Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of the Modern Synthesis
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

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

Thmsberry
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 22 (229)
03-14-2001 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
03-14-2001 11:23 AM


Percy,
You wrote:"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."
You still are dodging the real argument. You are clearly avoiding the fact that Larry appears to have changed his argument over time. If he had presented the argument that he is presenting now, most of our past threads of debate would have been avoided. You may think you are being objective, but because you agree with him. I don't think you are capable of evaluating my point.
I really can't put myself in your shoes. I think your just being human. I can't be so sure that I would not use the same tack if I was you. I hope that I wouldn't. But who knows.
Now, Let's not continue this straw man argument over the definition of Modern Synthesis. Afterall, the whole argument is only based on the fact that your side has flip flopped in its definition of the Modern Synthesis. Let's face it. You have been trying to place me in the straw man that the Modern Synthesis has only one meaning. I never made this argument. I even called this stance a predictable straw man, before your side even began to do it. And all I have been really arguing is that I know that the term is often used and define contradictory an ambiguist ways. But because of this fact, I defined my usage of the term, Before I even began the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument. Your side did not at that time present this brand new argument your trying to slip in about the definition of the Modern Synthesis. And in fact, made clear indications that you did not define the term differently. Because my argument is not the aforementioned straw man. My evidence does not have to consist of multiple ways that individuals define Modern Synthesis, but only the way that your side and me mutually agreed to define the term in our actual debate.
Now, I am perfectly happy to avoid the entire issue by using the terms Original synthesis for the original usage of the term Modern Synthesis(or the way that I had defined it and your side originally agreed with) and Theory of Evolution(referring to the way that your side is now redefining the Modern Synthesis).
Do you see the point that if Modern Synthesis was defined the way that your side currently is now, their is absolutely no reason to use the term Modern Synthesis? You might as well say ToE. The names are interchangeable.
But I am ready to move on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 03-14-2001 11:23 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Thmsberry, posted 03-14-2001 3:14 PM Thmsberry has not replied

Thmsberry
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 22 (232)
03-14-2001 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Thmsberry
03-14-2001 2:06 PM


Larry and Percy,
If I knew how to start a new thread, I would. Or Can I not start a new thread because I am not a moderator.
If I could start a new thread, I would label it: Problems with the Current ToE.
Let's begin with what I said I would.
The current ToE has a paradox in it. The talkorigin links What is Evolution and What is the Modern Synthesis will be used. It quotes Futyama that "Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. "
Yet at the theories core sits the Darwinian assumption that "The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
Yet, Larry Moran writes, "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..."
I hope you can see the contradiction. Current ToE claims that evolution does not occur at the level of an individual and organism, but at the level of populations, genes, and phenotypes. It claims that it has made a major paradigm shift from Darwinism's concerns at the individual and organism level. Then, the same theory turns around and assumes that all biodiverstiy can be traced back to an individual live organism. Yet, Evolution of today, unlike in Darwinism, does not occur at the level of an individual organism. So the idea of an individual live organism evolving and producing the variety of life we have today is not possible within this major paradigm shift. Paradox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Thmsberry, posted 03-14-2001 2:06 PM Thmsberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 03-14-2001 4:17 PM Thmsberry has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


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

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 22 of 22 (1134)
12-22-2001 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-10-2001 4:34 PM


Replying as per "I think the whole issue...so when you say this:", it is true that by accepting species selection (unconditionally) strictly following Huxley, 'disparate' bio-theory can be "synthesized" by moderns whether in or out molecular biology but the dynamic blending of protocols (whole sciences or not) no matter the principle investigator all spell out as far as a common biology posses one space time and form. Before describing and explaining this property in more detail please see my postings on the ICR Forum to interchange about meaning of "information"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-10-2001 4:34 PM Percy 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