Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of the Modern Synthesis
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1 of 22 (198)
03-10-2001 4:34 PM


Hi Thmsberry,
quote:
Thmsberry writes:
A problem I am having. I provided four references in my last post. According to the Rules of debate web sites are not the only valid reference. I provided the four cornerstone books on the topic.
First, the request was for a reference to someone authoritative who defines the Modern Synthesis as you do. None of the books you mention could do that since they are well over a half century old and so could have no foreknowledge of future theories to distinguish from the Modern Synthesis.
Second, let's take a look at your references:
Genetics and Origin of Species, T. Dobzhanzky, 1937.
Systematics and the Origin of Species, Ernst Mayr, 1942.
Tempo and Mode in Evolution, George Gaylord Simpson, 1944.
Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, Sir Julian Huxley, 1944.
Here is a list of reasons why your references do not support your point that the Modern Synthesis does not include developments in genetics after 1944:
  1. You use them only as providing a framework for your history of the development of the Modern Synthesis. Nowhere do you claim that they state that subsequent developments in genetics after 1944 are not part of the Modern Synthesis. In other words, not only did you not offer them in direct support of your claim, you do not even say that they support your claim. You merely say that this history somehow supports your claim, but it isn't clear to me how.
  2. You cite entire books. Your correspondents cannot be expected to (and won't, anyway) sift through entire books looking for the part that makes your point.
    You do not cite the text from any of these books. Just to contrive an example, you needed to find something like Dobzhanzky saying, "Discoveries of non-vertical evolutionary mechanisms would supplant this synthesis of Darwinian evolution and genetics."
  3. Simply mentioning a book, author and date of publication along with a claim as to what it says (eg, "George Gaylord Simpson's Tempo and Mode in Evolution finished off the synthesis of Darwinism and Genetics in 1944.") is an argument, not a reference. I'll update the debate rules to be more clear, and I apologize for not being sufficiently specific, but for the purposes of discussion here references have to be rather specific. You can't go about just dropping the names of books, which falls into the class of fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Here's what I would consider a good reference:
    "...eukaryotic cells evolved by physically incorporating prokaryotic organisms into their cytoplasm." (Evolution, Third Edition, pp. 177-178, Monroe W. Strickberger)
  4. These books are old. Don't you think something more recent would be more germane to how the Modern Synthesis is defined today?
I think the whole issue is that you see the Modern Synthesis as the blending of disparate theories within biology, while the rest of us see it as the blending of entire sciences within biology. So when you say this:
quote:
Part of what your saying is my very argument. If synthetic theory is the unification of Mendellian Genetics and Darwinism (and actual population genetics)...
Understand, we don't see the unification as being with Mendellian genetics, but rather with the entire science of genetics. Hence, when horizontal mechanisms were added to genetics it took place amidst the backdrop of the Modern Synthesis. The Modern Synthesis is not a theory but a perspective, one that views Darwinian evolution and genetics as compatible rather than antithetical. The discovery of horizontal mechanisms only reinforced this view.
This is where we have such a problem with your view. How can you supplant something that is still true? The Modern Synthesis was the recognition that Darwinian evolution and genetics are compatible, and we still believe this to be true. Though we've learned much since the 1940s about both evolution and genetics, how could something that remains as true today as it was then be supplanted? You can say that originally the Modern Synthesis didn't know about horizontal mechanisms, but it didn't specifically exclude them (why would it, after all), and it certainly didn't expect science would remain static, and so subsequent developments were naturally to be expected. But those developments only strengthened the belief that Darwinian evolution and genetics are compatible.

