Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Actually there are several instances where this has happened and caused a restructuring of the local evolutionary tree (ie just around the fossil) - what were assumed to be ancestors are essentially shown to be cousins.Neanderthals as one example, but also see horse evolution
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm
You'll have to hunt around the site a bit for a complete picture.The fossil would have to be significantly out of sequence -- and it would need to bridge some significant transitional ("macro"evolutionary) event: say a fossil with a mammalian ear before therapsids.Another thing that would falsify evolution would be a horizontal transfer of a significant feature from one species to another: say the appearance fully formed of an octopus type eye in a mammal (light sensors facing the light and fixed lens with focus accomplished by changing the whole eyeball shape -- without any transitional stages to turn the retina around or move the muscles from shaping the lens to shaping the eyeball.Or a combination of mammal and octopus eye so that you can change the lens focal length and the shape of the eyeball and have telescopic vision.These last two kind of things are what one should expect if ID were involved in species change btw.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Those dad-burned white mice ... These are examples of the kinds of things, rather than the specific instances, and IF "intelligent design" were involved THEN it should involve elements common to designed items.One of these is discontinuity (sudden appearance of whole new species) and one is cross-fertilization (features from one design jumping to another), and a third is combination (where two similar features are combined to provide a significantly enhanced feature, like telescopic vision).These are also things that should NOT happen IF evolution were the ONLY answer.This may seem to be trending this discussion off topic (into ID Problems and away from Evo Falsification), but I raise it as an instance of things that could differentiate between ID and Evo -- something that should occur if one were true and should NOT occur if the other were true.This is a critical part of any good falsification test -- it differentiates between possible concepts.IDets like to use computers as examples of designed items. Modern cars have both computers and GPS systems in them, neither of which "evolved" in the cars during development and both of which are still evident in individual units and are also found combined into still other designs (GPS phones, blackberries, etc). Rather these items appear fully developed into cars, jumping across design development paths. This is the way intelligent implementation of design operates, so if it (occurs\occurred} then "intelligent design" is a good explanation.This is NOT the way evolution operates, so if it (occurs\occurred} then evolution is NOT the best explanation.The failure of "intelligent design" is the {lack\failure\absence} of explanation for the lack of design elements. I consider this to be another falsification of the "intelligent design" concept.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*24*2006 07:33 AM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

If one is interested in this problem, one of the projects that is currently being addressed by the worldcommuniotygrid.org dispersed computations (like seti-at-home) is protene folding. If you use the UD agent you can see this folding process with a graphic representation that is kind of cool to watch. The BOINC agent doesn't have this graphic ability ()See
World Community Grid - Research - Human Proteome Folding - Phase 2
(but also look at the other projects as well -- it's not just HIV and protene folding anymore, there is also a cancer project)You can sign up for just the protene folding (phase 2) project once you join, particulars at HIV Cancer Diabetes MDA and more - Solve on your computerEnjoy helping research while watching some of it in action.Edited by RAZD, : update sig

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

welcome to the fray Herman\Ephraim7The formating of your post suggests a large cut\copy and paste, although it is possibly from material of your own writing (as I suspect, if not it should be referenced and then discussed), or that you just composed it on notepad or the like (the line breaks are the problem). Schools are not teaching the "history of living organisms" they are teaching the science of {evolution\biology} which is based on observation, theory, testing and refinement as is any science.All scientific possibilities are included -- it not just a matter of possibly maybe being possible, but of being testable -- that is the fine line between science and rampant speculations. Absolutely correct. Nor does it discuss {why} life originated or {what the purpose} of life is -- those are the philosophical\religious type questions that are not attempted in any science. Thus original life could have been created, could have been caused, or could have just happened, but it doesn't matter to the science of how species change over time (evolution). Absolutely false.First off, the origin of life is delegated to the science of abiogenesis, which cares not an iota whether the "big bang" theory is correct or not.Second, as noted above, science does not ask {why} something happened, and this is as true of abiogenesis as it is of physics in general and cosmic astrophysical theory in particular. What science is interested in is how it {happens\works} and then testing that {how} to see if it can be duplicated: if it can we move on to the next "how it {happens\works}" question, if it can't we drop back and try a different approach.Repeatability and testability are the points that make science such a valuable tool in uncovering the {how} of things. Do you have a {testable\repeatable} way of verifying this assertion? Can you differentiate it from, say {Hindu Creation Documentation}?Until you can there is no point in discussing the rest of your post, unless we agree that it is not science but philosophy and religion.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: type [qs=Ephraim7]The difference between type A dying first ... [/qs] and it becomes: I trust you can pass this info on to Ephraim7.Welcome to the fray.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the frayIt is rather humorous that many of those incredulous creatortionista⁽¹⁾ assertions of what is missing from the visible facts (like the hopeful monster) are things that would actually falsify evolution.Not to nitpick but (picks up nit) Would not falsify evolution, just the theory of common descent from a common ancestor.This would still allow change {in frequency of alleles} over time in species population.We need to distinquish which {evolution} we are talking about to really answer this question properly.Enjoy.⁽¹⁾ - I use creatortionista as someone who intentionally misleads or continues to make available information that has been shown to be false

