Modern Synthesis Can't Explain Speciation

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

Do you have actual evidence to the contrary and not speculation based on extrapolation?

---

Ummm shared characteristics? I'm not sure how many times I've mentioned this, but repeating myself is getting to be tiring.

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

You see, what is the point of arguing the possiblity of extrapolation from micro mutation to macro mutation

---

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:

---

at higher taxa if the evidence shows that it in fact did not happen this way at higher taxa.

---

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:

---

Why are you trying to get clarity on the very argument that we just finished and you said you wanted to move on from?

---

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:

---

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.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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

Why are you trying to bring up this strawman over and over again?

---

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:

---

Extrapolation from micro mutations within an organism genome over time is not the sole mechanism that we know of for evolutionary change.

---

Yes, there is also recombination.

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

My goodness. Can you make such a claim with a straight face?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

When you talk about genetic evidence at above the family level what are you exactly talking about?

---

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:

---

Remember the argument before this was that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory.

---

LOL.

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
Larry,

​

**I do not know why you do not want to move on.

---

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:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Do you have actual evidence to the contrary and not speculation based on extrapolation?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.12

​

Perhaps 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.

​

You went on to say that it was made up of the three essential element that Futuyama claimed. Which have no horizontal mechanism.**

---

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:

---

"1.It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
2.It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
3.It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

​

In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the writings of anti-evolutionists.

---

quote:

---

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".**

---

You didn't bother to read-as usual. At this point it is not worth arguing with you about anymore.

quote:

---

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.**

---

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).]

quote:

---

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,

---

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

quote:

---

I'd like to restate what I said about NT (Neutral Theory) in my previous message in slightly more detail. NT can only be classified as outside of the MS (Modern Synthesis) if you assume that:

​

1.The definition of the MS includes Natural Selection as a significant evolutionary force, and
2.NT does not include Natural Selection.

---

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:

---

While I don't agree with the first point, finding it too specific and confining, I accept that some people might be of that opinion and am willing to engage in discussion under that definition. But I don't understand the second point at all. While there can be debate about degree and extent, the adaptation of organisms makes clear that selection has been and is going on. I don't understand how any viable theory could discard selection.

---

And I don't think that neutralists argue selection doesn't occur, but I think they are arguing over the relative importance.

quote:

---

I have a feeling that part of the push from within scientific circles to classify NT as outside the MS is puffery stemming from a desire to make it seem as significant as possible.

---

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:

---

The larger and more inclusive the theory it purports to replace, the better the claim of making significant contributions, making easier the obtainment of such things as tenure, research grants, promising graduate students, lab space, etc. Even before looking into NT Ialready believed the vast majority of mutations to be harmless, so to me they seem to be saying something already patently obvious. The Neutralist challenge appears to be primarily mathematically based, and to me all they're doing is showing that under certain assumptions the mathematics of population genetics leads to absurd conclusions. It makes more sense to question the completeness and accuracy of the assumptions and/or the mathematical models themselves before considering the possibility that selection does not play a significant role in evolution.

---

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).]

[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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

​

Maybe Larry can tell us why Larry Moran objects to Neo-Darwinism as a synonym for the
Modern Synthesis. Is it just because it's antiquated, which I agree with? Or does he actually draw a distinction?

---

I'll quote him:

quote:

---

During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prof. D. McQueen:
Hello Percy

​

This is my first post.
I agree with you that definitions are important. As a Creationist, the issue of helpful mutations is important. Giving a lot away, 99% of mutations are not helpful (maybe 99.99 bar). This is an important critique of neo-Darwinism.

​

Now let me see if I can see how to title my post.

​

David

---

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_7Larry

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

thmsberry:

quote:

---

It's really sad. Because you have not submitted a single quote that has a horizontal element to the Modern Synthesis.

---

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