Definitions

At heart this really becomes a discussion about the nature of language. Most words have more than one meaning, and a good number of words have many meanings. Plus the meanings of those words can be shaded and shifted by modifiers and context. This flexibility of language is both a help and a hindrance. I'm getting the impression that you like to insist upon a single definition of many terms, even the word "then" in one case, and you rarely even admit the possibility of alternative interpretations. This inflexibility contributes to precision, a laudable goal, but it, too, is both a help and a hindrance. The dictionary is a good example of the compromise between flexibility and precision - most words have a limited number of definitions whose meaning can be made fairly clear from context.
Our struggle here is to find a balance between precision and flexibility. You cannot, and we on the other side cannot, insist that the Modern Synthesis has one and only one meaning. Even people who have read all the books you listed can arrive at different conclusions, and while in some contexts it can be very convenient to have the term Modern Synthesis refer to how it was understood in 1944, in other contexts it is intended that it be interpreted far more expansively. Your interpretation deserves a lot of credit for paying attention to the demands of precision, but it fails by completely ignoring the demands of other contexts and the need to engage in useful communication without having to constantly invent new terms that are barely different from one another (eg, Modern Synthesis, Current Synthesis, Current Unification of Evolutionary Theories, Current Synthesis of Evolutionary theories, etc. By the way, the last two terms are ones you claim are current, yet if you do a web search on them they don't show up, I've never heard of them, they don't appear in any of my books, so a reference to someone authoritative who uses these terms in the same way you do would be very helpful.)
Mutation is another term whose definition has involved a difference of opinion. You see it as excluding horizontal mechanisms and only including intra-organism genetic changes, while others view it much more flexibly. In many contexts a mutation is simply a heritable change in an organism's genetic code. Whether the origin of the change was from within or without the organism makes no difference.
There are even a couple different ways to fit the origin of eukaryotes into both the definition of mutation and the Modern Synthesis, if I may offer an answer to my own challenge. One way is to view the newly incorporated organism as simply a change in the genetic code. Another way is to say that we still have two organisms, but that they have developed a very close symbiotic relationship that will strongly influence their future evolution.
My point is that it is therefore wrong for someone on either side to insist that the Modern Synthesis, or mutation, or any other term we disagree on in the future, has one and only one meaning, and that it has that meaning in all contexts where it is used, and that anyone who believes he has encountered an authoritative usage with a different meaning is just plain mistaken. We have to admit to ourselves that even within the scientific community there will not be universal agreement on the even the definition of some common terms. What is important is to understand that these differences exist, and to make sure you understand the definition being employed when a difference from your own preferred definition is discovered.
This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of linguistic anarchy, but simply an appeal that we make concessions to reality.
I haven't addressed all your points. I would very much like to, but this message is already too long, so I will stop here. Perhaps I'll have a future opportunity to address them.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-23-2001]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Thmsberry, posted 03-11-2001 6:47 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 12-22-2001 11:43 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 7 of 22 (204)
03-12-2001 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Thmsberry
03-12-2001 2:08 AM


