shadow71 writes: I understand this to mean that the TRANSITION TO COMPLEX LIFE was a unique event that did not rely on natural selection.
I don't like the expression "rely on natural selection." However, natural selection would be as much involved here as with anything else.
I don't have a time machine to go back and see what happened. And I'm not even a biologist. However, assuming that symbiosis was involved, it is most likely that there were casual symbiotic unions that formed. At some stage a change occurred which might have been a relatively small DNA change, such as allowed the two components of such a symbiotic union to synchronize their reproductive activity, so that the next generation inherited a similar symbiotic structure.
We see a big change, in terms of the effect on the biosphere. But we cannot rule out that it might well have occurred in small genetic steps.
You can't even conclude that it was a unique event. Something similar might have happened on many occasion, with only one line surviving through the background of natural selection.
mike the wiz writes: There are over 200 geochronometers that suggest a young earth.
Some of them are;
The amount of mud at the mouth of major rivers Light not being a constant The amount of dust on the moon Satelites that should have expired Polystrate fossils Examples of rapid layers being created in days (Mt St Helens)
I won't go into it all, but it's nothing to do with scientific prowess. Also, potassium argon dating gave rocks found at new volcanoes dates of millions of years.
I'm sorry to see it, mike, but you seem to have lost your wizness.Jesus was a liberal hippie
nwr writes: I don't like the expression "rely on natural selection." However, natural selection would be as much involved here as with anything else.
shadow71 writes: Nick Lane says in his paper "The transition to COMPLEX LIFE(My emphasis) on Earth was a UNIQUE event that hinged on a bioenergetic jump afforded by spatially combinatorial relations between two cells and two genomes (endosymbiosis) rather than natural slection actilng on mutations..."
I think he is pretty clear that natural selection was not involved in the transition to complex life. That this was jump and not a gradual transition.
Personally, I am not a pan-selectionist. I tend to think that there is too much emphasis placed on selection. However, even those who do emphasize selection usually avoid talking in terms of "rely on natural selection."
shadow71 writes: I think he is pretty clear that natural selection was not involved in the transition to complex life. That this was jump and not a gradual transition.
I haven't read Lane's paper, so I'm going by your quotes from it.
The idea that one organism jumped inside another, leading to a sudden transition, is surely mistaken. There had to be a lot of mutual adaptation before that was possible, and natural selection would have been involved in that mutual adaptation.
If the point you are making is that endosymbiosis doesn't quite fit in the typical neo-Darwinist picture, then I agree with that. And most neo-Darwinists would probably also agree. I don't see that as a problem with evolution.
shadow71 writes: What concerns me are several quotes about the paper.
This from the NY times on 1-6-2011 In response to the publisher stating we decided to publish the paper "...even though there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results."
I agree that's a bad criticism. Science doesn't have to wait for mechanism.
Bem's results show an effect only a little better than chance. If he had shown a far stronger effect, and if others could reproduce it, then this would be good science.
As it is, however, the effects reported are marginal though they test as significant. My concern would be on whether there were methodological errors that allowed a bias to creep in.
As for whether the journal should have accepted the paper - I leave that to the editors. It's not entirely unreasonable to publish uncertain results, and then expect other scientists to attempt to replicate the work. The journal cannot be expected to run its own lab and attempt to replicate before accepting. On the other hand, there's a long history of such psychic claims, with marginally positive results. And there's an equally long history of failure to replicate such claims. I'll admit to being surprised that the paper was accepted.