Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 1:50 PM
131 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, edge, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 125 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,429 Year: 3,466/19,786 Month: 461/1,087 Week: 51/212 Day: 12/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   Criticizing neo-Darwinism
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 241 of 309 (463554)
04-18-2008 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by randman
04-17-2008 11:16 PM


Re: NWR's 'Invasive theory'
I was responding to Nwr's proposal in the context of the familiar principles of evolution, which is natural selection operating on variation. His unexpressed pseudogenes have no means of preserving existing function, or of recognizing favorable changes. The problems that he sees with the traditional mechanisms of evolution are multiplied in his proposed scenario.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by randman, posted 04-17-2008 11:16 PM randman has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 242 of 309 (463583)
04-18-2008 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Wounded King
04-18-2008 3:31 AM


Re: Back to basics
adaptive evolution is principally the result of Random Mutation and Natural Selection acting on a population

Of course, but I can't tell you how often when someone not an evo points this out, someone from your camp drones on how this isn't the case.....but more to this point for this thread, the particular comment is directed to the evolution of genes and genetic complexity. I agree that standard evo theory suggests genetic evolution and complexity evolved along with morphological evolution and complexity. The standard way of thinking about this is that a mutation occurs and is expressed, confers an advantage and so natural selection preserves the mutation. In this manner then, genetic evolution proceeds alongside of morphologocal evolution.

My comment was just to get this on record because I didn't want someone to turn around and suggest, no, evo theory doesn't say this, which is what has happened on some other forums when I brought this up.

However, the problem with this story is it doesn't fit the facts. We see massive genetic complexity in very simple organisms with genes and genetic sequences for complex functions the simple organisms don't have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 04-18-2008 3:31 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 3:59 PM randman has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 243 of 309 (463589)
04-18-2008 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by randman
04-18-2008 2:51 PM


Re: Back to basics
randman writes:

However, the problem with this story is it doesn't fit the facts. We see massive genetic complexity in very simple organisms with genes and genetic sequences for complex functions the simple organisms don't have.

So, just to be sure I understand, you see the existence of simple organisms with complex genomes as a problem for evolution? If so, how is this a problem?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 2:51 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 4:48 PM Percy has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 244 of 309 (463597)
04-18-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Percy
04-18-2008 3:59 PM


Re: Back to basics
Interesting.....in order to answer your question, I need to know what you mean by "evolution."

Do you mean mere heritable change?

Or do you mean ToE?

And if you mean ToE, please describe your idea on how genetic and morphological evolution proceed under that theory? Not the whole shebang, but a basic overview....in other words do you agree with WK that:

adaptive evolution is principally the result of Random Mutation and Natural Selection acting on a population

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 3:59 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 5:40 PM randman has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 245 of 309 (463606)
04-18-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by randman
04-18-2008 4:48 PM


Re: Back to basics
I asked this question:

Percy in Message 243 writes:

So, just to be sure I understand, you see the existence of simple organisms with complex genomes as a problem for evolution? If so, how is this a problem?

You replied with a question, so it sounds like the answer to my question about whether I understood you properly is, "No."

Here's that section from the message in question, your Message 242, this time with the previous paragraph included:

randman in Message 242 writes:

My comment was just to get this on record because I didn't want someone to turn around and suggest, no, evo theory doesn't say this, which is what has happened on some other forums when I brought this up.

However, the problem with this story is it doesn't fit the facts. We see massive genetic complexity in very simple organisms with genes and genetic sequences for complex functions the simple organisms don't have.

You refer to "evo theory" in the first paragraph, so I assumed you were still referring to "evo theory" in the second paragraph.

It seemed to me that you were saying that the existence of simple organisms with complex genomes is a problem for, to use your preferred term, "evo theory." Do I have that right? If so, how is this a problem?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 4:48 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 5:51 PM Percy has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 246 of 309 (463608)
04-18-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
04-18-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Back to basics
There is no way to answer your question until you define what you mean by evolution.

If, for example, you mean "evolution" simply means heritable change, then the answer is no. Neither is Young Earth Creationism inconsistent with evolution then either, nor Intelligent Design, nor just about any scenario I have heard.

So if you want your question answered, please state what you mean by "evolution"?

If by evolution, you are talking about evo theory, then you still need to answer the questions so we don't have a response from you claiming, well, you don't understand evo theory.

I think asking if you agree with WK's comments is a reasonable request so we can move forward.

Why are you hesitant to answer?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 5:40 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 7:48 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 247 of 309 (463613)
04-18-2008 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Wounded King
04-18-2008 3:31 AM


Re: Back to basics
that adaptive evolution is principally the result of Random Mutation and Natural Selection acting on a population

A little impatient to await your response, I thought I'd add more clarity. I agree that your statement is standard evo theory. I would also add it necessarily couples genetic and morphological evolution together with natural selection conserving genetic mutations with morphological expression into a population group, or so the theory goes.

The problem is we don't really see such a coupling in reality. The thinking is that genetic mutations for specific traits would arise via mutation and that mutation adding a morphological trait conferring an advantage or at least not a disadvantage and so forth..... So you would think that we would see genetic expressions arise at the same time when the morphological traits arise. We should see genetic sequences for complex nerve function arise, for example, when complex nerve function was evolving.

Conversely, it would be puzzling to see such genetic sequences in species that have no complex nerve function. Clearly, natural selection could not be a force to select for complex nerve function since no complex nerve function exists.