Hi Thmsberry,
First, a note for both you and Larry. I've edited the posts that included the full text of the URL to a quote by Mike Syvanen. Because this URL contained so many characters it was affecting the displayed line length of the messages in this thread (at least in Netscape it was), so I edited these posts to bury the actual text of the URL inside the link to Mike Syvanen's quote.
I'm at work and so will respond to you in greater length when I get a chance at home. I hope you don't mind if at some point soon I go quiescent while I look at the login-id bug - could take a few days of my free time as the behavior of Netscape and Internet Explorer appear to differ.
For now just let me say that I agree with Larry about the Ayala quote not supporting your position. The reply I'm working on at home already says this, and you'll see it soon, but let me comment that I don't understand why you think simple use of the term Synthetic Theory by Ayala supports all your contentions about new developments in the 70s and 80s leading to a replacement of the Modern Synthesis. The Modern Synthesis has been synonymously called the Synthetic Theory since it's origination, the full formal name being the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. Ayala's just talking about the current state of the Modern Synthesis.
The rest of us here didn't just get off the boat from a desert island where we spent the last 30 years. The people debating with you have formed their opinions from reading material which somehow doesn't seem to be in any way aware of the claims you are making. This doesn't mean you are wrong. Perhaps we've all just managed to miss reading the relevant stuff. But if that's the case, then you're going to have to point us to the relevant stuff. So far you're not doing it, not even close.
First you refer to 50 year old books as if they could help us in any way settle your claims about developments only 30 years ago.
Then you quote Ayala and Fitch saying, "The current Synthetic Theory has grown around that original synthesis." The quote then goes on to describe the Modern Synthesis in almost precisely the same way as others here have been defining it. You somehow conclude this is saying a new synthesis supplanted an old synthesis. To everyone else it seems to be describing how the sciences included within the Modern Synthesis have grown.
The abstract you provided of a paper by Zhang Yun of Peking University falls into the same class of not only not supporting your claim, but of arguing against it. He calls attention to a couple current debates within biology and refers to the Modern Synthesis in the present tense, so clearly he believes it is alive and well. And his concluding sentence clearly states his belief that current developments will in the future lead to a new synthesis, not that a new synthesis has already take place:
The different doctrines of evolution will certainly toward to unification and to a new synthesis.
You then say, "Shows that this is more evidence for my argument." Can you explain how Yun's belief that current work will eventually lead to a new synthesis is evidence for your position that a new synthesis emerged in the 70s and 80s? They seem completely unrelated. One clearly does not follow from the other. Please think hard on this. If you really and truly believe this is a logical argument then give the rest of us a hand and explain clearly and simply how this is evidence for your position.
I think you're going to have to take a step back and try to analyze what's happening. You're offering citations that others are saying not only don't agree with you, but contradict you. You're claiming that the Modern Synthesis was replaced in the 70s and 80s, but this would have been so incredibly significant an event that there should be no problem finding sources that say things like, "When the Modern Synthesis was replaced in the 70s and 80s..." That you can find no such sources is something to think about. That current books still use the term Modern Synthesis freely is something more to think about. So pause a moment, collect your thoughts, reanalyze your evidence, then give us an argument supported by evidence that actually supports your position.
I strongly sense a reluctance on your part to accept that different people, even in the professional sciences, define some terms in moderately different fashion. Your desire for precision is laudable, but it disregards both practicality and reality. And your insistence that other definitions are not simply alternate perspectives but errors is hindering discussion. That not everyone defines words the same way is just something most people learn somewhere along the way.
The multiplicity of citations everyone's provided so far in this discussion seems to indicate that scientists differ moderately on the definition of the terms Modern Synthesis, Synthetic Theory of Evolution and Neo-Darwinism. Your problem is that nowhere is there any explicit statement by anyone that the Modern Synthesis has been replaced. The evidence you have offered is consistent with what everyone else here already believes, namely that we've learned a lot about evolution and genetics in the past half century, and this has added to the Modern Synthesis. References to things like the Current Synthesis are simply acknowledging that growth.
By the way, though asked a couple times now, you still haven't provided any support for your claim that Current Unification of Evolutionary Theories and Current Synthesis of Evolutionary theories are terms used today within biology. As I've stated before, I can find them in no book or web-site. Errors or fabrications result in a point for the other side, and I'd hate to see that happen, so please support this.
I'd like to ask everyone here (all three of us!
) to do a couple things. Please stop any form of non-positive personal statements and focus on the issues. And please work within a spirit of collegiality and compromise. When I add up the score at the end it'd be nice if I wasn't comparing negative numbers. Keep in mind that though it might feel good (real good, as I well know) to throw in that zinger, as a debating point it goes in the book as a -1 (actually, a point for the other side, but it's the same thing). Thanks.
--Percy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Thmsberry, posted 03-12-2001 2:08 AM Thmsberry has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 8 of 22 (205)
03-12-2001 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Thmsberry
03-12-2001 2:02 AM


Hi Thmsberry!
I need a break, so I thought I'd comment on this:
quote:
http://www.msu.edu/course/mic/431/chapt03.htm
Pathetic. Website. It was a summary of study notes. It was not a respected textbook and in types of mutations did not mention all the horizontal mechanisms, if any.

A couple things.
First, I think Larry meant for you to note that the definition of mutation is precisely consistent (nearly word for word) with one of the definitions we've offered.
Second, the website is for a course at Michigan State University, which has an excellent reputation both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The course notes are for a course called Microbial Biology, and the textbook listed for it is listed in the syllabus: Molecular Genetics of Bacteria by Larry Snyder and Wendy Champness. About Wendy Champness I was able to find this at sites selling the textbook - I assume it's from the book jacket:
quote:
Wendy Champness, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Microbiology at Michigan State University where she has been teaching microbial genetics to undergraduate and graduate students for more than 12 years. Most of her research has been on the regulation of antibiotic synthesis genes in Streptomyces. Research in her laboratory is supported by the National Science Foundation. She is a member of the Genetics and Cell and Molecular Biology Programs at Michigan State University and was a charter member of the NSF Center for Microbial Ecology at Michigan State. She is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Bacteriology.