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

But you are combining two theories there, and this is what I see as part of the definition problem.It's not so much "micro" versus "macro" as it is being careful to talk about the {science of evolution} and the {theory(ies) of evolution}Common descent is a theory that is based on the logical conclusion of accumulations of {change\variation} over time, and even goes beyond "macro" evolution in that regard.Both "micro" and "macro" evolution would still be true if there were 2 or 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 species at the start, but common descent would not.And we don't have sufficient evidence to say one way or the other. We do have some evidence to indicate that early life or proto-life shared materials and methods (as some bacteria do today), so some of the common elements we see could have come from multiple sources -- common materials rather than common descent.We also have the problem of dead-end records, places where the spotty fossil record is just to insufficient to show where some branches started (we can guess, but that isn't knowing) and often they also went dead before any DNA etc evidence could be obtained to verify that they are on the same genetic tree.The likelyhood is that this is so, but it could also be otherwise ...and evolution would still be true. I prefer to think of it as keeping the focus on the actual elements of the theory -- whether "descent with variation under natural selection" or "change in species over time" or "the change in frequency of alleles in a population" or (dictionary.com definition): And not being pulled off the topic by including abiogenesis or the big bang ... as creationists are wont to do.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's not, but what it is removing is the concept of an ultimate single common ancestor, a unique foci if you will, for all life, as that is not necessary to evolution.When you have speciation branching from one species into two species you have descent with modification, but also you do not have descent from a common ancestor -- you have descent from a common population of inter-related ancestors. You would be hard pressed to refine the data to the point where you could say {this individual} was THE common ancestor. You do have a change in the frequency of alleles in each daughter population that were in part inherited, some in common and some not, from the parent population. Descent with modification - change in species over time - change in the frequency in alleles within a population --- over time the variations that are successful increase and become more diversified until the available niches are filled, and the diversity reaches an equilibrium level (gains = losses) until the ecology shifts and a new equilibrium is sought. Again, this is where I think the science of evolution is being confused with the theory of evolution.The theory says that change happens over time, the science investigates how that change then makes predictions and uses other theories to explain the full diversity of life as we know it.Common descent - Wikipedia (yellow color for empHASis)And the idea of common ancestry was not new to Darwin either - his father (among others - see link for more) had proposed this system for all mammals.No, the 'revelation' was that there were more young produced than necessary, that there was the transmission of variations from generation to generation, and there was natural selection (survival of the fittest and reproduction of the chosen), and that this was sufficient to explain the diversity of life.The common creatortionista strawman that dog will only evolve into dogs, that they will always be dogs ... is not changed by the theory of common descent any more than it is changed by the theory of change in species over time: they will always be dogs from now on (just that given time and opportunity they will become different species of dogs, then different genera of dogs, families, etc) --- but common descent is a result of change in species over time, and it's extrapolation into the past is a theory based on the theory (and evidence) of evolution's change in species over time.I also have severe problems with "common ancestor" singular usage, as it has always been descent from a pool of genes, more of a "common genome", than from a single individual or couple. While we may understand this, it is not what the term conveys to the common individual. That however is a whole new topic.The point remains that you can falsify descent from a common ancestor and still not falsify evolution -- the only difference is that you would need to explain the abiogenesis of two (or more) branches of life instead of one. We could for instance find life on mars, using all the same building blocks as life on earth, complete with the same DNA made up of the same 20 amino acids, but no genetic markers in common with earth life. If there are {chemical\physical} reasons for the choices in materials used in building life from activated chemicals, one would expect those reasons to apply in similar situations regardless of (heh) origins.This could have occurred on the primordial earth as well as on another planet. When the two (or more) forms come into contact they can share, conquer or die. Personally I believe that, as eukaryotes came into being from the sharing of two prokaryote cells that the prokaryotes came into being from the sharing of more primitive forms of life. It seems illogical to me that the 'big experiment' only occurred once for all time, or that one pre-biotic replication system existed unchallenged for thousands of years before it reached the next level. That is my personal belief though, and would be another whole topic (discussed on some other threads).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks Taq,It has always seemed a little problematical to claim speciation in asexually reproducing species, but this is a convincing example not only of speciation, but of significant change between the parent population and the daughter population -- a macroevolution event confirmed (as the term is used in biology).Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi ICANT, I'll try once again ... You really need to read the whole paragraph. When you zoom out on a tree from a single branch to see the whole tree, do you see any process that does not occur in the single branch being used in the formation of the tree? No, what you see are multiple branching events, with each branch formed by the same process, and where the overall structure is made up of the formation of multiple branches. What is different is the time focus - the growth of a single branch starts in a single season, while the growth of the tree involves many many seasons.Another way to look at it is to use the analogy of the snapshot vs movie film: we can look at the individual pictures of a movie as a series of snapshots, and we can note in detail the "micro" changes that occur from one snapshot frame to the next; then we can run the film through a projector and see how all the micro changes add up to the "macro" effects of all the little changes merged into a document of the motion captured by the film. Once again, the major difference is the time-scale used to look at the evidence: in the micro view we are looking at the frames one by one, slowly, and concentrating on the differences seen before moving on to the next frame, while in the macro view we are looking at the flow of the frames as they merge into the overall picture of motion that appears from the passage of the individual frames viewed for a brief moment, motion caused by the accumulation of the little changes from one frame to the next seen at a much faster scale of time. Personally I disagree with this opinion. This is a first hand account of macroevolution: It is written in fossils: it shows the ongoing "micro" evolution, with the changes in hereditary traits in the breeding population/s from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities, and it documents the overall "macro" evolution picture of increasing diversity, as branches form and become separated, different from the other branches by the long term accumulation of the ongoing "micro" evolution changes. Without "micro" evolution the "macro" evolution does not occur.Enjoy.btw - [size=1] makes the type smaller than normal and fixes it so that it doesn't adjust when you globally adjust the size of the fonts on a whole page.Edited by RAZD, : p

