|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,455 Year: 3,712/9,624 Month: 583/974 Week: 196/276 Day: 36/34 Hour: 2/14 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Modern Synthesis Can't Explain Speciation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: Since speciation is the only taxonomic level that evolution can be observed directly, your objection is silly-no one claims that one species of one family suddenly becomes a species of another family. However, there is corroborating evidence in molecular paralogy, nonfunctional genetic evidence and the multiple nested hierarchies that match each other relatively closely.
quote: Ummm shared characteristics? I'm not sure how many times I've mentioned this, but repeating myself is getting to be tiring.
quote: That is some fascinating backtracking. What about inbetween Kingdom and Family? Even at the Kingdom level I'm not sure what besides mutation you are claiming though. Hybridization through gene flow? I suppose, but that really isn't much of a theory since differentiation would already be going on. Recombination? That isn't exactly controversial either.
quote: Macro mutation? What is a macro mutation? Since mutations are acted upon by other mechanisms before being potentially passed on this is really silly choice of words and extremely unrepresentative of what scientists claim. It seems to assume the same gene is acted upon repeatedly, which while possible, certainly isn't the typical case in the short run. Indeed some gene don't change for millions of years. Additionally, I'm curious as to your definition of mutation. Could you provide what you are using and then explain how you distinguish between intra organism mutations and inter organisms mutations. You seem to be claiming that symbiosis and other inter organism mutations are something other than a mutation and that is a very strange way to identify them in relation to their affect on heritable material.
quote: Again, you seem to be expecting a family to family transition in one speciation. And this ignores the genetic evidence that does demonstrate clear linkages between families and linkages that are closer when families are theorized to be more closely related.
quote: 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.
quote: 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. 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. Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: No, 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. If you noticed I posted two other posts to which you don't both to substantively reply. Why not?
quote: That is a nice try. And you answered the question of are you really that dense with a resounding yes. Thank you. The argument we were having concerned the definition of the Mondern 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. If you don't believe me from the quote, read the article.
quote: What strawman? How is it a strawman specifically? How is pointing out that in arguing about the meaning of the Modern Synthesis we were not addressing the real question I was asking you about concerning common descent? That can't be a strawman it is pointing out that you haven't realized what the discussion has concerned for quite some time. WAKE UP!
quote: Yes, there is also recombination.
quote: And it was a pointless argument since we define what the Modern Synthesis is. Big deal. The above was meant to point this out to you to try and get to the actual substantive disagreement. In doing so I pointed out the debate that Ayala and Fitch and Ayala and Stebbins had with Gould concerning how they defined the Modern Synthesis. This apparently is way over your head however and you do not even realize that many scientists don't hold the Modern Synthesis as a theory in the strict sense, but a synthesis of several different fields that contribute to biological evolution. HELLO IN THERE MCFLY. PAY ATTENTION.
quote: Where did I do this specifically? Please cut and paste and link to it. DO IT OR RETRACT. This is dishonest and you should apologize. I said at one point if I defined the MS as you do you would be correct in relation to your claims. Given you are arguing for a different definition of the MS though, that just means we were talking past one another.
quote: No, pathetic is you reading a quote from Science and two well established researchers who claim the same thing and then deny that they do. You have failed to even produce Gould's counters to their arguments and yet you declare unilateral victory despite the clear evidence of a debate in the literature. That is either dishonest or ignorant. You choose, but it is pathetic.
quote: Because researchers in the field of study use the same definition. HELLO! There is a debate about it and you act as if you are the sole authority for some bizarre reasoning. Why don't you do some reading and then come back and apologize?
quote: Read Ayala and Stebbins 1981 and stop your whining. Or do I need to quote from it how the mention that both Fisher and Wright considered the debate over the relative importance of drift to selection? 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 fact that I can cite two articles 13 years apart is proof you are wrong. Get over it.
quote: Then address paralogy. It specifically discounts this claim and it points out that later genes are largely evolved from those of early ones. The basic elements of the cell are highly comparative and the differences you are saying are small are well accounted for by the growing away from the center of the tree. If you were correct we would see significant differences in the most basic genes relating to cells from different species looking very different from one another. Additionally, as you continually fail to respond to multiple nested hierarchies that match each other, lateral transfer having such a dramatic impact would not create such a pattern.
