory and the Modern Synthesis. < Larry write:Oh, I see the problem, you don't understand what one means when discussing the Modern Synthesis. Silly me, I thought you actually READ what people linked to. How dumb of me:From:http://talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html quote: "The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12 Perhaps you need to do a little reading... < In post 89 of NUTFRfHE,>> You quote me (Thmsberry), The argument between Selectionist and neutralist is not mediated by the Modern Synthesis. The Neutral theory came years about 30 after the Modern Synthesis. Your side is notorious for this sort of blurring. It is extremely typical. One aspect of the main differences between the theories is how mutations accumulate. < You begin by quoting the link: When these pieces came together, the fields of genetics and evolution were revitalized after decades of nasty, unfruitful debate among academics. This "Modern Synthesis" married the fields of population genetics,evolution, and paleontology (blossoming in the 1930's). < You Larry wrote:This is the only reference I see and nothing in it a challenge to what I have been claiming--what is your point? Population genetics has advanced since the Modern Synthesis but the essential holding still stand. < |
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 29 by lbhandli, posted 02-16-2001 1:31 PM | lbhandli has not replied |
Message 31 of 59 (164)
02-17-2001 5:53 AM |
Reply to: Message 29 by lbhandli 02-16-2001 1:31 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 29 by lbhandli, posted 02-16-2001 1:31 PM | lbhandli has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 33 by lbhandli, posted 02-17-2001 12:46 PM | Thmsberry has not replied |
Message 35 of 59 (167)
02-21-2001 11:55 PM |
Reply to: Message 34 by Percy 02-21-2001 3:24 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 34 by Percy, posted 02-21-2001 3:24 PM | Percy has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 36 by Percy, posted 02-22-2001 11:02 AM | Thmsberry has not replied | ||
Message 37 by lbhandli, posted 02-22-2001 12:11 PM | Thmsberry has not replied | ||
Message 38 by Percy, posted 02-23-2001 10:50 AM | Thmsberry has not replied |
Message 40 of 59 (172)
02-24-2001 4:52 AM |
Reply to: Message 39 by lbhandli 02-23-2001 12:12 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 39 by lbhandli, posted 02-23-2001 12:12 PM | lbhandli has not replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 41 by Percy, posted 02-24-2001 12:22 PM | Thmsberry has replied |
Message 48 of 59 (188)
03-04-2001 9:21 PM |
Reply to: Message 41 by Percy 02-24-2001 12:22 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 41 by Percy, posted 02-24-2001 12:22 PM | Percy has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 49 by lbhandli, posted 03-04-2001 11:13 PM | Thmsberry has not replied | ||
Message 50 by Percy, posted 03-06-2001 2:25 PM | Thmsberry has replied |
Message 51 of 59 (191)
03-07-2001 12:02 AM |
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy 03-06-2001 2:25 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 50 by Percy, posted 03-06-2001 2:25 PM | Percy has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 52 by Percy, posted 03-07-2001 8:46 AM | Thmsberry has not replied | ||
Message 53 by lbhandli, posted 03-07-2001 2:41 PM | Thmsberry has replied | ||
Message 54 by Percy, posted 03-07-2001 7:14 PM | Thmsberry has not replied |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024