Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 760 (610231)
03-28-2011 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Theodoric
03-28-2011 10:06 AM


Re: Voodoo?
Theodoric writes:
Or if wished him a good life, but hope that when he dies, his body is put into a hole in the ground so it can rot and creatures in the soil can get to it(legal in Wisconsin).
I see your point. On the other hand given knowledge of how you feel, I think I'd find your wish more amusing than offensive. But I suspect my wife would not be amused.
In any event, given shadow71's follow up, I am no longer inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Theodoric, posted 03-28-2011 10:06 AM Theodoric has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 197 of 760 (610232)
03-28-2011 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dr Jack
03-28-2011 9:38 AM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
Well, that depends on what you mean by "modern synthesis". I think that it should include stuff that is, y'know, modern. And that it should therefore include stuff that geneticists have known perfectly well since before I was born.
If it doesn't, it's time to think of a less confusing name for it.
I take "the modern synthesis"; "neo-Darwinism"; "the theory of evolution" to commonly denote Darwinism updated with knowledge of the genetic mechanisms that underlie it; not just those mechanisms which were known in 1930.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Dr Jack, posted 03-28-2011 9:38 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Dr Jack, posted 03-28-2011 2:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 198 of 760 (610238)
03-28-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Dr Adequate
03-28-2011 12:20 PM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
Dr Adequate writes:
Well, that depends on what you mean by "modern synthesis". I think that it should include stuff that is, y'know, modern. And that it should therefore include stuff that geneticists have known perfectly well since before I was born.
The Modern Synthesis is a very well defined piece of evolutionary theory, and it does not include anything that geneticists have known. A good Evolution textbook (such as Futuyma's Evolution) will tell you what it is.
If it doesn't, it's time to think of a less confusing name for it.
I agree it's confusing but I think like "Modernism" and "Post-Modernism", we're stuck with it.
I take "the modern synthesis"; "neo-Darwinism"; "the theory of evolution" to commonly denote Darwinism updated with knowledge of the genetic mechanisms that underlie it; not just those mechanisms which were known in 1930.
Well, that's your choice but you should be aware that such usage is radically non-standard to a degree most pleasing to Humpty Dumpty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2011 12:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2011 3:00 PM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 202 by Wounded King, posted 03-28-2011 5:07 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 199 of 760 (610240)
03-28-2011 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Dr Jack
03-28-2011 2:38 PM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
Well, that's your choice but you should be aware that such usage is radically non-standard to a degree most pleasing to Humpty Dumpty.
Even Humpty-Dumpty might have stopped short of using the word "modern" to mean "antiquated and superseded".
However, if that's what shadow means, then I concede his point --- the things that we've known for the last forty years do indeed challenge a view which no-one has held for the last forty years, or rather they would if anyone held that view, which they don't.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Dr Jack, posted 03-28-2011 2:38 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Dr Jack, posted 03-28-2011 3:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 201 by sfs, posted 03-28-2011 3:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 200 of 760 (610242)
03-28-2011 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Dr Adequate
03-28-2011 3:00 PM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
It was modern when it was named.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2011 3:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


(1)
Message 201 of 760 (610243)
03-28-2011 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Dr Adequate
03-28-2011 3:00 PM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
quote:
Even Humpty-Dumpty might have stopped short of using the word "modern" to mean "antiquated and superseded".
Such terms are not that uncommon: the New Criticism, the New Deal, Modernism, Neoclassicism, New Comedy. New Coke. The word "modern" is itself rather passe; it's usage peaked around 1930, according to the Google Ngram Viewer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2011 3:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 202 of 760 (610247)
03-28-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Dr Jack
03-28-2011 2:38 PM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
You are right of course about the correct terminology, but it gets really tedious trying to correct every creationist IDist who turns up decrying the modern synthesis, when clearly they mean the current state of understanding of evolutionary biological science. Because, as you may have noticed, telling a creationist that they are wrong rarely leads to them revising their behaviour.
I think you are exaggerating to call Dr. A's usage 'radically' non-standard. Perhaps the distinction here should be between the modern synthesis and "The Modern Synthesis".
Part of the problem is perhaps that there isn't any catchy specific defining term for the current state of knowledge. Neo-Darwinism got taken in the century before the last one, and that is still widely bandied about.
I tend to use modern evolutionary theory, but that is very easily confused with the modern synthesis.
People have been proposing things like 'extended synthesis' or variations on Evo-Devo such as Eco-Evo-Devo, but as yet there is no clear winner.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Dr Jack, posted 03-28-2011 2:38 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by bluegenes, posted 03-28-2011 5:47 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 210 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2011 11:57 PM Wounded King has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 203 of 760 (610248)
03-28-2011 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wounded King
03-28-2011 5:07 PM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
Wounded King writes:
I tend to use modern evolutionary theory,....
Me too, but, as you say:
WK writes:
......but that is very easily confused with the modern synthesis.
So, we could use "current evolutionary theory". That way, we can never go wrong, whenever we're speaking. It's eternal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wounded King, posted 03-28-2011 5:07 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-28-2011 8:20 PM bluegenes has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 204 of 760 (610253)
03-28-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by shadow71
03-25-2011 11:42 AM


