Problems w/ the Current ToE

Percy,
Thanks. I must admit even after knowing where to look, it still took a while for me to notice the link.Problems with the Current ToE.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

Larry,You wrote:
"1) there is a debate over whether or not there is a single universal ancestor or several ancestors so the line in Futuyma is a bit presumptuous. Of course it is several years old and well before Doolittle's work.
2) The only challenge you present here is that a single ancestor doesn't fit this definition. If there was a single ancestor as soon as it reproduced a population took over and we have consistency."First, this brings up a couple of questions.If you believe that only one live organism was the ancestor of all life, what type of scientific evidence can possibly support this conclusion?If you accept the view of several live ancestors, what is the proposed genetic variation amongst these live ancestors?I have read that those who support several live ancestors make the assumption that they are all members of the same species. Yet, all current evidence points to the fact that the oldest known live organisms on this planet reproduce asexually. In addition, all current evidence points to the fact that the oldest known live organisms were without a nucleus. Doesn't these scientific facts make the idea that they were all of the same species ridiculously ambiguous and basically meaningless and unprovable?Asexual organisms alone have an ambiguous species definition. Add to that the fact that Archae show no consistent correlations between morphology and known phylogeny and their phylogenies even intersect with organisms of other domains. Thus, How would it ever even be possible to determine if the early live ancestors(as in a population) were of the same species?

You wrote:
"If they were virtually identical, not really. Given no genetic evidence you would have to rely on morphology and you wouldn't be using the reproduction standard."Morphological similarity amongst organisms in the domain of known Archae does not correlate to a species level of differentiation. They relate more to the phylum level. And for the oldest Kingdom Archae, considered to be the closest known thing to this common ancestor it is currently impossible to even test its morphology.You wrote:"Again, I'm not sure why this is a particular problem. Labeling them the same species or not seems to be more of a semantic argument given the probably state of the Earth at the time. "If the first population of life contained multiple kingdoms. Such as the diversity in Archae and Eubacteria currently shows. and If this diversity does not fit in a nested hierarchy that corelates to the genetic diversity. As the diversity in the Archae and Eubacteria currently shows. Then the first population was not one species. It wasn't even monophyletic.This would make the assumption of this population stemming from one live ancestor contrary to the actual evidence.It would also make the idea of all life coming from a single ancestor or single species meaningless. Because Phyletic genetic differences in EuBacteria and Archae are greater than the entire range of genetic difference between the Plant and Animal kingdom.And considering that we are including horizontal mechanisms.This basically leaves the premise that all life on this planet can be traced in part to a population of a single domain.Thus, the individual organism and/or species idea is not a supported one. And this is one of the major aspects of the current ToE.

Percy,You wrote:"The ToE is just a framework of understanding that unites Darwinian concepts like descent with modification and natural selection with a genetic foundation. The ToE never axiomatically held that all life descends from a single original cell. That's just a once-common perspective that fit within the framework of the theory, as do the newer perspectives on this topic. It was not a major aspect of the theory, but rather just a possibility permitted within the framework of the theory.The possibility of all modern life descending from a single cell is consistent with the ToE. So is the possibility of all modern life descending from a community of gene-sharing cells. Changing preferences within the scientific community for one over the other do not require any change to the encompassing theory."The problem that I appear to be having is that you and Larry appear to be aware of the same info that I am on the topic.You appear to follow and agree with my argument.But then you end with the typical Darwinian rhetoric that it is possible that all life stemmed from one ancestral cell.I have listed quotes in my previous post. Most of the Biological text that I have ever read on the topic and even the Talkorigin link make the claim that all biodiversity can be traced to a single live organism. They claim the current ToE explains biodiversity all the way back to this single live organism. So how can you make the claim that it is not a major aspect of the theory. At the very least, you must admit that it is always presented as a major aspect of the theory and no alternative possibility is usually mentioned.Can you list some popular reputable textbook that states that all life emerged from a paraphyletic community of gene sharing cells? A possibility that is more consistent with the actual evidence.Is single cell ancestry possible? Yes, in the same way almost anything is possible with a dearth of evidence. But it is simply not the most likely scenario given the same information that we both seem to be aware of.If you in fact think single live ancestor is more likely, can you or Larry explain to me what I am missing? Because it appears to me that the evidence points in one direction, yet ToE currently presents an alternate possibility as the only one mostly because it more closely resembles Darwin's original argument.

Percy and Larry,Thanks for your arguments. It seems like you both actually lean toward the perspective I do. It was that apparent when Larry and I were debating live organism in a different thread. But I can see it now. And Percy thanks for the textbook reference.However, I do not think that you see what paradoxes this perspective makes for the theory.The current ToE is suppose to be an explanation for the Biodiversity on this planet. Yet a paraphyletic community of sharing cells model has life already starting with Biodiversity, so the theory can no longer be seen as an explantation for life's biodiversity. It becomes a partial explanation at best.Also, the older the population of organisms that scientist examine the greater their biodiversity. Which would indicate that the greatest amount of biodiversity occurs the closer you get to the ancestral paraphyletic community. So while life is indeed changing over time. The greatest type of diversity existed in the initial community, and thus life has not become increasingly diverse. Another premise of the current ToE.In addition, accepting horizontal mechanisms does not allow for the idea that commononality in organismal genomes indicate a live ancestral relationships. A paraphyletic community of sharing cells do not share a common live ancestor. They share a common dead ancestor, namely common DNA or RNA sequences.The true explanation of life's biodiversity appears to occur at some sort of stage of symbiosis between a community of Prebionts. This would explain why a community of paryphyletic cells would have emerged in the first place. A stage that is extemely speculative and the current ToE by definition can never examine.I await your responses to this post because this perspective means that the Current ToE can never fully explain life's biodiversity (Yet, it seeks to do just that), the premise that evolution has promoted increasing diversity is wrong, the idea of live ancestral relationships is only occasionally accurate. Pretty much leaving that the only implication of the theory is the minor observation that the Current ToE demonstrates that life varies over time.