Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of the Modern Synthesis
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 22 (201)
03-11-2001 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Thmsberry
03-11-2001 6:47 AM


[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:
In your discussion, you have not yet addressed the dishonesty of this current argument.
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:
I showed in my last post and previous posts that Larry was using Modern Synthesis in the same way that I was, before he conceded to my Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument.
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:
I gave several examples to this fact. And now, he claims that he is using this new blurred meaning to try and negate his very concession early on in the past thread.
What concession is that? Specifically?
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.
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:
Some of the anticreationists Websites make the mistake and call it the Modern Synthesis, probably because they just don't know and spend most of their time gleaning info not about evolution, but simply how to attack creation science(oxymoron).
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:
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. Period.
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:
Stop being a debater. And be an objective moderator. Your side has presented no evidence.
Percy has requested you to provide evidence. You have refused instead playing semantic games.
quote:
Where I on the other hand have given you the main work by Sir Julian Huxley coining the term Modern Synthesis.
How is this relevant since the question is how is the term used today?
quote:
Showing that the original synthesis was in fact called the Modern Synthesis.
And how is this relevant to the current usage?
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.
And Ayala and Fitch are specifically referring to the term Modern Synthesis. Again, don't misrepresent the article.
quote:
Next, I already bought up this definition blur you guys want to make about the word mutation. If you semantically define mutation to just mean a change in an organisms genome. Yes, a horizontal mechanism would be a mutation.
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.htm
A. 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:
However, Big Big Big Big Big problem when you do that. The word then has no meaning at all in terms of how it is actually used in Biology and Genetics. You would be ignoring the fact that types of mutations are defined in Biology and Genetics and these types do not include horizontal mechanisms. You can't simply redefine the word out of context. And
[/qupte]
These types?
quote:
Futhermore, You do not want to do this. It would be a major point to my side. You see, it would mean that mutation do not have to be random. See horizontal mechanism result from populations of diverse live and nonliving organisms and/or there DNA interacting with an organisms Genome. This process is complex, yes. But it certainly not random.
They are random in relation to fitness are they not? No mutation is random in a strict sense, only random in relation to fitness.
quote:
It's like will it rain or snow. Or Who will Johnny pick as a sex partner. Contingent on many variables, yes. But mutations within genomes as Biologist and Geneticist define them from an evolutionary standpoint are random, not contingent.
Random in relation to fitness. How are horizontal transfers not random in relation to fitness?
quote:
I mean come on. Don't you realize that your reaching terribly to semantics to define terms in ways that the disciplines do not.
We can call them different names if you prefer. Of course, you won't since you refuse to actually address any substantive discussion anymore. I have posted specific challenges to your claims about evolution at the family level and you have focused on semantics for a couple weeks now.
quote:
And then, you are claiming that I, who am precise with my definitions and using actual science to define scientific terms, are in fact using terms a special way.
Complain to Syvanen. He is on talk.origins frequently.
quote:
Look at any Biology or Genetics textbook and see if the way and the types of mutations that they define allow for horizontal mechanisms and/or allow evolutionary mutations to be non-random. If so, please present a quote. I am completely unaware of any respected textbook that does. Also, at the very least, the infamous talkorigin link is wrong again. Look at their primer on Evolutionary Biology. The way they define Mutation makes my Argument.
Quite a few do describe mutations as changes in heritable information which is very broad. They then usually divide up mutations and separate them from hgt since often hgt involves more than one step. However, the introduction of foreign genetic material into a genome is a mutation. If there is a mistake at defining HGTs as mutations it is only in that HGTs involve recombination and mutations.
[QUOTE] Once again, Honestly critique the argument of your side. I am using the actually respected scientific definitions of scientific terms. And your side is trying to use resemantically defined or incorrectly popularized scientific definitions. We are having a debate. The language of which is the real Scientific evidence that we have about biodiversity. This is Scientific not biblical. It's not up to your personal interpretations and alternative combined dictionary meanings. The actual scientific terms, the evidence that they point too, and their actual scientific usage are all that is possible in a debate using the language of science.
[/b]
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).]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Thmsberry, posted 03-11-2001 6:47 AM Thmsberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Thmsberry, posted 03-12-2001 2:02 AM lbhandli has not replied
 Message 6 by Thmsberry, posted 03-12-2001 2:08 AM lbhandli has replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 22 (206)
03-12-2001 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Thmsberry
03-12-2001 2:08 AM


quote:
Let's examine some of the sites that you presented.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#types
Great. Talkorigin has a section where it defines mutation the way your trying to. Fine.
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 Synthesis
2) 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
ost 71
quote:
In your discussion, you have not yet addressed the dishonesty of this current argument. I
showed in my last post and previous posts that Larry was using Modern Synthesis in the same way that I was, before he conceded to my Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument.
Specifically, where are you referring to when you say my concession? Please be specific. You avoided this issue in your last post.
quote:
I gave several examples to this fact. And now, he claims that he is using this new blurred meaning to try and negate his very concession early on in the past thread.
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:
One of my references called Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, by Sir Julian Huxley in 1944, is the book and the main scientist that coined the term in the public mind.
Once again, I expressed my argument quite clearly. You can not add an entirely different set of mechanisms to a theory and claim that it is the same theory.
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:

Although some authors, have challenged, or even rejectedd some of these principles, the vast majority of evolutionary biologists today accept them as valid and use them as a foundation for evolutionary research.

