Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 5:51 AM
34 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Modern Synthesis Can't Explain Speciation
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 59 (186)
02-28-2001 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Prof. D. McQueen
02-27-2001 11:13 AM


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_7

Larry


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Prof. D. McQueen, posted 02-27-2001 11:13 AM Prof. D. McQueen has not yet responded

Thmsberry
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 59 (188)
03-04-2001 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Percy
02-24-2001 12:22 PM


Percy,

You wrote:
<<<Before we move on in the discussion I'd like to see if we can come to an agreement on the definition of the MS (Modern Synthesis).
I'm happy to define this term in any way that is widely agreed upon within the scientific community. I've always understood the MS to be very inclusive of any kind of mutational mechanism, and the definition cited by Larry from Futuyma is also very inclusive. The definition of the MS I found in an evolution textbook (Evolution, Third Edition by Monroe W. Strickberger) calls it a synonym for Neo-Darwinism and defines it like this:
Neo-Darwinism The 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.
The problem I think Larry and I are having isn't that we don't understand your definition. We understand your definition just fine. We just don't see that anyone besides you is defining the MS in this way. But if you can show that your definition of the MS, which excludes what you term horizontal mechanisms of mutation, is the one preferred by the scientific community then that is the one I'm happy to use.
Concerning moderating, who among us is objective? I think the best I can hope for is equal numbers of moderators from each side, and a commitment to try to be objective.
--Percy >>>>

Percy,

Here we see the route of the problem.

Horizontal mechanisms are not genetic mutations.

In my previous post, I wrote:” Symbiosis, Horizontal transfer, Foreign Transposons, viruses and etc. are mechanisms that I simply call Horizontal. They involve whole sequences of foriegn DNA entering the Genome of an organism. They have nothing to do with mutations within its genome. These horizontal mechanisms are nowhere in the Modern Synthesis. People who presented these arguments at the Modern Synthesis, like Margulis and others were either not considered feasible or not even known about.”

And the definition that you cited better illustrates my point about Neutral theory, but I won’t digress. Mostly because, I know that the break between Neo-Darwinism and Modern Synthesis occurs at the introduction of the concept of genetic drift.

Do you still not see the problem?

Horizontal mechanisms are not a mutatations within a genome.

Read the definition you sited. “Changes in the frequencies of genes introduced by mutation”.

I’ll use Symbiosis as an example. Mitochondrial simply insert themselves and their DNA into Eukaryotic cells. The two separate organism develop a symbiotic relationship and over time one can not evolve without being a part of the other. No gene mutated and was passed on to the next generation. An entire set of genetic instructions was added newly to a genome.

This is no where in the Modern Synthesis and never was.

Are you trying to say that you can’t see the difference between the myriad types mutation a gene and a genome can have (Modern Synthesis) and the addition of an entire set or sequence of foreign DNA entering the genome of an organism (Horizontal Mechanisms)?

I can’t think of how I can simplify my argument any more than this.

Modern Synthesis. One genome changing based on any number of types of mutations within the same genome.

Horizontal Mechanism. One genome changing based on any number of insertions of foreign DNA from outside the same genome.

Modern Synthesis: All mechanisms involve genomic mutations within the genome of an organism.

Horizontal Mechanism: All mechanisms involve DNA insertions coming from outside the genome of an organism.

What more is there to say?

No widespread reputable definition of the Modern Synthesis has a horizontal mechanisms in it because “People who presented these arguments at the Modern Synthesis, like Margulis and others were either not considered feasible or not even known about” at the time that the theory was formulated.

I would have to work to try to be objective as well, but in this instance, it is just overwhelmingly obvious that I won this argument. Modern Synthesis is a partial theory, it did not consider horizontal mechanism feasible and/or it was unaware of most of them when it was formulated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 02-24-2001 12:22 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by lbhandli, posted 03-04-2001 11:13 PM Thmsberry has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 03-06-2001 2:25 PM Thmsberry has responded

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 59 (189)
03-04-2001 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Thmsberry
03-04-2001 9:21 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Thmsberry, posted 03-04-2001 9:21 PM Thmsberry has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 50 of 59 (190)
03-06-2001 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Thmsberry
03-04-2001 9:21 PM


Hi Thmsberry (do you have a more convenient nom de plume we can use?),

My participation on this thread is as moderator, not as debater. My assessment is that a clear and agreed upon definition of the Modern Synthesis is important to further progress.

