Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

You read his paper as not challenging the Darwin and neo-Darwinian theory?He writes:"...in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspect of evolution."I read that as challenging the theories. He is talking about alot more than just lateral gene transfers.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.Edited by shadow71, : spelling

And he next says, "So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone."You need to put a filter on the words of people who crave the attention that comes from being controversial. Look at Table 1 on page 5 of The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? and you'll see that he accepts all the modern synthesis, he just wants a change in emphasis. For example, in the table's 2nd row he says "NO" to positive selection but then equivocates with, "Positive selection is important but is only one of several fundamental forces of evolution..."People who crave attention are going to say things that garner attention. All the attention getting teasers on TV have taught us that. For example, the teaser for the nightly news makes it seem like must-see TV, but then you watch and find out the actual news item wasn't as interesting as they made it sound.Same with guys like Koonin. He opens with a lot of extravagant overstatement, but when you examine the details you find that he's talking about things that have been known for decades and that most other scientists view as additions to our knowledge and understanding about evolution. The modern synthesis that formed in the 1920's between Darwinian evolution and genetics was intended to be a dynamic theory that could grow and change in light of continuing research and improved insights, and that's just what has happened. All Koonin is really doing is contrasting what we know now with what we knew 80 years ago. Big whoop.--PercyP.S. - I've noticed occasional typos in your excerpts. Are you actually typing them in instead of just cut-n-pasting?

To use a turn of phrase . . . Konnin was saying that the Emporer has clothes on, but they aren't the color we thought they were.While Konnin certainly used sensational language the actual meat of his argument is quite tame. Konnin still agrees that evolution occurs through mutation and selection, the very foundation of the Modern Synthesis.

We have certainly found new facts in the 150 years since Origin of Species was written, and many facts since the Modern Synthesis came to fruition in the 1930-40's. However, none of these facts have required a complete rewrite of the Modern Synthesis. They have been brought into the Modern Synthesis with no real problems. Like I have stated before, it depends on the context. Positive selection is extremely important for explaining how beneficial traits spread through a population. Purifying selection is extremely important for explaining how the majority of bases change over time in a genome. The mistake that Konnin has made, IMO, is to pull these mechanisms out of their context in order to downplay their importance.Also, mutation is still as important as ever. Even in cases of horizontal gene transfer the gene had to arise through mutations at some point prior to the transfer event. Also, genes that undergo transfer still mutate and do take on new roles through the process of mutation and selection.

That the paper does not, in fact, say that we can't tell after these last 50 years of new discovery, what is actually going on. That the paper expresses no doubts as to the existence of natural selection; also that the author is presumably neither retarded not insane. Then why did you refer to the paper in doing so?

And guess what, neo-Darwinism is in "the post-genomic era".If by "the Modern Synthesis" he means "what people knew about genetics in the 1920s", then the theory of evolution has indeed been improved by the accumulation of further knowledge since that time; and it seems otiose now to write an article urging that this should happen when it already has.

Thanks for your interpretation of the paper. I read more into it than you do.I download alot of the papers I post from so I do type in quite a bit of the quotes myself. I'll try to be more careful.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Box, page 5 he does express quite of bit of doubt about the importance of natural selection. He says important, but not dominant.
Do you consisder natural selection dominant in the Modern Synthesis?

He means by the Modern Synthesis as he describes "...Therefore, this year is perfect to ask some crucial questions: how has evolutionary biology changed in the 50 years since the 'hardening' of the Modern Synthesis?"By my calculations he is talking about after 1960.

The importance of natural selection in explaining what, specifically? That is the important question.

The word "dominant" is too vague for me to attach meaning either to his statement or your question.

You're reading more into it than everyone, not just me, but probably the most important point is that despite Koonin's attention-grabbing way of expressing himself he is not proposing any falsification of the modern synthesis. No matter what new things we have learned and will learn at either the Darwinian or genetic level, the modern synthesis began as a synthesis of Darwinian evolution and genetics, and that's what it still is.We've learned a great deal in the past 80 years about both Darwinian evolution and genetics, and combining them makes just as much sense today as it did then. Darwinian evolution has no mechanism without genetics, so nothing else would make sense but to combine them. Nothing Eugene Koonin can say or that you interpret him as saying can change this necessity, and the modern synthesis remains the central organizing principle within biology.--Percy

I am not reading anything into these quotes. They are self-explanatory. Whether he is right or wrong he is clearly saying that the Modern Synthesis is not holding up.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

Nothing that we have found in these less complex lifeforms has required a rewrite of the modern synthesis. What we have discovered is new types of inheritance (e.g. HGT) that have become part of the Modern Synthesis. I don't think anyone would claim that the Modern Synthesis was complete in the 1940's. It has always been a work in progress, as is every theory in science. You keep ignoring the sleight of hand. Koonin shows you adaptive evolution and then replaces it with genomic evolution when you aren't looking. The two concepts are not synonyms. They are different concepts.ABE: He is wrong that the Modern Synthesis was written in stone in the 1960's and that no one is allowed to add anything to it. The health of the Modern Synthesis is exemplified in it's ability to absorb new knowledge which it is doing and continues to do.Besides, I don't see how Koonin helps the creationist argument. What Koonin is arguing for is a new theory of evolution.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Koonin has an extravagant and overblown way of expressing his claims. Think of him like the Rex Ryan of biology.Again, you cannot discard the modern synthesis because it would mean ignoring the driving necessities that brought evolution and genetics together in the first place. We observe adaptive evolution (Darwinian evolution) everywhere, and genetics is the mechanism of adaptive evolution as demonstrated by the population geneticists of the 1920's. No matter how much evolution and genetics are enhanced and revised, the two of necessity must be combined. Koonin's proposal that we discard the modern synthesis, which would mean considering evolution and genetics as separate and independent, makes no sense.But it's a good way to garner attention.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify text.