Modern Synthesis Can't Explain Speciation

Ignore previous post.Larry,**I do not know why you do not want to move on. How many times are you going to go through the exercise of forgetting what we actually argued in the past. Then, pretend we weren’t in fact arguing that the Modern Synthesis was a partial theory. Your new fictious argument is that we were arguing over what the definition of the Modern Synthesis. Come on Larry. Why do you keep doing this? Is there some sort of name for this in debate. I do not think straw man actually aplies. Instead of simply saying I am making argument that I am not. You keep imagining that our argument was about something else. We had a minor argument about whether the Neutral theory was a part of the Modern Synthesis. But it is quite clear that we were not debating disagreement between Gould and (Ayala and Fitch). It is most apparent that we were not debating whether one can define the Unification of Evolution theories as the same as the Modern Synthesis in our arguments over whether the Neutral theory is a part of the Modern Synthesis. Our actual argument and the fact that you were not arguing Ayala an Fitch is obvious in your post 73 of NUTFRfHE and post 89 of NUTFRfHE. Let’s once again examine Larry’s amnesia by reviewing these two post.****Starting with Larry in post 73 of NUTFRfHE **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.**In B: I briefly state that you are attempting to incorporate Neutral theory in your definition of the Modern Synthesis. Here, you should have presented that your use of the Modern Synthesis is not really what I mean by the Modern Synthesis. You see, your use of the Modern Synthesis as synonymous to the unification or synthesis of Evolutionary theories. Yet, your rebuttle in no way directly addresses this argument.**Larry writes: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.12Perhaps you need to do a little reading... **In your arguing ad homineum (sp), you present definition of the Modern Synthesis that no where mentions horizontal mechanisms as parts of the theory. And the Futuyama definition defined the Modern Synthesis the same way that I had in previous post. Giving me know direct hint that you were trying use a different definition of the Modern Synthesis than I was. In the link, the article by a different Larry, he mentions genetic drift is one of a number of Mechanisms in the Modern Synthesis. He never names any of these which left the possibility for horizontal mechanisms. When the author loosely made this statement, I became aware that, though not explicitly clear, that the possibility existed that you and the author that you quoted were using a different definition of the Modern Synthesis than I was. I combatted this possiblity by adding a higher level of detail to my definition of the Modern Synthesis and directly asking you were you trying to claim that the Modern Synthesis and the Current unification of Evolution theories are the same thing.****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. **Futhermore, I provided a link http://www.colorado.edu/epob/epob3200ramey/Lecture10.html . The link help clarified what I meant by the Modern Synthesis and your comment illustrated that you got my point.**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). **The quote that you picked made it very clear to me that you knew what I meant by Modern Synthesis. But your response to the quote was even clearer.**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 is your statement. If you were using the Unification of Evolutionary theories as the definition of Modern Synthesis, you not only would have disagreed with the quote, but you would have never said Population genetics has advanced since the Modern Synthesis. The statement would be I disagree with the quote. You would say something like ur current advances in Population genetics are part of the Modern Synthesis.****Finally, If these indications that you were not using a definition of Modern Synthesis that defined it as the Unification of Evolutionary theories, at one point at the post I directly asked you this question.**You quote me(Thmsberry): But basically, what you are trying to do is to claim that the Unification of Evolution theories is the same thing as the Modern Synthesis from the 30s. This claim is absolutely false. **Let’s see what your response was. **You wrote: No, I'm arguing that the Modern Synthesis is what Futuyama claims it is and the three essential elements of it above are still accepted. Are you reading what I'm writing?
I'm not responsible for you confusion. BTW--I asked you what Larry Moran (the author of the FAQ) considered to be dominant--genetic drift is the answer.**Your answer not only directly said that this was not your argument. I mean you did say no. No still mean no. You went on to say that it was made up of the three essential element that Futuyama claimed. Which have no horizontal mechanism.****So please Larry. Now, Let’s Compare this with some of your most recent writing in Post 29 of MSCES**You write: I'm trying to get you to move on by explaining over and over and over again what we were disagreeing over. You appear not to understand so I have to repeat and repeat and repeat myself. If you would stop whining about it, we could move on. You write: The argument we were having concerned the definition of the Modern Synthesis. I argued the above which is what Ayala and Fitch argue the Modern Synthesis is and your denial of what they mean reaches new levels of bizareness. You write: You are just acting silly now. To claim Gould is right is understandable, to not understand there is a debate over the term is pure PATHETIC IGNORANCE. I have given you cites and quotes---if you disagree fine, let's move on and just not use the term. However to claim that no debate occurs in science over the meaning of the term Modern Synthesis is simply wrong. **The problem with your stance in 29 of MSCES in three fold. You set a major straw man. First, You invent that our debate was about a scientific disagreement over the term Modern Synthesis. Next, You claim that I am ignorant of Current unification of Evolution theories and the opinions of Gould and others. But you conveniently forget that I brought this unification up in our original argument. Finally, you conveniently forget that when I directly asked you were you making this argument. You said no.****The more you keep using this convenient amnesia or inventing straw man tact it causes me to question your integrity in debate. Now, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe, you do not keep track of what we are actually arguing and what you actually have argued. Maybe, you wish you made the argument that you are trying to make now and simply did not remember that you denied and were not making this argument originally. This option would still show some a lack of integrity. Maybe, you always believed the argument you are trying to present but did not realize that you did not present this argument earlier and also did not remember or realize that you denied that you were making this argument already.****Who Knows? The technology currently does not exist to let me know what you think but I know what you have argued. I await your response.****Thanks You**