To that end, and as I already stated in Message 40, I'm happy to use any definition of this term that is widely agreed upon. I also stated that Larry and I already understand the way you're defining the Modern Synthesis. The problem we're having is that, as far as we can tell, you're the only one defining it this way.

quote:
Thmsberry writes: Modern Synthesis. One genome changing based on any number of types of mutations within the same genome.

Horizontal Mechanism. One genome changing based on any number of insertions of foreign DNA from outside the same genome.

Modern Synthesis: All mechanisms involve genomic mutations within the genome of an organism.

Horizontal Mechanism: All mechanisms involve DNA insertions coming from outside the genome of an organism.


Like Larry in Message 49, I not only don't agree with your definition of the Modern Synthesis as being so restrictive, I've now poked around reading here and there quite a bit and can find no clue of where your view of the Modern Synthesis is coming from.

While you've reiterated your definition in more detail, you have yet to demonstrate that your definition is the one accepted in scientific circles. I'm not a biologist, Gene's not a biologist, Larry's not a biologist, Canon's not a biologist, Nibelung's not a biologist, Schrafinator's not a biologist. None of us are trying to develop new definitions of the Modern Synthesis. All any of us have done is some reading and formulating of impressions of the definition of the Modern Synthesis, and those impressions are, in the main, fairly consistent with one another. You're the odd man out.

Now, it is not only possible but perhaps even likely that we have all just picked up some common misimpression of what the Modern Synthesis really is, but you cannot correct that misimpression by simply restating your definition. You have to somehow show that your definition is the one used by biology.

Our understanding is that the Modern Synthesis is the fusion of Darwin's ToE with the science of genetics. It is not the fusion of Darwin's ToE with the state of the science of genetics as it existed in the 30's and 40's, and is therefore definitely not exclusive of mutational mechanisms that have only become accepted and understood since that time, such as the horizontal mechanisms you mention.

quote:
No widespread reputable definition of the Modern Synthesis has a horizontal mechanisms in it...

Perhaps, but simply declaring this is not the way to make the point. Futuyma's definition disagrees with you, the definition from an evolution textbook disagrees with you (Evolution, Third Edition by Monroe W. Strickberger), Larry Moran's definition disagrees with you, all the other debaters here disagree with you based on their interpretation of what they've read, and near the end of this message I cite yet another perspective that disagrees with you. All you have to say in support of your definition is this:

quote:
...because "People who presented these arguments at the Modern Synthesis, like Margulis and others were either not considered feasible or not even known about" at the time that the theory was formulated.

First, you don't say where this quote comes from. Second, I tried to find some information on the net for your citation of Margulis as supportive of your definition of the Modern Synthesis but I could find none, including Maruglis' own website ( http://www.bio.umass.edu/faculty/biog/margulis.html ). I examined every page where Margulis is mentioned in my aforementioned evolution textbook (mostly just citations, but also a 3/4 page essay by Dr. Margulis), and there was no hint that her views lay outside the Modern Synthesis. Perhaps you have a website or a citation I could examine that would illustrate other scientists using your definition?

While looking around I did find another definition of the Modern Synthesis at http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/hoffmeyr.html , quoting Depew and Weber in their 1995 book Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection:

quote:
The modern synthesis appears as a call for explanatory unification among a variety of disparate disciplines in biology...

I also found a hint of where your views may be coming from at http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/darwin01.html , a Creationist website:

[QUOTE]"What excites Margulis is the remarkable incompleteness of general Darwinian theory. Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes. A number of microbiologists, geneticists, theoretical biologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists are saying there is more to life than Darwinism. They do not reject Darwin's contribution; they simply want to move beyond it. I call them the `postdarwinians.'" (Kelly, Kevin Wired[/i], "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines," [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, pp470-471. Emphasis in original)[/QUOTE]

This doesn't actually mention the Modern Synthesis, but it clearly gives the sense that Margulis sees her views as lying outside currently accepted theory. However, the words are those of Kevin Kelly, executive editor of Wired magazine, as quoted in an article in the magazine Fourth Estate. They have no scientific credibility whatsoever.

Unification is the raison d'etre for the Modern Synthesis. It is not one theory among many, but the very fabric upon which subsequent developments in biology are writ. Only a ToE which excludes either Darwinian natural selection or the science of genetics (or both) can be a rival theory. If this view is in error you will have to demonstrate this by reference to lay-scientific or scientific literature. Simply repeating your definition, which is already well understood anyway by Larry and myself, is not the answer.