quote: For paralogy we see it between yeast and roundworms. Guinea Pigs and primates share the lack of the ability to produce vitamin C that most other mammals have. If not for the common descent eventually creating new families this shouldn't be the case. Different structures would exist for the production of vitamin c between these different families. In this case the same gene is inactive in both groups while active in the rest of mammals. Additionally, the nested hierarchies based on genetic evidence have no other explanation.
quote: LOL.
quote: If you are going to ask questions like this why didn't you bother to read what I cite to you? Your laziness knows no bounds.
quote: It has been cited to your previously. If you want more research it can be provided, but I'm curious as to how you explain what we do observe. If you accept that, then what is it that would be different with other biological populations? What are you claiming would be different about them as to not follow the same patterns? You are asserting there is a difference but not giving any reason other than the lack of absolute knowledge.
quote: I did address it. Can you read? Or do you just refuse to? I'm curious as to which it is. It doesn't matter to the argument unless you are claiming that families separately evolved from such processes. Are you doing that? I doubt even you are making that ridiculous of a statement. Essentially you seem to be saying either abiogenesis occurred which if fine, but not a part of biological evolution or that multiple abiogenesis events occurred producing several limbs that then diverge even more. While it is true this would be different from the tree of life I mentioned--it doesn't really change much except having several trees. If you do want to be serious, why don't you lay out exactly what you do think created the diversity of life on Earth? Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: I do wish to move on. Do you remember the questions concerning common descent? However, given your inability to understand the discussion I have had to point out what we were trying to move on to. If you would bother to notice, I've brought up evidence that you continue to ignore. You have claimed that above the family level you don't know of any evidence for common descent. Or is this just common descent with only mutation and recombination? Who knows, you don't care to explain yourself well enough for anyone to determine what you do mean. I suppose this is an effective strategy if you only wish to obscure what you mean instead of stating what you mean. What is especially bizarre is this would mean that we couldn't conclude that mammals come from a common ancestor or even primates. Would you care to address this? Or are you going to continue to avoid the subject? It is even stranger in context of the references to Doolittle's work you have been given on two occasions to claim you don't know of any evidence. Or is the entire argument that horizontal gene transfer is required as well? And then your rather strange argument that extrapolation is unwarranted in science.
quote: quote: As for evidence that demonstrates that common descent can and does account for different families let's look within the Order Primate at Super Families Hominoidea and Cercopithecoidea. In nucleotide distances from the yh-globin gene and surrounding area, we observe that these are quite consistent with a process that requires nothing but mutation and recombination. Additionally, the comparisons of the genomes don't require any sort of other mechanism that would create faster change. The rate is consistent with observed rates currently and we don't observe any discrepancies that would require another mechanism. While a full conclusion would await further genome decoding and it is possible some other mechanism could account for such differences, why would not make the inference given the evidence of nucleotide differences. The rates are those calculated by WJ Bailey et al in Molecular Biological Evolution 1991: 8:155-184. Why would we infer a different mechanism if current rates match expected differences? I must say I'm confused by your claims there is no evidence. Of course we are able to establish evolutionary relationships through common markers quite easily between these two Superfamilies as well.
quote: As I pointed out before this is an example of absurd backtracking. Are you claiming that kingdoms didn't grow distinct over time from such mechanisms as mutation, natural selection, drift, recombination and lateral gene transfer? Are you claiming they have independent origins or the trivial claim that there hasn't been just vertical evolution? At some point you are going to have to clarify what exactly you are arguing. In regards to evolution, how far back can we infer common descent? I'm not really concerned with whether there is a universal common ancestor, but more what you are arguing. Is the only thing interesting you have to say regarding the possibility of several unicellular ancestors being the first life instead of universal common ancestor? This doesn't seem very interesting giving the degree of your ranting and your odd challenges about evolution leading to Family level distinctions.