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi Dawn Bertot,There are several references on the web that would answer your questions about gorillas (common ancestor population for gorillas, humans and chimps before the common ancestor population for humans and chimps).http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/first_primates.htm
evolution of the first primates

quote:

---

About 9 million years ago, the descendants of the dryopithecines in Africa diverged into two lines--the gorillas and the line that would lead to humans and chimpanzees. Around 6 million years ago, another divergence occurred which separated the chimpanzees from the early hominids (human-like primates) that were our direct ancestors.

---

Note that these dates are tentative and await further evidence that will either confirm or alter there absolute locations, however the positions are relative -- if the common ancestor population for humans and chimps but not gorillas is found older than 9 million years, then the time for the common ancestor population for humans, chimps and gorillas would also be older.http://www.andaman.org/Related%3F/Related.htm

quote:

---

One possible genealogical tree from cretaceous insectivores to modern Homo sapiens . Many points remain in dispute and for others the evidence is unclear or missing. The available evidence would also allow other trees to be constructed. (adapted from The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Human Evolution, Cambridge 1992). Humans have not descended from monkeys - but they have a common ancestor. The chart shows the chromosomal alterations that have ocurred during the evolution of Old World Simians (infraorder Catarrhini). Each dot represents an event inferred from a comparison of the karyotypes of living species. Within any branch, the sequence of dots is arbitrary. Emphasis is given to human and great apes, whose chromosomes have been more extensively studied than those of other primates. NOR = nuclear organisers. (adapted The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Human Evolution, Cambridge 1992).