--Percy

[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 03-06-2001).]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Thmsberry, posted 03-04-2001 9:21 PM Thmsberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Thmsberry, posted 03-07-2001 12:02 AM Percy has responded

  
Thmsberry
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 59 (191)
03-07-2001 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
03-06-2001 2:25 PM


Percy,

This is what sad. You are in fact a debater or are so much in agreement with the anticreationist side that if they fail to make their arguments you agree with them anyway. And you do not appear to actually read the posts in great detail.

For instance, the Lynn Margulis quote is me quoting myself showing you that I already made the same counterargument in a previous post. I use the same quote three times in the same posts. And indicated it was me and you still are talking about a reference.

You can believe that the Modern Synthesis is the Current Unification or Current Synthesis if you want, but it is not and you would be wrong. You claim to be doing some sort of research. Just stick the words synthesis and evolution in a search engine.

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

Also, you are now using the same straw man technique as the rest of your comrades. I am showing you a common flaw misrepresented by anticreationist. The Modern Synthesis is the theory from the 30s and 40s. It is wrong because it has no horizontal mechanisms in it. Thus, it is reduced to the partial theory. And it is the reason why we even have the Current Unification or Synthesis known simply as ToE. Your side in their literature and Web sites are constantly behind on the current literature and terminology. Yet, you fault me.

Your consistent use of the word mutation in the context of Horizontal mechanism is alarming. It requires defining the word mutation to simply mean change. A meaning that is semantically valid, but is not the meaning that is given to the word mutation in the realm of genetics, which we are discussing. Yet, you fraudelently claim that I am doing the same sort of thing with "my definition" of Modern Synthesis. It's not my definition. It is actually the correct one. Your side is just not using the right one.

Your side appears to constantly refer to Talkorigin. This site is wrong in calling the Current Unification of Theories, the Modern Synthesis. One term is the theory for the 30s and 40s that I am talking about it. And the other is the evolving ToE that changes over time that Evolutionist like Gould argues about. Your blurring the two either intentionally or because you just don't know. I have showed in past post that Larry clearly was using the Modern Synthesis definition (30s and 40s) during the now closed debate we were having and not the Current Synthesis is the Modern Synthesis blur that he and now you are trying to pass off as your original argument.

How can you debate with someone or a side that is not fair about what they have debated?

Newton establishes the Law of Motion.
It was wrong because it negelected Relativity.

Yet, no where in the Law of Motion does it say that relativity is wrong. Why? because relativity was not known about.

No credible scientist would argue that the Law of Motion is not partial theory or more precisely an approximation because it neglects the effects of Relativity.

But a lepton could argue, the Law of Motion is an ongoing theory and that Relativity is now just a part of it. Afterall, we still are talking about the laws that govern how things move. So even though, we are not using the term the way it was formulated by Newton. It is semantically correct.

This is literally what you guys are arguing now with the modern Synthesis.

The Current Unification of Evolutionary theories well Unification can be called Synthesis and sometimes is. The word Current can mean Modern. Thus, the Current Synthesis is the Modern Synthesis. Ignore what the terms mean in the actual context of the History of Evolutionary Biology and let's just argue that semantically they are the same thing. Also, let's use the fact that Horizontal mechanisms were mostly unknown at the formulation of the Modern Synthesis. To make the argument, Relativity was never denied outright in the Law of Motion so one can not say that it can't be apart of the argument.

To argue against such a historically inacurate and flawed argument is an exercise in futility.

Finally, people are not liking this website because unlike Yahoo, it does not remember your username and password. You have to re-enter evertime and it becomes an annoyance that you don't get on Yahoo. However, other than that, it really is a better website.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 03-06-2001 2:25 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 03-07-2001 8:46 AM Thmsberry has not yet responded
 Message 53 by lbhandli, posted 03-07-2001 2:41 PM Thmsberry has responded
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 03-07-2001 7:14 PM Thmsberry has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 52 of 59 (192)
03-07-2001 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Thmsberry
03-07-2001 12:02 AM


Hi Thmsberry (Oh unpronounceable one),

I have time for only a quick reply.

