Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 2:45 AM
23 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie, Theodoric (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,109 Year: 9,145/19,786 Month: 1,567/2,119 Week: 327/576 Day: 2/128 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   front loading: did evos get it backwards
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 8 (470841)
06-12-2008 10:52 PM


For clarity, let me preface this proposed thread with the comment that I don't subscribe to front loading ID theories about evolution necessarily, but at least think they have some scientific merit as a potential hypothesis, being rooted in some facts, as oppossed to NeoDarwinism. By front loading ID theories, I mean the hypothesis commonly known as front loading. Front loading advocates generally accept, as far as I can tell, either common descent from a number of original forms and organisms or an original, single organism and genome. They are usually thought of as ID theories since the information is considered to be programmed into the front loaded organism but I suppose one could imagine a non-ID front loaded theory as well. NeoDarwinism, on the other hand, posits a slow accumulation of genes via mutations which are selected for by organisms adapting an acquired trait granting them a natural selective advantage.

For clarity, let me preface this proposed thread with the comment that I don't subscribe to front loading ID theories about evolution necessarily, but at least think they have some scientific merit as a potential hypothesis, being rooted in some facts, as oppossed to NeoDarwinism. By front loading evo theories, I mean the hypothesis commonly known as front loading. I added evo theories because front loading advocates generally accept, as far as I can tell, either common descent from a number of original forms and organisms or an original, single organism and genome. They are usually thought of as ID theories since the information is considered to be programmed into the front loaded organism but I suppose one could imagine a non-ID front loaded theory as well. NeoDarwinism, on the other hand, posits a slow accumulation of genes via mutations which are selected for by organisms adapting an acquired trait granting them a natural selective advantage.

With that being said, I think the topic deserves a fair hearing. Note the following:

"The cells which gave rise to plants and animals had more types of genes available to them than are presently found in either plants or animals," explains William Loomis, a professor of biology at UCSD and one of the key members of the international sequencing effort. "Specialization appears to lead to loss of genes as well as the modification of copies of old genes. As each new genome is sequenced, we learn more about the history and physiology of the progenitors and gain insight into the function of human genes."

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/7129

Apparently there is significant evidence, assuming common descent, that the ancestor to all plants and animals had a genome with "more types of genes" than is present in any plant or animal today and that evolution, assuming it occurred at all, proceeded through loss and changes of genes rather than the slow accumulation of them as envisioned by NeoDarwinism.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Minor mods to 1st para for consistency.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-13-2008 9:23 AM randman has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 2 of 8 (470891)
06-13-2008 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-12-2008 10:52 PM


Could you include a sentence or two describing what "front loading evo theories" are?

Also, if by NeoDarwinism you're referring to the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution with genetics, and if you believe that "front loading evo theories" are not part of the modern synthesis, then you need to explain that a little, since it seems unlikely that scientists like William Loomis do not accept the modern synthesis. That there are signficant schools of evolutionary thought that reject the modern synthesis would actually be a more significant issue than "front loading".

Please post a note when the edits are complete and I'll take another look.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 06-12-2008 10:52 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 12:19 PM Admin has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 3 of 8 (470917)
06-13-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
06-13-2008 9:23 AM


I added some more. Seems pretty clear what the topic is. As far as William Loomis or any other scientist, I don't see how what camp they are in is all that relevant. Certainly, we can discuss factual findings from anyone I would think. Whether Loomis has attached significance or not to the fact isn't the thread topic. It would be interesting to know his ideas on how all those types of genes got there so early, but whether he's publicized that or not shouldn't derail the thread.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 06-13-2008 9:23 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 06-13-2008 1:26 PM randman has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 4 of 8 (470925)
06-13-2008 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
06-13-2008 12:19 PM


I think the phrase you really want is "front loading ID theories about evolution." Since "evo" is normally a reference to traditional evolution or its supporters, the phrase "front loading evo theories" implies that there's some facet of evolutionary thought within mainstream circles that accepts "front loading."

What I'm trying to avoid is your thread bogging down in accusations that you're misrepresenting the scientific views about evolution within biology.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 12:19 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 1:36 PM Admin has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 5 of 8 (470930)
06-13-2008 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
06-13-2008 1:26 PM


Ok, made the change.

Note....many claim ID is creationism and so using the term ID is problematic as well here. The point is that front loaders accept that things evolve, though not in a Darwinian fashion primarily.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 06-13-2008 1:26 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 06-13-2008 2:09 PM randman has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 6 of 8 (470937)
06-13-2008 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by randman
06-13-2008 1:36 PM


I did further modifications to the 1st para, see if they're okay with you. Your original 1st para is still there, just hidden.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 1:36 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 06-13-2008 2:15 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 8 (470939)
06-13-2008 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Admin
06-13-2008 2:09 PM


Looks the same to me on my screen. Could be a technical problem or maybe I am missing something. It is OK as it appears on my screen.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 06-13-2008 2:09 PM Admin has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 8 of 8 (470946)
06-13-2008 2:56 PM


Thread copied to the front loading: did evos get it backwards thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019