I wasn't able to find an online bio of Larry Snyder, but he may also be at MSU, and presumably he has either more seniority or more experience or better credentials since his name is listed first.
It's hard to tell from an Internet search how popular the textbook is, but I did find that it is also used at Northern Illinois University, see this syllabus.
Larry's citation is insufficient since he should have first done this investigation himself and stated that the course was at respected MSU and that he believed the definition in the course notes likely derived from the course textbook.
But your challenge of Larry's citation of this website is also incomplete and insufficient, and now with more information it simply falls apart. If you're going to challenge something you should first make sure all your ducks are lined up in a row instead of just blindly issuing a challenge.
I do agree with your interpretation of Larry's assertion that "one of the books will make you look especially silly." First, this is inappropriate. Second, it's incredibly vague as there's no way to know which book. Third, your definition seems self-evidently reasonable. What's unreasonable is your insistence that the definition of mutation is the same everywhere in all contexts.
I own three textbooks on genetics (two by accident, but that's another story), and none mention horizontal mechanisms in their definitions of mutation. In fact, they don't mention horizontal mechanisms at all. They all deal solely with changes to the existing genome, never anywhere with additions to the genome from the outside. I don't know if this is typical for genetics textbooks, but all were published after 1998, so they're fairly recent.
But when I read in other places, such as books or articles on evolution, or in the aforementioned genetics textbook by Snyder and Champness, I see mutation defined more expansively in a way that includes horizontal mechanisms. And both are correct. Some books are saying that for their purposes they're defining mutation one way, while others are saying that for their purposes they're defining it another. I'm sure that when the scientists involved talk to each other they have no problem with this. "Oh, you're including horizontal mechanisms in the definition of mutation? Okay, for this discussion I have no problem adopting that definition."
People probably wouldn't have too much of a problem adopting your definition of the Modern Synthesis for the purposes of this discussion if you weren't so insistent that they not only adopt your definition, but concede their own definition wrong, too. By demanding everything you're getting nothing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Thmsberry, posted 03-12-2001 2:02 AM Thmsberry has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 10 of 22 (209)
03-12-2001 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Thmsberry
03-12-2001 2:08 AM


Hi Thmsberry,
This was mostly written in bits and pieces over the weekend though I didn't finish it till just now, but parts may seem a bit repetitive because of my earlier posts today.
--Percy