Can you provide one or more references in the lay-scientific or scientific literature that uses the Modern Synthesis in the way you're defining it, either explicitly as a definition or implicitly from context.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Thmsberry, posted 03-07-2001 12:02 AM Thmsberry has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 59 (193)
03-07-2001 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Thmsberry
03-07-2001 12:02 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Thmsberry, posted 03-07-2001 12:02 AM Thmsberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Thmsberry, posted 03-09-2001 6:51 AM lbhandli has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 54 of 59 (194)
03-07-2001 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Thmsberry
03-07-2001 12:02 AM


Hi Thmsberry!

I know you haven't had a chance to respond yet, but I have a little time now, so let me add a little to my previous post.

quote:
Thmsberry writes:
This is what sad. You are in fact a debater or are so much in agreement with the anticreationist side that if they fail to make their arguments you agree with them anyway. And you do not appear to actually read the posts in great detail.

Well, I'm trying real hard, hopefully getting better at this as time goes by. I wasn't trying to make it seem as if I had taken sides in the debate, and I apologize if I've overstepped the bounds of moderator. But I need you to work with me here. As I've said, I think the definition of the Modern Synthesis has become a sticking point, and I'd like us to reach a consensus.

I was attempting in my earlier post to make clear I recognize all the evolutionists could be in error and you could be correct, but I need your help. I have already been searching the web, and I have already been looking things up in actual books (remember them? ), and I can find nothing consistent with your definition of the Modern Synthesis. You've got to give me some kind of thread to grab on to so I can read someone authoritative who sees things as you do. Right now I've got nothing but your assertion that your definition is right.

If you look at the Rules of Debate under "Criteria for Judging Debate" you'll see that a key facet of assessing the strength of an argument is utilization of factual data. That's all I'm looking for, facts and hard information.

I'm gratefully indebted to you for your participation here during this longer-than-expected ramp-up period. I had hoped things would be busier by now. I'll look at the login-id/password issue the next chance I get. I find it annoying, too. By the way, do you use Netscape or Internet Explorer, and which version?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Thmsberry, posted 03-07-2001 12:02 AM Thmsberry has not yet responded

  
Thmsberry
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 59 (195)
03-09-2001 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by lbhandli
03-07-2001 2:41 PM


Percy,

The problem that I am having with this line of argument is that it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of Evolutionary theory on your side. So fundamental that I consider a part of basic knowledge that is needed to even engage in this debate.

It starts with the Fact that Darwin and Mendel were not in agreement and population genetics, for all intents and purposes, did not exist. So a synthesis of these important ideas had to made.

Hardy and Weinberg in 1908 form the basis of population genetics.

T. Dobzhanzky in 1937 combines Systematics (Taxonomy) and genetics in his work Genetics and Origin of Species. Ernst Mayr does the same thing in 1942 in Systematics and the Origin of Species.

George Gaylord Simpson's Tempo and Mode in Evolution finished off the synthesis of Darwinism and Genetics in 1944

And last and certain not the least.
The most recent addition from the Huxley clan. Sir Julian Huxley wrote Evolution: The Modern Synthesis in 1944. If your not going to read any thing else, read this. It is very clear that they had no clue about horizontal mechanisms.

Thus, once again, the Modern Synthesis was clearly formed before 1945.

Some horizontal elements:
Foriegn transposons were not known before Same genome transposons which was discovered in 1951.

Symbiosis involvement in Prokaryote/Eukaryote development could not be understood before Jacob, Lwoff, and Monod shared the Nobel Prize for their discoveries concerning the genetics of prokaryotes and the Operon theory in 1966.

Also, speaking of 1966. Lewontin writes his major Neutralist work in 66 and in 1971 Kimura's Theoretical Aspects of Population Genetics placed him in the neutralist school along with Lewontin on interpretations of polymorphism. So once again 1966 and 1971 are after 1944.

Now, the forerunner of the Argument between Gould and the Current Synthetic theory comes from the New version of the Synthetic theory clarified by T. Dobzhansky's in 1977. This is the same guy from 1937. And this might be the center of you guys confusion. This begins the the new thought AKA The current synthesis or The Unification of Current Evolutionary theories or simple The synthetic theory.

This site and many other on your side are simply 57 years behind on terminology:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

Read the Moran article again. It's about the fact that people make these sort of mistake all the time with Neodarwinism and the term Modern Synthesis. However, the creator of this website and this article makes the horrible mistake of confusing the Modern Synthesis, the theory from the 30s and 40s, and the Synthetic theory or The Current Synthesis or The New synthesis or The Current Unification of Evolutionary theories.