---

All other living species are just as evolved from the common ancestor population as we are, the only difference being the different ecological opportunities that were taken advantage of by the different descendant populations. Why?Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities. It is a response mechanism to changing conditions, using available mutations within each of the populations, filtered by individual success at survival and breeding.There is no goal to become human or any other form. There may be a general trend for increased intelligence, but that would be due to it offering advantages for survival and breeding. Like chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, etc? Or something intelligent, like the porpoises and whales?When we are able to communicate with these apes and other animals (via sign language etc) it is clear that the distinctions between them and humans is indeed small, with their intelligence and communication skills overlapping the boundaries of humans. Take any population of breeding individuals and watch them over many generations. The oldest die, either a natural death or one caused by failure to survive some incident, and new ones are born, carrying the genes of the individuals that succeed in survival and reproduction. The new ones age, survive and reproduce according to their individual success, and eventually they too die a natural death or one caused by failure to survive some incident, ... and new ones are born .... and the cycle continues. At every generation the individuals of that generation are different from the individuals of the previous generation/s and from the one/s to follow. These differences may be small, but they can add up to substantial change, or they can oscillate around an average, and different traits can change more or less than other traits, depending on the opportunities for survival and breeding provided by the traits within the context of the ecology in which they live.Here we see successive generations of an early primate common ancestor: Every individual at every level is a member of a transitional species, and each individual lived and died, contributing their hereditary traits to the following generations according to their success at survival and breeding.There is an overall trend from small at the bottom to larger at the top, but there is no point at which there is a sudden change from small to large - instead each population between the top and bottom is part of the transition from small to large.We also see instances of opportunities for smaller populations to branch off of the main trend and evolve to be smaller, with Copelemur constutus being about the same size as the ancestor population of Pelycodus ralstoni, thus show both a population evolving to be larger and one evolving to be smaller, due to the different ecological opportunities that each breeding population inhabits rather than any directional or goal seeking process. I get the idea that you do not understand how evolution works. At all.Recommended reading:
Evolution 101 - Understanding Evolution
An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
The family tree - Understanding Evolution
Trees, not ladders - Understanding EvolutionI post these here not to debate, but so you can learn how the terms and science uses these concepts and understands them - to provide you with the common language used in the science of biology in general and evolution in particular.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi ICANT Because you still don't get it. Context please? Are you thinking of Dogs will be Dogs will be ???? Except that all the known fossils fall into lineages predicted by the theory of common descent, and not pointing off into distant points as you have depicted. Science does not prove, it provides the best explanation for the observed evidence. The theory of common descent provides the best explanation for the sequence of fossils found in both time and location. No other theory explains those sequences. Special Creation would predict that this would not be the case, and as such it is invalidated by the evidence of sequential evolution, such as Pelycodus and Foraminifera.Common descent also predicts that new fossils will be found along existing lineages, and this has been the case time and again, the most noteworthy being the predicted location and type of fossil found with Tiktaalik. As has been pointed out by others, this rank and vile creationist canard is a ridiculous false standard of proof, as even creationists cannot provide such a sequence for their personal ancestors back to Adam with no gaps, nor to any of their beloved kind back to the ark, and thus it amounts to special pleading, asking more from the opposition than you are capable of providing for your argument.The fact remains that, while there are some missing pieces of information, there is also a plenitude of evidence that demonstrates that sequential evolution from common ancestor populations does in fact occur. Every time a new fossil is found that does not invalidate it, and every time the theory predicts new evidence, and every time it explains the known evidence better than any other theory. As I have been at some pains on another thread to show that a scientific concept is based first on evidence where specific instance/s show it has occurred, and that without such founding evidence it is just a fantasy "what-if" concept. This is the case with your transmutation - it has never been observed in any form in any location that I am aware of. If it was validated - if there was evidence that this indeed occurred - then this would be evidence that would invalidate parts of the theory of evolution, and this would be big news. It is a term from the age of alchemy, and in your usage it is more like a tired
science fiction concept from B-grade 1950's movies (giant ants etc). It is not a scientific term, or at least it is not used in biology in any way I am aware of. And evidence of such changing form of an individual critter would invalidate the theory of the evolution of populations or organisms: evolution does not occur within individuals, but in the changes in hereditary traits past to succeeding generations from the parents resulting in the changes in the frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.Again, it has never been observed in any form in any location that I am aware of. What I disagree with is your interpretation. Evolution above the species level is the divergence of sibling species after speciation, as they continue to evolve within their populations but respond to different ecologies, thus adding to the diversity of life. This is how the tree of life forms. That is all that "macro" evolution involves: there is no additional process needed to explain the evidence, there is nothing more needed than the continued formation of branches caused by speciation and the descent from common ancestor populations by the daughter populations as they evolve by "micro" evolution within their speicies populations. No matter what various branches may have evolved into, (a) it would forever still be a member of the foraminifera clade and (b) it would not be the same as any other existing species - they could have evolved into snail-like organisms, but (c) as fossils OTHER than foraminifera were not recorded in the study we don't know what they may have become. However we do know that they would not be snails, they would still be foraminifera. This would be like a marsupial evolving to be like a flying squirrel: It may look like, and it may behave like, a flying squirrel but it is still just a marsupial and not a different sort of critter ... it has not transmutated into a flying squirrel, but evolved into a similar appearing marsupial.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi arachnophilia Two actually, see Message 397. One from the fossil morphological data and one from the genetic data.Curiously, they agree.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi shadow71, and welcome to the fray. Please be careful that you are not conflating the process of evolution (the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities) with the theory of evolution (ToE). The ToE can somewhat simplistically be stated as: the process of evolution, particularly with the process of speciation (the differential evolution of subpopulations in different ecologies resulting in reproductive isolation of daughter populations), is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, to the fossil record.Theories are never fact. Evidence is fact. The process of evolution has been observed and is indeed a fact. The theory of evolution has been validated (and it has not been invalidated), but it is not fact. There have been a number of molecular biologists that have voiced similar opinions. See "Sudden Origins" by Jeffery H Schwartz for another example of someone claiming that the ToE is in need of massive revision .... one can hardly wait for the creationist quote miners to have a field day, as this is the kind of "controversy" they like to feed on and regurgitate.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Hi again shadow71, please slow down and take a breath. And I did not accuse you of doing so either, so I have to wonder what your beef is.What I did accuse you of was confusing the process of evolution, which is a phenomenon that is observed every day (and thus EVOLUTION_{(the process)} is a fact), with the theory of evolution. You complained about people claiming that evolution was a fact and then talked about the theory -- the evident implication being that you have confused process with theory. There are at least three ways the term evolution is used within biology - as a process, as a theory, and as a science - and it is important for one's own clarity of thought to keep these distinct.The process of evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.The theory of evolution is that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us and from the evidence of archeology, paleontology, geology, molecular chemistry, genetic analysis, etc...The science of evolution is the study of how the various mechanisms of evolution work within the biological world, through experiment and observation, and seeing how the theory applies to the known objective and empirical evidence, including the evaluation of new evidence and comparison of the results with the predictions of the theory. Are you expecting us to debate Dr. Koonin's work against a blank slate? Clearly you seem to be enamored of his work, and to fail to support it after claiming that you find it compelling is rather ... somewhat ... disappointing? Perhaps you are not qualified (undereducated) to speak on this topic but present it because it reinforces some beliefs you have, but are honest enough to realize that you do not have the expertize to discuss it from a scientific basis (which is okay with me). Even when those evolutionist scientists are offering nothing more than their opinions?What about you being open minded to the scientific criticisms of your chosen critic's concepts when written by scientists (the modifier evolutionist only being needed by creationists as true science is not biased by belief) in the field? Have you read Percy's link?

