|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of the Modern Synthesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thmsberry:
[b]Great, I'll await for you to address all my points. Because when you do, if your objective, there is no way you can deny my argument.
[/QUOTE] You have yet to support your argument. You have posted sources from over 50 years ago to argue over what the common use of the term is today. The question is how is the term Modern Synthesis used today. You have tried to claim the Ayala and Fitch support your view in some contorted logic that is not consistent with the argument Ayala and Fitch make. They aren't arguing over the genetics even being the sticking point. They are arguing with Gould's contentions regarding larger patterns. If you don't bother to read a source, don't cite it.
quote: Dihonesty is misrepresenting a quote out of context and the message of the quote. This is exactly what you do with Ayala and Fitch.
quote: In the sense that all theories are partial. If you contend I did in any other sense I suggest you cite the specific post.
quote: What concession is that? Specifically?
quote: So how do you explain Ayala and Fitch? They are stupid and uninformed compared to you? You seem to want to claim that they agree with you when the specifically do not. They refer to synthetic theory as the Modern Synthesis. If you don't read something, don't cite it.
quote: Again, you seem to be attacking Larry Moran who is a researcher in the field. He isn't anti-creationist--he is a scientist who does research in Gene Expression and Evolution:
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/faculty.inc.html Lame try to discredit a source.
quote: Two sources by Ayala and coauthors and an FAQ by a current researcher in the field at the University of Toronto. You haven't read the source by Ayala and Fitch and conclude that it supports you? nice try. You have yet to provide a modern source that would be relevant. Please do.
quote: Percy has requested you to provide evidence. You have refused instead playing semantic games.
quote: How is this relevant since the question is how is the term used today?
quote: And how is this relevant to the current usage?
quote: And Ayala and Fitch are specifically referring to the term Modern Synthesis. Again, don't misrepresent the article.
quote: Let's see:Definitions of mutation Jargon File at TO An error in duplication of genetic material which results in a different sequence of and/or a different number of base pairs in the copy than were in the original. TO FAQ on mutations to which you didn't object before:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#types http://www.msu.edu/course/mic/431/chapt03.htmA. Mutation: A mutation is any heritable change in the DNA sequence. OED:a. The process whereby detectable and heritable changes in genetic material arise and a quote from Mike Syvanen Before whining about this quote:"It is difficult to imagine, mostly because that is not the way we are trained to think. If you accept that mutation can fashion new structures, why is it so radical to include the contributions of foreign genes as one of the mutational mechanisms? Please look up Mike's citations in either academic journals or as far as books. One of the books will make you look especially silly.
quote: At best, pot-kettle issues here. Let me know when you want to address your very odd claims about there being no evidence for family level evolution. Cheers,Larry Handlin [This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 03-12-2001).]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: I'm sorry, but this thread is getting torn into shreads by evasive replies. There are three issues that have now been brought up. 1) the meaning of the Modern Synthesis2) What is a mutation? 3) Are mutations random? I am starting two new threads so that each issue is not further confused. On this thread I will return to your previous post since you did not respond to anything regarding the Modern Synthesis. From quote: Specifically, where are you referring to when you say my concession? Please be specific. You avoided this issue in your last post.
quote: Your specific examples are to articles that are quite old. The only recent article you cite is a quote provided by me from an article by Ayala and Fitch. I will quote further from that article to show the context of it and why you are misusing it claiming it supports your case.
