|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2933 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
It was modern when it was named.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined:
|
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
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: 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: Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024