quote:

---

The Biological Big Bang is not so much wrong as it is unnecessary.

---

That kind of sums it up in a nutshell. We already have a web of life at the early stages from other sources, and we already have horizontal gene transfer between bacteria as a means of genetic exchange for single cellular life. These are not new, nor are they earth shaking revelations that shake the foundations of the science of evolution or rattle the walls of the ivory towers of the scientists that study evolution.The theory of evolution does not fall into oblivion if there is more than one origin of life, for evolution occurs after that origin. One of the tasks of the science of evolution is to determine whether there was one common ancestor population or several.Nor does the theory of common descent, that life is related to life by descent from common ancestor populations, fail if there is horizontal gene transfer that provides essentially the same contribution to descendants that sexual reproduction does in multicellular organisms. It just means that identifying the "mama" and "papa" may be a little more difficult, but that the process of changes in the frequency of hereditary traits in (gene exchanging) populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities still occurs and is still subject to the trials and tribulations of survival, reproduction, drift, etc, within those ecologies. Oh boo hoo, your pet theory was challenged and you got nasty. Why do you find it interesting? Can you tell me how to differentiate "purifying selection" from the natural selection towards relative stasis in a predominantly static ecology? This is observed, and is part of the punc-eek mechanisms as described by Gould and Eldredge. The small populations living outside the fringes of the main population ecology would have different ecological opportunities than the main populations, and thus more opportunity to select traits not necessarily adaptive for the main population, but which are suited to those fringe ecologies. This too is part of the punc-eek mechanisms as described by Gould and Eldredge. So either Koonin is not offering anything new or he is trying to pretend to reinvent the wheel by calling it something else. Rates of evolution change. Stunning. I fail to see any cause for a new synthesis nor any reason to say that current theory is in any jeopardy. This again is his opinion. Opinion is not fact, nor is it able to alter facts in any known way, whether "mind-action directed" or not.What will alter the theory of evolution is facts and objective empirical evidence of portions of evidence that the theory does not adequately explain -- that is how science works -- not by opinions. That, of course, is your opinion, and you are welcome to it ... as long as you realize that opinions are strangely ineffective at altering reality, and that you shouldn't react with anger and nasty comments when it is criticized on the basis of facts and what the evidence shows.An open mind considers the possibility of new concepts being valid, however a skeptical mind reacts with skepticism of concepts not supported by adequate empirical objective evidence to support the concept. There needs to be a balance between open-mindedness and skepticism.Enjoy.ps - as you seem relatively new here ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)