Hi Thmsberry,
quote:
But your side has not presented one shread of evidence from an authoritative source that states that current theory of Evolution is properly called the Modern Synthesis.
And you haven't presented any evidence that it's called something different, and I'm afraid the onus is on you. That's because you claim a new theory was introduced in the 70s and 80s that is something other than the Modern Synthesis, while the rest of us here say that biology is still operating under the Modern Synthesis. You need to cite something that backs your claim. There's certainly nothing we can do to rebut something that never happened. There's not going to be anyone writing that "The Modern Synthesis was not supplanted in the 70s and 80s as Thmsberry claims." You have to show you're not just making it up.
To this point you have not given any citations supporting your view. The single citation you did provide didn't support your view, and you refer to it here:
quote:
And the authoritative quote that shows that the Current Synthetic theory grew and grows and around the original synthesis. This shows inarguably that the theories are distinct.
You're referring to the Ayala quote, so here it is again. I reproduce it in full because it is a definition I completely agree with:
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.
Ayala uses the term "Synthetic Theory", but that's just a synonym for the Modern Synthesis:
The combination of the Mendelian theory of heredity and the Darwinian theory of evolution has come to be called variously the Modern Synthesis, or the synthetic theory of evolution, or neo-Darwinism.
Evolution, p. 10, Mark Ridley, Oxford University Press, 1997.
This simply illustrates the vagueness inherent in language. Back in the 30s and 40s the full name for the Modern Synthesis was the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. For another example, the Britannica describes the development of the Modern Synthesis under the heading The Synthetic Theory of Evolution (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 18, p. 987, 1986). Language makes it possible to refer to the same thing in more than one way. The Modern Synthesis was referred to as the Synthetic Theory long before you say it was developed in the 70s and 80s.
You also say about the Ayala quote that "This shows inarguably that the theories are distinct." I'm afraid I can't agree with your interpretation. Using your lingo, the Modern Synthesis lies at the core of the Current Synthesis. Just as the earth and the earth's core are not distinct planets, the Modern Synthesis and the Current Synthesis are not distinct theories. If you want to draw attention to developments since the 70s by referring to their added findings as the Current Synthesis I think most people would have little problem with this, but calling the Modern Synthesis and the Current Synthesis distinct theories makes little sense to most people.
You are going to have to face the fact that there are similar but different definitions out there. For example, here is a definition of the Synthetic Theory of Evolution that is very inclusive in that it includes molecular biology (http://daphne.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_1.htm):
We now understand that natural selection is just one of a number of processes that can lead to evolution. This knowledge has resulted in the development of a more complete understanding of genetic changes that is usually described as the synthetic theory of evolution. This is essentially a combination of Charles Darwin's concept of natural selection, Gregor Mendel's basic understanding of genetic inheritance, along with evolutionary theories developed in the 20th century by population geneticists and molecular biologists.
Synthetic Theory of Evolution, Dennis O'Neil, Palomar college.
And here is a similar but not identical citation that doesn't mention microbiology but considers Neo-Darwinism a synonym for the Synthetic Theory of Evolution (disagreeing, by the way, with Larry Moran):
The combination of Darwinian natural selection and Mendelian genetics is called the synthetic theory of evolution.
A book called Evolution, the History of an Idea (Peter J. Bowler, University of California Press, 1989) explains why Neo-Darwinism is synonymous with the Modern Synthesis at only a superficial level. It turns out the first soldier marching under the Neo-Darwinist banner was the German scientist August Weismann. In the 1890s he vehemently advocated selection as the sole driving force behind evolution. This naturally conflicts with the later findings of the population geneticists regarding genetic drift and so forth, and so of course Neo-Darwinism cannot be a synonym for the Modern Synthesis. Yet most scientists are not also students of the history of their science, and so we find many books and textbooks which view Neo-Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis as synonyms, in effect giving Neo-Darwinism the same meaning as the later term Modern Synthesis. And for virtually all discussion but historical the fact that this is inaccurate is unimportant and of no consequence. For example, it is probable that many geneticists believe the Modern Synthesis and Neo-Darwinism are synonyms, but it makes no difference at all as they work on cures for AIDS, search for solutions to Alzheimer's and determine approaches for slowing the aging process. Irrelevant.
This same book also has a chapter, the last chapter as it happens, called The Modern Debates where it discusses recent developments affecting issues in evolution, including the Modern Synthesis. Any mention of replacement of the Modern Synthesis during the 70s and 80s is prominently missing. Punctuated equilibrium and the rise of cladistics are both mentioned, the former as the somewhat more significant challenge to the Modern Synthesis because of it's rejection of gradualism, but a replacement of the Modern Synthesis isn't mentioned, and certainly not due to incorporation of horizontal mechanisms into a new theory which don't even rate a mention. No book can cover everything, so perhaps it has left out mention of the events you think took place, but so far we have no evidence of this, only your unsupported claims.
Ernst Mayr, a significant participant during the period of the original synthesis, wrote a book in 1991 titled One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought (Harvard University Press). In the final chapter titled New Frontiers in Evolutionary Biology he does the same thing as Bowler did in the last chapter of his book, describe challenges to the Modern Synthesis. As a primary contributor to the original synthesis he can be expected to energetically defend it even after it was long dead and buried. In other words, we know he can't be unbiased. But though sounding defensive when saying the synthesis is misunderstood by its critics, the chapter nonetheless reads like a dispassionate description of a number of challenges to the Modern Synthesis from molecular biology, punctuated equilibrium, neutral evolution, sociobiology and somatics. If Mayr thought the synthesis dead or on its last legs or even just beset by a sea of troubles he gives no hint of it.
Here is a quote from a book by Donald Johanson, discoverer of Lucy, showing that even the term Modern Synthesis and Synthetic Theory of Evolution aren't necessarily universal, that we also have to consider that people of other nationalities may have different preferred terms:
The final result was a triumph of intellectual organization, a coming together of evidence from many disciplines to produce what came to be known as the New Evolutionary Synthesis.
Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution, p. 182, Maitland A. Edey, Donald Johanson, 1990.
In fact, Mayr's book backs Johanson's view more than anything else, since he claims on page 134 that the term evolutionary synthesis was introduced by Julian Huxley in 1942.
What we see here is a variety of usages and interpretations. For you to insist that there is one and one only definition and interpretation flies in the face not only of this evidence, but of everyday experience with language. You only reinforce this when you say:
quote:
Face it, the original synthesis from the 30s and 40s was called the Modern Synthesis. This is a fact. The Synthetic theory came a lot later (late 70's early 80s) This also a fact. The synthetic theory is most popularly called the Current Synthesis, the Synthetic theory, or simply the Theory of Evolution.
Even your own definition of the Current Synthesis has the synonyms of the Synthetic Theory and the Theory of Evolution. Yet the Synthetic Theory was one of the names used back in the 40s, and the term Theory of Evolution is even older. Language is much more pliable than is allowed for in your philosophy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Thmsberry, posted 03-12-2001 2:08 AM Thmsberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Thmsberry, posted 03-13-2001 1:13 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 13 of 22 (218)
03-13-2001 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Thmsberry
03-13-2001 1:13 AM