Likewise, though there could be exceptions, you should expect to find increasing genetic complexity with increasing morphological complexity, and yet this is not the case either. In fact, some studies indicate many animal lineages evolved morphological complexity through a "massive loss of genes" rather than slow accumulation of them through random mutation and natural selection.

Indeed the most primitive metazoan (the theoritical common metazoan ancestor) is thought to be incredibly complex genetically, perhaps as much as human beings.

So when you step back and lookn at the data, it's not a picture of random mutation conferring morphological complexity that persists via natural selection. Random mutation and natural selection is a slow process, indicating gradual accumulation of genes coupled with morphological novelty.

That's not what the data shows, however.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 04-18-2008 3:31 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 7:14 PM randman has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 770 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 248 of 309 (463614)
04-18-2008 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by randman
04-18-2008 7:06 PM


Re: Back to basics
randman writes:

Indeed the most primitive metazoan (the theoritical common metazoan ancestor) is thought to be incredibly complex genetically, perhaps as much as human beings.

You brought this up in Chiroptera's comb-jelly thread, too. Are you suggesting that the theoretical Metazoan ancestor has the genes for making a liver, heart, feathers, tentacles, tube-feet, gizzard, intestines, claws, antennae, toenails, bones, placenta, amnion, siphon, fins, Malphigian tubules, hair, eyes and/or medulla oblongata, etc.?

I think you're going to have to produce your source for this information.


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 7:06 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 7:17 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 249 of 309 (463615)
04-18-2008 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Blue Jay
04-18-2008 7:14 PM


Re: Back to basics
Moving the goal-posts, eh?

I will say there is evidence that suggests, assuming evo assumptions of common descent mind you for sake of argument, that the theoritical common metazoan ncestor likely had genetic sequences associated with complex nerve function and that certainly such sequences exist in invertebrates.

As far as linking the paper, I am not allowed to link it here, but you can probably find it and link it.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 7:14 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 8:07 PM randman has responded
 Message 252 by molbiogirl, posted 04-18-2008 11:04 PM randman has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 250 of 309 (463620)
04-18-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by randman
04-18-2008 5:51 PM


Re: Back to basics
randman writes:

There is no way to answer your question until you define what you mean by evolution.

I didn't use the word evolution. I used your term, "evo theory". You'll have to tell me what you mean by "evo theory" if it is important for understanding you.

So once again, it seemed to me that you were saying that the existence of simple organisms with complex genomes is a problem for "evo theory." Do I have that right? If so, how is this a problem?

However you define "evo theory", use that definition in your answer. Using any other definition than the one you had in mind when you made your claim would make no sense.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 5:51 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 11:18 PM Percy has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 770 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 251 of 309 (463623)
04-18-2008 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by randman
04-18-2008 7:17 PM


Re: Back to basics
randman writes:

Moving the goal-posts, eh?

What?

randman writes:

I will say there is evidence...

Bare assertions don't count for anything. How can I analyze your idea if you won't tell me what you're basing it on? Your hesitance to provide it makes me think you don't actually have it.

randman writes:

...the theoritical common metazoan ncestor likely had genetic sequences associated with complex nerve function and that certainly such sequences exist in invertebrates.

Why do you think this is likely? What evidence do you have that shows such sequences in invertebrates? Why do you have such an aversion to telling us relevant data? I'm going to go out on a limb and says it's because there is no relevant data, and you're just spouting nonsense.

randman writes:

I am not allowed to link it here

What are you talking about? Do you think Percy will boot you for linking a creationist source? Or, is it a copyright issue? If so, who writes scientific papers that they don't want people to link to? Surely your source has at least an abstract in the public domain.


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 7:17 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 11:16 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 252 of 309 (463651)
04-18-2008 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by randman
04-18-2008 7:17 PM


Re: Back to basics
As far as linking the paper, I am not allowed to link it here, but you can probably find it and link it.

You know, it's kinda sad that you feel the need to grab for the I'm-a-creo-and-I'm being-unfairly-censored thing in nearly every post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 7:17 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by randman, posted 04-18-2008 11:13 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 253 of 309 (463655)
04-18-2008 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by molbiogirl
04-18-2008 11:04 PM


Re: Back to basics
Not grabbing at anything. You know full well what the study is so don't make false accusations.....the simple truth is this site is censored according to the perception of the owner.

So cut the crap. If you have some integrity, link the paper and discuss the findings. If not, don't hide behind false accusations of hiding behind anything. you know full well I cannot link the study without being banned and may well be banned for merely mentioning it, despite it being a peer-reviewed paper by evos.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by molbiogirl, posted 04-18-2008 11:04 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-19-2008 1:04 AM randman has responded
 Message 259 by Admin, posted 04-19-2008 7:51 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 254 of 309 (463656)
04-18-2008 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Blue Jay
04-18-2008 8:07 PM


Re: Back to basics
Why do you have such an aversion to telling us relevant data? I'm going to go out on a limb and says it's because there is no relevant data, and you're just spouting nonsense.

The data is there and you can find it quite easily.....you can even find where I've discussed it here at EvC or just do some googling.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Blue Jay, posted 04-18-2008 8:07 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Admin, posted 04-19-2008 8:03 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 255 of 309 (463658)
04-18-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Percy
04-18-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Back to basics
You'll have to tell me what you mean by "evo theory" if it is important for understanding you.

I am referring to the same thing WK referred to when he wrote this:

that adaptive evolution is principally the result of Random Mutation and Natural Selection acting on a population

Is that your perception of what "adaptive evolution is principally"?

simple and easy question for you.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Percy, posted 04-18-2008 7:48 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 04-19-2008 8:06 AM randman has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019