[b] [QUOTE]
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) was a key author of the Synthetic Theory of Evolution, also known as the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory, which embodies a complex array of biological knowledge centered around Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection couched in genetic terms. The epithet "synthetic" primarily alludes to the artful combination of Darwin's Natural Selection with Mendilian genetics, but also the incorporation of relevant knowledge from biological disciplines. In the 1920s and 1930s several theorists had developed mathematical accounts of natural selection as a genetic process. Dobzhansky's Genetics adn the Origin of Species, published in 1937, refashioned their formulations in language that biologists could understand, dressed the equations with natural history and experimental population genetics, and extended the synthesis to speciation and other cardinal problems omitted by the mathematicians.[/b][/QUOTE] Now add to it the quote already seen:
[b] [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.[/b][/QUOTE] Your response to this is apparently:
quote: What you have failed to answer is why would books from the 1940s tell us anything about how the term is used currently. Ayala and Fitch, by any reasonable reading, are saying that the term Modern Synthesis is simply the joining of genetics and selection mechanisms. It wasn't meant, at least in Ayala's eyes (nor Futyma's as I'll explain later) as restrictive to a set of specific holdings, but as a rejection of pure mutationists and biometricians and a unifying of the two fields into one field that still exists. Genetics has changed, but nothing about the joining of natural selection/drift and genetics has at it core. Additionally, as Strickberger points out, the real key to the Synthesis was that it put an end to Larmarkian speculation as well as saltational theories that were competing at the time. A change in the field of genetics that simply finds another mechanism is simply not a challenge to the synthesis of the two areas, but adds to its body of knowledge. And in this way, Ayala and Fitch most importantly point out that the Modern Synthesis isn't simply a theory or hypothesis, but field of study guided by certain principles. See Futuyma later... Note, if you were arguing from Gould's point of view here, you could probably say that Ayala and Fitch are inconsistent with Ayala's view in 1981 if you wanted to be pedantic. However, Gould doesn't take issue with Ayala over genetics, but over selection vs drift and the possible implications for PE. If you want to disagree with Ayala and Fitch, fine. But there are extremely well qualified researchers in the field who hold exactly that position. In looking for other examples I have yet to find a source that does make the distinction that you do regarding genetics being so different as to require a different Synthesis. Indeed, it appears that such a new Synthesis would have had to appear in the 1950s with the clear emergence of DNA as information for genes. Another source that I looked at are Evolution, by Monroe W. Strickberger, Copyright 2000 by Jones and Bartlett Publishers. He breaks down the Modern Synthesis just as Gould and Ayala do with no mention of a problem with genetics, but actually with drift versus selection. A final source I picked up was the most recent edition of Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Edition, 1998. His work presents maybe the biggest challenge to you. You want to claim it was a partial theory and didn't include drift (despite Wrights work on the issue) or horizontal mechanisms. Ayala and Fitch would reply that it wasn't meant to be a definitive theory, but a field of research. The interesting thing is after the formulation of the Modern Synthesis, research blossomed finding all sorts of new findings that built upon the melding of selection and genetics. In laying out the Modern Synthesis as it was, Futuyma points out 20 basic tenets of that theory. Before doing so, Futuyma says
quote: Given the number of points, I can't reprint them all (the book is widely available), but I find little in them that has been challenged. Indeed, Futuyma discusses the first two decades after the formation of the Modern Synthesis as being spent discovering the genetic mechanisms. As Percy has pointed out, we can simply refer to the Modern Synthesis by your definition if you wish. If it will move along the discussion, fine. Let me adress a couple last points:
quote: No, it does not. Ayala and Fitch make a significantly different argument. I have added more material to put in even better context. No one is arguing that the Modern Synthesis as formulated in the 1940s is still our current understanding. However, the current use of term is not monolithic as you claim. You cited :
http://www.pku.edu.cn/academic/xb/97/_97e619.html This is the Gould/Ayala debate. It is unclear to me that it has any relevance to the debate over genetic mechanisms. Essentially the researcher disagrees with Ayala just as Gould does and we have already addressed this. This is a different issue. Cheers,Larry Handlin [This message has been edited by lbhandli (edited 03-12-2001).] [This message has been edited by lbhandli (edited 03-12-2001).]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: In 27 you are taking issue with Ayala's quote, of which you now say supports your position. The disagreement had started long before then. I disagreed specifically before and after that. As far as your claims that I agreed to some mysterious second definition, I would suggest you produce evidence of it. I have asked, you have now refused to answer it several times.