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:
I would like to point out in Larry’s discussion of the Ayala quote that he simply disagreed with me. Fine. But did not present cooberating evidence. The quote that he presented says the exact argument that I am a making.
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).]

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

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 22 (216)
03-13-2001 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Thmsberry
03-13-2001 1:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Thmsberry:
When I presented my main argument that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory.
I defined what I meant by Modern Synthesis.
In debate your side agreed with my definition. And I had them to directly agree that we were not using the second definiton. (My Post 27 and 31 of thread MSCES)
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:
Now, After my Horizontal Mechanism point proves that the Modern Synthesis, defined the way it was in the actual argument, is a partial theory. Your side is making the claim that we were using the second definition. This is not honest. And I have presented the fact that your side was not arguing the second definition. (My Post 27 and 31 of thread MSCES)
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:
In all honesty, these straw man’s are not as bad as the one’s that Larry is trying to slip under the radar. The unsupported claim that I have argued that Modern Synthesis does not include Genetic Drift or the argument that the Modern Synthesis was replace by subsequent discoveries in Genetics.
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:
You see, what you are really missing is the fact that even the Current Synthesis rarely mentions horizontal mechanisms as well.
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:
But the main reason that I am so adamant, is that one difference between the Modern Synthesis and Current Synthesis, is that the Current Synthetic theory of Evolution is typically just called ToE. This is an important power that it has. Because all subsequent developments can arguably be incorporated into it. So even if elements of it are completely proven wrong, the name Current Synthesis, Synthetic theory of Evolution, and Theory of Evolution can live on.
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:
I can’t argue against an all encompassing theory. It would have been an exercise in futility to debate that an all encompassing theory that has the ability to evolve is a partial theory.
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).]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Thmsberry, posted 03-13-2001 1:13 AM Thmsberry has not replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 22 (223)
03-14-2001 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Thmsberry
03-14-2001 12:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Thmsberry:
Percy,
Are you intentionally dodging the real argument? Please don’t. I can’t debate in a forum if the other side can flip flop on their argument. Evaluate my post in MSCES, post 13 and 31 and show me where I am wrong.
In my Post 13, I review what we were arguing and show Larry and I were in fact from the Beginning arguing that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory. Larry argues it is complete and needs no new mechanisms.
Larry No new mechanism is needed--you misunderstand the mechanism as it fits in the Modern Synthesis.
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:
He later admits that other mechanisms lead to common descent other than mutation which is contrary to his current argument that mutations include everything.
No, I was arguing that HGTs are mutations. See that thread for my position after asking Syvanen.
quote:
And Even his rebuttle to post 13, he said he had called the Modern Synthesis a theory but was wrong.
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:
Wrong, I'm arguing you have wrongly defined the Modern Synthesis. It isn't really a theory, but a set of theories of which modern evolutionary biology adheres to. It is a synthesis (wow) of genetics and mechanisms for selection. While I may call it a theory from time to time, I'm wrong when I do so.
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:
He quotes me when I (Thmsberry) asked the question: Do you accept that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory because the accumulation of mutations within a genome have been demonstrated as not being the only mechanism by which organisms evolve.
Larry replies: No one argues such a thing. But I'll accept that there are more than mutations that lead to increases in genetic diversity. Of course I have the entire discussion. Apparently you have a reading and writing problem.
Larry even more in 14: I have never argued that mutations are the only mechanism to lead to common descent.
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:
In Post 31, He defines Modern Synthesis the way that I do.
Larry: Population genetics has advanced since the Modern Synthesis but the essential holding still stand.
This sentence only makes since if he was defining the MS the way that I was.
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:
Post 13 and 31 are essentially recaps of our argument. I give you these fragments only to give you a bit of what I am talking about 13 and 31 are more detailed. It shows how Larry has a habit of conceding parts of his argument and then later redefining his argument so there was no concession. I really can’t debate if this strategy is allowed. It’s even a mistake on his part or dishonest. But how can debate occur if its allowed. His most recent example of this is his change in the use of the word mutation and whether or not it includes Horizontal mechanisms.
Yeah, conveniently choosing the quotes of mine is dishonest.
Cheers,
Larry Handlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Thmsberry, posted 03-14-2001 12:27 AM Thmsberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Thmsberry, posted 03-14-2001 4:41 AM lbhandli has replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 22 (228)
03-14-2001 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Thmsberry
03-14-2001 4:41 AM


quote:
If you want to move on and debate my argument against our current understanding and
assumption of Biological Evolution or the Theory of Evolution, like we were trying to before. I am fine with that.
You have had a standing invitation for at least a couple weeks now.
Cheers,
Larry

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