Re: Cart/Horse
i.e. the data in this case and Shapiro's testimony and opinions,
Swing and a miss.
The data is the data. Shapiro's opinions are separate from the data. For example, the results from DNA sequencing is the data. Whether or not this indicates a valid DNA match is the opinion of the expert. You need both. So far you have only presented opinion, not the data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 11:42 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by shadow71, posted 04-04-2011 4:34 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 205 of 760 (610255)
03-28-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by shadow71
03-25-2011 11:53 AM


Re: Just blowing smoke
I interpret the above part of the quote to mean the non-random mutations she discussed provided a benefical adapation of the organism to its new enviroment.
What percentage of these mutations produce beneficial adaptations? That is the part you are leaving out. The fact of the matter, as I will show in a subsequent post, is that we are talking about a mutation that occurs once or twice per billion bacteria. Even more, the same mechanism that Wright points to is just as capable of producing neutral or detrimental mutations. Let's take a look at this paper.
From the introduction in that paper:
quote:
Our data indicate that transcription
(starvation-induced derepression) is unique in augmenting
variant availability in a specific manner, i.e., by stimulating
rates of transcription (and associated phenomena such as RNA
polymerase pausing) in targeted operons, thereby increasing
the concentration of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA), which is
more vulnerable to mutations than double-stranded DNA.
Although the mutations per se are random, as described above
for background mutations, the mechanisms that target operons
for increased rates of transcription are highly specific. This
specificity is not compatible with current neo-Darwinian
dogma.
[my note: sorry for formatting, but copying and pasting from a .pdf is a pain]