Percy,Your statements will be in quotes.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.I know you are an anticreationist. But as moderator, you need to be more objective. I decimated Larry’s argument in my last post. He claimed that he had been arguing one thing when his past post clearly were not. The argument he truly was arguing was defeated when he agreed that the Modern Synthesis was a partial theory. I have a couple post where I point out the evolution between what we were in fact arguing in the past and what he currently falsely claims we were arguing. Don’t turn around and present the same straw man. 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.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.No. It’s not. I am not going to get involved with the Neutral theory argument again. I really don’t need too. Symbiosis is not a part of the Modern Synthesis nor are any other Horizontal elements of change in an organisms’ genome.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.And. Once again. No Horizontal elements were apart of the Modern Synthesis. Margulis (sp?) theory and similar Horizontal theories were rejected or not known at the time of the Modern 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?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. The reason that you do not notice this difference is that most scientist are aware that the Modern Synthesis has been reduced to only a partial theory, but most Evolution websites and people who spend most of their time arguing against young earth literal biblical christian creationist are unaware. Thus, the reason why I presented this argument in the first place.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?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. Unless I typed a post with my subconcious while I was sleeping, I have never made claims that the creator creates ex nihilo not using the physical universe. I argue in phases. Creationism is the thread that unifies every point that I am making. But my creationism starts to becomes overwhelmingly obvious when addressing the next phase of my argument. Dealing with the assumption of the Modern Synthesis as well as the Current Unification of Evolutionary theories that the common ancestor of all life on this planet was in fact a single live organism.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?How can you miss the argument Percy. It’s obvious. The only mechanism that the Modern Synthesis advocates is that intergenomic mutations accumlated 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. The straw man is trying to get me to argue that such a barrier exist when we know that changes above the family level, like kingdom changes, were not based on intergenomic mutations. I do not need to argue for something that most scientist accept did not happen. Single cell prokaryotes simply did not evolve into Eukaryotes by intergenomic mutations. Eukaryotes are the product of Symbiosis.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. My first argument was to show that the first part of the theory is wrong, making it a partial theory, because there are currently more known mechanism. The next phase of my argument I was going to attack the assumption that biodiversity stems from a common live ancestor. Yet, Larry simply would not move on to address the next phase of my argument.I hope this clears up any of your confusion.