What ever you call it, you must understand why this argument is so annoying to me. I proved my point. It's extremely fundamental, but it is big mistake that your side always makes. That's why I argued it.

Once again, one could call a theory that included Newton's Law of motion and Einstien General and Specific theories of Relativity simply the Law of Motion. You would be semantically correct, but scientifically utterly wrong.

Read the Moran article and see an interesting quoting mistake. The Futyama quote appears to be referring to the Modern Synthesis correctly. Futyama writes:"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were ... " Be observant. He is talking in the past sense. If he was claiming that the Modern Synthesis is the Current Synthesis, it would say that The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis are, in the present sense. Even his use of the word "then" confirms this.

But the major confusion lies in Larry Moran's introductory sentence to the quote. He writes "Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis" They are never correctly referred to as the Modern Synthesis and to my knowledge Futyama does not make this mistake anywhere in his textbook on Evolutionary Biology. Once again, the disconnect between what Larry claims and what Futyama is saying is quite apparent in their change of tenses. If you do not realize that Larry Moran is just completely errant in his knowledge of the History of Evolutionary theories, you easily miss the discrepancy.

Now, I have given you the major books that together form the basis of the Modern Synthesis. Finally, once again Note most of your sides Web Sites that I have discoved are incorrect of this fact because the authors so skilled in debating Young earth literal biblical christian fundamentalism that they do not seem to have taken the time become aware of the fundamentals of Evolutionary Theory.

I really can not convince you of this argument any more. It really is becoming an exercise in futility. I mean, for you to deny my argument this time. Would require you to deny the architects of the Modern Synthesis. And most importantly, Sir Julian Huxley, writer of Evolution: The Modern Synthesis in 1944. He popularized and was most responsible for coining the term in the public mind. It's like coming up with a different way of using the term Natural Selection without Darwin or my popular example attempting to divorce the Law of Motion from Newton. All semanticall possible, but scientifically just wrong and dishonest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by lbhandli, posted 03-07-2001 2:41 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 03-09-2001 11:30 AM Thmsberry has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 56 of 59 (196)
03-09-2001 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Thmsberry
03-09-2001 6:51 AM


Hi Thmsberry,

quote:
Thmsberry writes:
The problem that I am having with this line of argument is that it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of Evolutionary theory on your side.

I think everyone here, including myself, not only agrees with your brief history, but is to varying degrees already familiar with it. The difference of opinion does not therefore stem from a misunderstanding of history.

You have defined the Modern Synthesis as a combination of Darwinian evolution with the science of genetics, as that science existed in the 30s and 40s. By this definition, subsequent developments in the science of genetics are not part of the Modern Synthesis.

Those on the other side define the Modern Synthesis as the union of Darwinian evolution and the science of genetics. Period. Subsequent developments in the science of genetics are part of the Modern Synthesis. The huge significance of the Modern Synthesis is its encompassment of Darwinian evolution and the science of genetics, once viewed as mutually antithetical, into a single perspective.

I'm going to modify my approach here, but first I must reiterate that it is incumbent upon you if you wish to score a point on this issue to provide a reference to someone authoritative who defines the Modern Synthesis as you do. It is not that your arguments do not make sense. They make perfect sense, and your definitions and viewpoint are self-consistent. The problem is that I receive a different impression of the Modern Synthesis when I read elsewhere, whether it's at Talk.Origins, or the Britannica, or my evolution textbook, or any number of other books, and we will not be adopting a definition here that is in use nowhere else. So, please, I'm trying to be fair to you because I don't want to have to say in the end that, "Thmsberry's arguments were very strong but he could provide no references," so please, I beg you, give me something solid to go on and PROVIDE A REFERENCE!

Now, to my modified approach. Since I have no reference from you as yet I'll challenge the evolutionists to provide further support for their view by asking them to show how a particular example fits within the Modern Synthesis.

Let's take a careful look at the origin of eukaryotes. A widely accepted view is that "eukaryotic cells evolved by physically incorporating prokaryotic organisms into their cytoplasm." (Evolution, Third Edition by Monroe W. Strickberger). If a mutation is, "A change in the nucleotide sequence of genetic material" (ibid.), and the Modern Synthesis "regards evolution as a change in the frequencies of genes introduced by mutation," (ibid.), then since incorporation of one organism into another is not a mutation, how can the origin of eukaryotes be considered part of the Modern Synthesis?