quote: Apparently as many as it takes you to avoid moving on. If you notice I have presented evidence to you several times and you choose to ignore it.
quote: I'm growing weary of your whining. You didn't read or you wouldn't attribute the three "elements" to Futuyama since Larry Moran wrote the 3 "elements". You still haven't read, and I'm quite tired of arguing with you. By the way an ad hominen attack is one that attacks you personally. I suppose the above is possibly an ad hominen, but it is a fair one since you didn't read the source I cited. I will add:
quote: quote: You didn't bother to read-as usual. At this point it is not worth arguing with you about anymore.
quote: If you are going to continue with your ranting fine. I'm only responding to the substantive portions I have brought up and only if you are going to clarify yourself in regards to what you do argue concerning common descent. If you don't bother to read what is cited to you, you have a lot of gumption to claim dishonesty. There was no lack of integrity there was a lack of reading on your part that then degenerated into further confusion. If you aren't going to actually read what I link to and mention don't respond and then become upset about not understanding what I'm referring to. [This message has been edited by lbhandli (edited 02-19-2001).]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: Now, you are simply avoiding saying anything meaningful. To what degree can common descent (notice I'm not using the term Modern Synthesis) explain the diversity of life--can it go back to the first life form(s). Or, in your opinion, can it only be inferred back to a different point in taxonomy? If so what point? As far as decimating my argument it is clear you didn't read my argument since you attributed "elements" to the wrong author--however you can choose to move on to the point I've been asking you about for some time--by addressing the point above. Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: I've never read 2, I've only read arguments over the relative importance. I tend to think that the question is wrong in the scientific literature, though I tend to stay out of the arguments on talk.origins because I learn more by sitting back and reading. I get the feeling that both sides are arguing for an overall answer when the question probably should be under what conditions is selection or drift more important.
quote: And I don't think that neutralists argue selection doesn't occur, but I think they are arguing over the relative importance.
quote: You may be right in relation to Kimura who did some of the original work on the subject. However, Gould's argument is similar to thmsberry in that Gould argues the Modern Synthesis is a specific theory. He doesn't take issue with including additional genetic mutation mechanisms AFAICT, but he does feel that the Modern Synthesis view of macroevolution as a lot of microevolution is reductionist and does not allow for mechanisms above that level. Obviously he does so because Punctuated Equilibrium is what he wants to advance and he feels such a view threatens its acceptance. I understand Gould's point of view, but I think he is making the Modern Synthesis out to be more than how I view it and many others as well.
quote: One of the key issues neutralists argues is the Founder's Affect. It is when you have a population down to relatively small population and certain characteristics then are likely to stick regardless of whether they are neutral or not if the population survives. Neutralists actually gained a lot of ground in the 1980s, but Gillespie has pointed out some of the very things you just point out in his 1993 book on population genetics. I don't find myself able to argue coherently between the two arguments. When I have asked Larry Moran (on talk.orgins a neutralist) some questions he tends to step on my head and do a dance. So I tend to stay out of the argument regarding selectionists vs neutralists. Larry Handlin [This message has been edited by lbhandli (edited 02-23-2001).] [This message has been edited by lbhandli (edited 02-23-2001).]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
Neo-DarwinismThe 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. Interestingly, I know of those who object to using neo-darwinism as a synonym for the Modern Synthesis--Larry Moran specifically challenges the term as antiquated. I'm not sure this helps the discussion at all though Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: I'll quote him:
quote: Moran sees it as simply antiquated because new mechanisms are known that Darwin couldn't have possibly understood. It is worth noting Moran tends to think that drift is more important than selection. Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: David, But why is that a barrier? As a quick pointer the only requirement is that the rate be adequate and AFAICT, it is:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#note_7 Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
How does a horizontal transfer not create a mutation? By definition of mutation it would appear to be that a horizontal transfer does exactly that.
Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
thmsberry:
quote: How would any horizontal mechanism not be a mutation in the genome by definition? In lay terms we often only refer to intergenomic mutations like point mutations as mutations, but in discussing the mechanisms of evolution I fail to understand how a horizontal transfer is not a random (in relation to fitness) mutation to the genome. Larry
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024