What Wright is really arguing for is that transcription of a gene increases the random mutation rate in that gene. Other investigators have found that single stranded DNA (ssDNA) is more susceptible to random mutation. Therefore, any stretch of DNA that is actively transcribed will be more susceptible to mutation.
So what types of beneficial mutation rates are we talking about? Wright et al. looked at the reversion rate for a broken leuB gene in E. coli. All it takes to make this gene functional is the conversion of a specific C to a T.
Take a look at Table 1. We are talking about 0.2 to 2.5 beneficial mutations PER BILLION BACTERIA (1 per 10(9) for our misguided British friends who use the wrong definition for billion ). Not only that, but the conversion needed (C to T) is highly favored by the mechanisms that causes mutations in ssDNA. Wright also discusses other environmentally unrelated mechanisms, such as transcription pause sites, that further enhance random mutation of ssDNA.
I would also argue that the system that Wright et al. use is highly artificial and colored by bias. First, the proposed mechanisms requires upregulation of the DNA sequence in question in an environment where mutations within that DNA sequence would be beneficial. If a mutation in a downregulated or repressed gene would be beneficial in a given environment then this mechanism actually tips towards detrimental. For example, if a mutation in an enzyme within the de novo proline biosynthesis pathway could mutate to also fill a role in the broken leucine de novo biosynthesis pathway such mutations would be repressed in an environment rich in proline but lacking leucine.
Secondly, it is not the lack of leucine in the environment that guides the mutations. This is supported by the finding that replacing the wild type leuB promoter with an IPTG driven tac promoter produces the same number of leuB- revertants. When IPTG is added to the growth media the transcription of the leuB- gene is increased like that seen in wild type conditions where it requires the absence of leucine. What did they observe? Close to the same rate of mutation as seen in the wild type. It is not the lack of leucine in the environment that guides the mutation of the leuB- gene. It is the state of the gene (ssDNA) that increases the random mutation rate.
It is also worth mentioning that the classic examples of random mutations discussed by Lederberg, Luria, and Delbruck occur in actively transcribed genes. For the antibiotic resistance in the Lederberg plate replica experiment the mutations happen in the DNA gyrase gene. In the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation assay the mutations occur in the high turnover tonB gene. When antibiotic and bacteriophage resistance mutations occur in these genes it is not in response to the presence of antibiotics or bacteriophage. They are random with respect to fitness, just like the mutations in the leuB- gene in the Wright et al. paper.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2011 11:53 AM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-29-2011 12:00 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 238 by shadow71, posted 04-04-2011 4:56 PM Taq has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 760 (610261)
03-28-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by bluegenes
03-28-2011 5:47 PM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
So, we could use "current evolutionary theory". That way, we can never go wrong, whenever we're speaking. It's eternal.
Until enough time passes and then they start referring to "Current Evolutionary Theory" as that of the 2010's....
The creationists could still be saying that evolution needs to be replaced just like the OP.
Its inexcapable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by bluegenes, posted 03-28-2011 5:47 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Taq, posted 03-28-2011 8:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 209 by bluegenes, posted 03-28-2011 9:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 207 of 760 (610263)
03-28-2011 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dr Jack
03-28-2011 9:38 AM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
The "modern" synthesis dates from the 30s and 40s. It includes nothing about genetic mechanisms because, back then, we didn't even know about DNA. The modern synthesis remains broadly correct in its overarching view, but its been wildly superseded.
Ernst Mayr said it best:
quote:
By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigmnor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair.
Just a moment...
As an aside, the whole essay is a great read. It is a short synopsis of Ernst Mayr's view of his career over 80 years. He wrote it to commemorate his 100th birthday:
quote:
Having reached the rare age of 100 years, I find myself in a unique position: I'm the last survivor of the golden age of the Evolutionary Synthesis. That status encourages me to present a personal account of what I experienced in the years (1920s to the 1950s) that were so crucial in the history of evolutionary biology.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Dr Jack, posted 03-28-2011 9:38 AM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 208 of 760 (610264)
03-28-2011 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by New Cat's Eye
03-28-2011 8:20 PM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
Until enough time passes and then they start referring to "Current Evolutionary Theory" as that of the 2010's....
The creationists could still be saying that evolution needs to be replaced just like the OP.
Its inexcapable.
Sadly, they have not caught up to the geology of the 1800's.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-28-2011 8:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 209 of 760 (610266)
03-28-2011 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by New Cat's Eye
03-28-2011 8:20 PM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
Catholic Scientist writes:
Until enough time passes and then they start referring to "Current Evolutionary Theory" as that of the 2010's....
We (or future generations) just tell them to bugger off and look up "current" in their dictionaries.
CS writes:
The creationists could still be saying that evolution needs to be replaced just like the OP.
Its inexcapable.
If they say "evolution needs to be replaced" they would be asking for a fact to be replaced, not a theory. But I know what you mean.
The full technical title of the Current Theory is "The Evolving and Ever Current Theory of Biological Evolution". It is self-replacing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-28-2011 8:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2011 10:18 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 233 by shadow71, posted 04-02-2011 1:10 PM bluegenes has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 210 of 760 (610296)
03-28-2011 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Wounded King
03-28-2011 5:07 PM


Re: The modern synthesis is not modern
Part of the problem is perhaps that there isn't any catchy specific defining term for the current state of knowledge.
How about: "The theory of evolution"? Or just: "Genetics", which is a one-word summary of the theory.
And I suggest "Darwinism" for genetics + common descent. It's still what Darwin thought of, just with more details drawn in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Wounded King, posted 03-28-2011 5:07 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by sfs, posted 03-29-2011 6:59 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024