Percy,Some how you still do not see my argument. I have defined it ad nauseum in past post.But here, I will extremely summarize it.Modern Synthesis is only a partial theory.
The only mechanism that it has for genomes of one organism to change is mutations within the organisms' genome. It does not matter if its missense,nonsense, point, transposons within the genome, and/or whatever. Go through gene's list and all of these things follow different variations of mutations within an organisms genome.The mechanisms use DNA already present in the genome of the organism. They are mutations within the organisms genome.The Neutral theory argument is not relevant. Neutral theory is a different theory than Modern Synthesis. They differ as you know over the question of whether or not neutral mutations can accumulate. But it does not matter.Even if you believe the Neutral theory and the Modern Synthesis is the same thing. It has nothing to do with the strongest and main argument that I presented.Neutral theory and Modern Synthesis both argue that the macro differences in the variety of life on this planet are attributed to the accumulation of micromutations within an organisms genome.Symbiosis, Horizontal transfer, Foreign Transposons, viruses and etc. are mechanisms that I simply call Horizontal. They involve whole sequences of foriegn DNA entering the Genome of an organism. They have nothing to do with mutations within its genome. These horizontal mechanisms are nowhere in the Modern Synthesis. People who presented these arguments at the Modern Synthesis, like Margulis and others were either not considered feasible or not even known about.Thus, the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory. Qed.I do not have talk about genetic rates of change, the role of genetic drift, and etc. I do not have to show that mutations can't accumulate to cause change past the family level. Because the known scientific evidence shows that "vertical" mutations were not the only players in Evolution.Do you see the argument?I proved my argument that the Modern Synthesis was a partial theory.Now, this left Larry with a semantic argument. He tried to make the claim that he and I were using different definitions of the Modern Synthesis.I showed in my post before last that he and I were in fact using the same definitions of the Modern Synthesis. Review it. Ignore the Neutral Theory argument it's irrelevant to my main argument. And notice that when he and I were actually arguing these points, we were in fact defining the Modern Synthesis the same way.It is the original synthesis from over 50 years ago that includes both genetic drift and natural selection and once again, had absolutely no horizontal elements of change.Now, Larry is trying to present a new argument, but pretend it is the old one. If you just follow what he has wrote, this point is quite obvious. Now, I warn you my post before last is long. But it's mostly quotes from Larry and it proves my point.I'll await your response before I move on. I must be doing something wrong if you can't follow my argument. I find it easy to follow. But I am presenting.Another thing, I wouldn't make a good moderator. I am not objective. If a creationist was here arguing Young earth literal biblical christian creationism, I am too biased against that approach to judge their argument. If a person was a strong atheist, I am too biased against that approach to judge their argument. I could not judge something that I knew to be functionally incorrect on Scientific or logical grounds.

Percy,You wrote:
<<<
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-Darwinism The 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 >>>>

​

Percy,

​

Here we see the route of the problem.

​

Horizontal mechanisms are not genetic mutations.

​

In my previous post, I wrote: Symbiosis, Horizontal transfer, Foreign Transposons, viruses and etc. are mechanisms that I simply call Horizontal. They involve whole sequences of foriegn DNA entering the Genome of an organism. They have nothing to do with mutations within its genome. These horizontal mechanisms are nowhere in the Modern Synthesis. People who presented these arguments at the Modern Synthesis, like Margulis and others were either not considered feasible or not even known about.

​

And the definition that you cited better illustrates my point about Neutral theory, but I won’t digress. Mostly because, I know that the break between Neo-Darwinism and Modern Synthesis occurs at the introduction of the concept of genetic drift.

​

Do you still not see the problem?

​

Horizontal mechanisms are not a mutatations within a genome.

​

Read the definition you sited. Changes in the frequencies of genes introduced by mutation.

​

I’ll use Symbiosis as an example. Mitochondrial simply insert themselves and their DNA into Eukaryotic cells. The two separate organism develop a symbiotic relationship and over time one can not evolve without being a part of the other. No gene mutated and was passed on to the next generation. An entire set of genetic instructions was added newly to a genome.