By the way, about this:

quote:
Read the Moran article and see an interesting quoting mistake. The Futyama quote appears to be referring to the Modern Synthesis correctly. Futyama writes:"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were ... " Be observant. He is talking in the past sense. If he was claiming that the Modern Synthesis is the Current Synthesis, it would say that The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis are, in the present sense. Even his use of the word "then" confirms this.

My own view is that it's a bit Talmudic to make an analysis so dependent upon a single word that has many forms of usage, but since those on both sides of this issue believe that the definition of the Modern Synthesis has not changed since the term first arose it should make no difference whether Futyama is talking in the past or present tense.

Hoping to have a reference soon in hand, I remain your obediant servant and moderator...

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Thmsberry, posted 03-09-2001 6:51 AM Thmsberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Thmsberry, posted 03-10-2001 12:01 AM Percy has responded

  
Thmsberry
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 59 (197)
03-10-2001 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
03-09-2001 11:30 AM


Percy,

Thanks for your last post. I could see that your being objective.

You even referred to my Eukaryote origin point.

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.

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.

Part of what your saying is my very argument. If synthetic theory is the unification of Mendellian Genetics and Darwinism (and actual population genetics). Then how can Horizontal mechanism be a part of it. Since horizontal mechanism are not a part of Mendellian Genetics, Darwinism, and Population genetics. And you must see, that the Eukaryote origin simply can not fit into the paradigm.

The point remains that your side is making a semantic claim and the history of evolutionary theory simply does not agree with it. Horizontal mechanism were not a part of the Modern Synthesis.

How can I prove that something is not a part of the synthesis? What would actually prove the point other than the actuall history of Evolutionary theory? I have no where else to go.

You are not convinced by my analysis of Futyama. Where does Futyama say that their is no Current synthesis?

Finally, could you reread my analysis of larry's previous arguments in the debate in post 31 in this thread and argue that Larry and I were not in fact using the same definition of Modern Synthesis.

Also Finally, in my post 27, I refer to one of Larry's quotes that completely defines the argument the way I do.

Could you please reread these post. I believe not only do they summarize the past inconsistency in your sides argument nicely, It provides the evidence you are looking for. Evidence that your side already provided.

"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.

Once again, Between my past posts that I have reintroduced with references, this reference, and Sir Julian Huxley's book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, How many times must I prove my argument?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 03-09-2001 11:30 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 03-10-2001 4:38 PM Thmsberry has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 58 of 59 (199)
03-10-2001 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Thmsberry
03-10-2001 12:01 AM


Hi Thmsberry,

I'm going to address your specific points in a new thread, but I'd like to call attention to one facet of this discussion that has been missed so far.

You've been calling the Modern Synthesis a partial theory, but you've also been defining it simply as the union of Darwinian evolution with Mendelian genetics as it existed as a science in roughly the 1940s or thereabouts. You do not view subsequent developments in evolution or genetics as part of the Modern Synthesis. Rather, to you the first significant subsequent development formed a new theory that replaced the Modern Synthesis, and further subsequent developments formed even newer theories, so that what we end up with is a sequence of theories, each invalidating and/or replacing and/or superceding the previous. Given the rather minor and inconsequential role you're assigning the Modern Synthesis, criticisms of it have little relevance to the current state of evolutionary theory, which I'm sure is what we all really want to discuss.

I propose we abandon the term Modern Synthesis and instead use Evolutionary Synthesis. For this discussion, the Evolutionary Synthesis is defined to mean the union, at a minimum, of Darwinian evolution and the science of genetics as it exists not only now but on indefinitely into the future. In other words, the Evolutionary Synthesis is not intended to be interpreted as a theory but rather as the union of a multiplicity of biological sciences, such as evolution, genetics, paleontology, cladistics, and so forth. Future developments in any biological science that bear in some way on evolution and/or genetics are considered to be part of the Evolutionary Synthesis.

Discussion of the definition of the Modern Synthesis moves to a new thread: Definition of the Modern Synthesis.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Thmsberry, posted 03-10-2001 12:01 AM Thmsberry has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 59 of 59 (239)
03-15-2001 11:09 AM


The debate in this thread is not concluded, but it has picked up again in Problems w/ the Current ToE. I will close this thread and wait for debate in the other thread to conclude before evaluating the outcome.

--Percy


  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019