Hi Thmsberry,
Larry and I already understand your position. Describing it again and again is not necessary. To this point in time you have offered no references to anyone authoritative who shares your view. The natural assumption is that is you could, you would.
Many references have been provided by Larry and me in support of our views, you have offered none, since those you did offer contradict you. Please supply references or evidence in some form, else I will soon close this thread and seek someone other than myself or Larry or you to judge the result.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 03-13-2001).]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Thmsberry, posted 03-13-2001 1:13 AM Thmsberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Thmsberry, posted 03-14-2001 12:27 AM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 17 of 22 (227)
03-14-2001 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Thmsberry
03-14-2001 4:41 AM


Hi Thmsberry!
quote:
But this is simply not what I am doing. The fragments I am presenting are just to get Percy's attention. In post 13 and 31 I refer to you and ask that Percy analyze the exchanges in detail.
The goal of this thread is to reach a consensus on the definition of the Modern Synthesis, not to assess the arguments in the other thread. Success in this thread is defined as arguing successfully with evidence for one's preferred definition of the Modern Synthesis.
I don't know if it helps, but you get an A+ when it comes to arguing for your point of view. You're outstanding in that respect. But you get an F- when it comes to supporting that view with actual evidence.
Here's a list of authors Larry and I have variously offered in support of our views, and who actually do support our views:
     Ayala
     Bowler
     Britannica
     Champness
     Fitch
     Futuyma
     Mayr
     Moran
     O'Neil
     Ridley
     Snyder
     Strickberger
     talk.origins
     Yun
Here's a list of the authors you've cited who actually do support your views:
     
Look at it this way. Everyone could come up with his own list of the founders of the original synthesis. For instance, we could say they were Fisher, Haldane, Dobzhanzky, Mayr, Simpson. Who are the founder's of this new synthesis you keep talking about? What are their names? What did they write?
I'm not asking you to reexplain your perspective again. I'm asking for a reference to someone who defines the Modern Synthesis the same way you do, and who looks at things the same way you do.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 03-14-2001).]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Thmsberry, posted 03-14-2001 4:41 AM Thmsberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Thmsberry, posted 03-14-2001 2:06 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 21 of 22 (233)
03-14-2001 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Thmsberry
03-14-2001 3:14 PM


Hi Thmsberry!
At both the top and bottom of the page you should see a button labeled "Post New Topic". Clicking on that will let you start a new thread. Best thing to do would be to make a copy of your above post be the first post to the new thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Thmsberry, posted 03-14-2001 3:14 PM Thmsberry has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024