quote: Again, you have not provided a source that discusses the Unification of Evolutionary Theories. Please do so. I also specifically said this is not what I'm arguing. To repeat for the umpteenth time, the Modern Synthesis is series of tenets not a strict theory. Those tenets essentially wed genetics with selection. There is an argument from Gould and some others that with the debate over drift the Modern Synthesis is outdated--Futuyma points this out in his book. I am not arguing for the Unification of Evolutionary theories because I don't see the Modern Synthesis as a strict theory. Neither does Ayala and Fitch. I am not arguing for it as a strict theory as stated in the 1940s. I have been arguing for it to be the general wedding of selection and genetics. I pointed out in my last post why this is significantly different than what the debate was before 1940. You see, my argument doesn't equal your argument or this mysterious unification of evolutionary theories that you refuse to cite. And neither does Ayala and Fitch. So, you can continue to argue that thmsberry is the sole decider of terminology or you can move on.
quote: Yeah, nice try. You claim neutralists shouldn't be included in the Modern Synthesis--Gould argues the same thing. Ayala argues differently pointing to Wright's research. And in relation to the Modern Synthesis, that is the heart of the disagreement. You claim that the Modern Synthesis has been replaced. I would argue that the essential wedding of genetics with selection mechanisms is still in place and that we haven't returned to debating Lamarking or pure mutational arguments.
quote: The importance of HGTs is still debated. Though it is accepted as important in the early stages of life, its relative impact is still quite uncertain. For some of the strongest evidence that it is important later on see the new link to Mike Syvanen's articles. However, as simply another genetic mechanism, I don't understand why this would be a challenge to the foundation of the Modern Synthesis (as I use the term).
quote: What elements would be completely proven wrong? Natural selection? Drift? Mutation? Are you arguing for a Lamarkian evolution? Or mutationist interpretation? What is it that would overturn the current understanding? I imagine we will find new mechanisms and the such, but I have no idea why you seem to expect a radical change in the theory. Please clarify.
quote: You could argue for a saltational event (as some HGT advocates claim may have occurred through natural processes), Lamarkian evolution, mutationist arguments, but you wouldn't get far because the evidence isn't there. Perhaps you could explain what you do take issue with then. Or if you aren't taking issue with current evolutionary theory what exactly is it that you are arguing for? Cheers,Larry Handlin [This message has been edited by lbhandli (edited 03-14-2001).]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: And what new mechanism is required in the way use the term Modern Synthesis?Genetics wed to selection processes--remember? Modern genetics is covered and so are selection. Saltation mechanisms? Purely mutational mechanisms? What new mechanism? Lamarkian? quote: No, I was arguing that HGTs are mutations. See that thread for my position after asking Syvanen.
quote: Right, because I off-handedly referred to it that way and in any strict sense I've never used it as a theory. let's continue my with what I said in message 14:
quote: If you are going to misrepresent what I said, you ought to do it without such a clear record. This is remarkably consistent with Ayala and Fitch.
quote: Correct. Recombination, natural selection and drift are other mechanisms and given HGTs as well. I made this point before. If you read what you wrote and how I responded in post 12 in this case, I am responding to your claim that only the accumulation of mutations is included in the Modern Synthesis. Even you agree that natural selection was included in the Modern Synthesis. Should I repeat your statement about how careful you are with language for you here? In fact, the Modern Synthesis pulled away from those who argued that the only only mechanism of evolution were mutations.
quote: The essential holding in how I have been making the argument is that genetics and selection are wed together. This is different than a saltational theory, a mutationist theory or a Lamarkian theory.
quote: Yeah, conveniently choosing the quotes of mine is dishonest. Cheers,Larry Handlin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: You have had a standing invitation for at least a couple weeks now. Cheers,Larry
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024