​

This is no where in the Modern Synthesis and never was.

​

Are you trying to say that you can’t see the difference between the myriad types mutation a gene and a genome can have (Modern Synthesis) and the addition of an entire set or sequence of foreign DNA entering the genome of an organism (Horizontal Mechanisms)?

​

I can’t think of how I can simplify my argument any more than this.

​

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.

​

What more is there to say?

​

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

​

I would have to work to try to be objective as well, but in this instance, it is just overwhelmingly obvious that I won this argument. Modern Synthesis is a partial theory, it did not consider horizontal mechanism feasible and/or it was unaware of most of them when it was formulated.

Percy,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.For instance, the Lynn Margulis quote is me quoting myself showing you that I already made the same counterargument in a previous post. I use the same quote three times in the same posts. And indicated it was me and you still are talking about a reference.You can believe that the Modern Synthesis is the Current Unification or Current Synthesis if you want, but it is not and you would be wrong. You claim to be doing some sort of research. Just stick the words synthesis and evolution in a search engine.It's really sad. Because you have not submitted a single quote that has a horizontal element to the Modern Synthesis.Also, you are now using the same straw man technique as the rest of your comrades. I am showing you a common flaw misrepresented by anticreationist. The Modern Synthesis is the theory from the 30s and 40s. It is wrong because it has no horizontal mechanisms in it. Thus, it is reduced to the partial theory. And it is the reason why we even have the Current Unification or Synthesis known simply as ToE. Your side in their literature and Web sites are constantly behind on the current literature and terminology. Yet, you fault me.Your consistent use of the word mutation in the context of Horizontal mechanism is alarming. It requires defining the word mutation to simply mean change. A meaning that is semantically valid, but is not the meaning that is given to the word mutation in the realm of genetics, which we are discussing. Yet, you fraudelently claim that I am doing the same sort of thing with "my definition" of Modern Synthesis. It's not my definition. It is actually the correct one. Your side is just not using the right one.Your side appears to constantly refer to Talkorigin. This site is wrong in calling the Current Unification of Theories, the Modern Synthesis. One term is the theory for the 30s and 40s that I am talking about it. And the other is the evolving ToE that changes over time that Evolutionist like Gould argues about. Your blurring the two either intentionally or because you just don't know. I have showed in past post that Larry clearly was using the Modern Synthesis definition (30s and 40s) during the now closed debate we were having and not the Current Synthesis is the Modern Synthesis blur that he and now you are trying to pass off as your original argument.How can you debate with someone or a side that is not fair about what they have debated?Newton establishes the Law of Motion.
It was wrong because it negelected Relativity.Yet, no where in the Law of Motion does it say that relativity is wrong. Why? because relativity was not known about.No credible scientist would argue that the Law of Motion is not partial theory or more precisely an approximation because it neglects the effects of Relativity.But a lepton could argue, the Law of Motion is an ongoing theory and that Relativity is now just a part of it. Afterall, we still are talking about the laws that govern how things move. So even though, we are not using the term the way it was formulated by Newton. It is semantically correct.This is literally what you guys are arguing now with the modern Synthesis.The Current Unification of Evolutionary theories well Unification can be called Synthesis and sometimes is. The word Current can mean Modern. Thus, the Current Synthesis is the Modern Synthesis. Ignore what the terms mean in the actual context of the History of Evolutionary Biology and let's just argue that semantically they are the same thing. Also, let's use the fact that Horizontal mechanisms were mostly unknown at the formulation of the Modern Synthesis. To make the argument, Relativity was never denied outright in the Law of Motion so one can not say that it can't be apart of the argument.To argue against such a historically inacurate and flawed argument is an exercise in futility.Finally, people are not liking this website because unlike Yahoo, it does not remember your username and password. You have to re-enter evertime and it becomes an annoyance that you don't get on Yahoo. However, other than that, it really is a better website.