Modern Synthesis Can't Explain Speciation

I've started a new thread since you posted to a dead one. Of course you have refused to address new threads before:

quote:

---

I am arguing that the Modern Synthesis is merely a partial theory. It has several main components which can not provide a complete explanation fro the variety of life on this planet. In order to show that a theory is merely a partial theory. I only need give an example of how the aforementioned theory alone does not account for the diversity of life.

---

Naive falsification isn't much of a defense.

quote:

---

Not to go through the entire debate again, the change from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells is believed to be one of symbiosis between both living and dead ancestors.

​

Symbiosis does not work on the mechanism of natural selection or genetic drift which are the mechanism of the Modern Synthesis. My point was proven.

---

So are you going to answer the question I keep asking you?Do you believe that the current diversity of life was derived from small genetic changes that "built-up" over time? Yes or no?If no what evidence do you have contrary to such a position?cont...but I want a clear answer to the above...

quote:

---

Now, if the other side attempts to add Symbiosis to the Modern Synthesis like they pathetically tried to add Neutral theory to the Modern Synthesis, it shows that there entire argument is a straw man. If your side can add different newer theories which provide better explanation for various components of life's variety and claim that adding to does not make something partial, then how can that be anything but a staw man.

---

Newer components to a broad overview actually.

quote:

---

Let's face it.

---

What are we facing?

quote:

---

We are asking the question of why the variety of life that we curently see exists.

​

I have been arguing since day one that the Modern Synthesis is only a partial theory.

---

And refusing to answer the question I asked in the first post of this new topic. Do you care to answer it or not?

quote:

---

I have demonstrated that Modern science points to the fact that it is partial theory working in conjunction with Neutral theory, Symbiosis, foriegn insertions by living and dead DNA, and etc.

---

Answer the question

quote:

---

Just like NeoDarwinism became a partial theory with the evidence of genetics. Modern Synthesis has become a partial theory as our ability to decifer genomes increases.

---

quote:

---

Some of the major tenets of the Modern Synthesis were that life evolved from a common living ancestor. That ancestor evolved through genetic mutation. The mutations accumulated by either genetic drift and/or natural selection. And from these micro changes over time we get macro evolutionary events such as speciation and genus, ... all the way up the taxa.

​

I have been arguing that the idea of species occured before we could examine the genetics of species and understood the structural nature of proteins. The evidence shows, though arguably, that micro changes can cause changes up to the genus,family level. These micro mutations alone can not account for the differences at higher taxa.

---

You have made this assertion, but you have not addressed why then we observe evidence above the family level in both paralogy, nonfunctional genetic evidence, and especially why we observe multiple nested hierarchies that match one another.Care to give it a shot? Or are you just going to ignore these issues again?

quote:

---

I used the Eukaryote/Prokaryote example as one example of how micro mutation did not lead to higher taxa differenciation. The majority of respected science believe Symbiosis is the best theory for how evolution occured at this level.

---

And is this contrary to the notion that small genetic change led to the genetic diversity we see now? Nor does this address any sort of barrier at the family level. Do you care to point out such a barrier to us?

quote:

---

Also, the idea of Foriegn Transposons in the Rag Transposon argument showed that foriegn DNA from a dead source provided the required change that caused immune systems in jawed vertebrates.

​

However, this was just some of my argument and I do not want to repeat the entire thing again.

---

You never made much of one in the first place.

quote:

---

The point at the end of the day. Is that the Modern Synthesis as it currently stands is excellent for defeating young earth literal christian biblical fundamentalist. Who some how believe that a theistic God created all the animals in all there varieties ex nihilo from the beginning. But as I have always argued this is the biggest straw man argument of them all that your side loves to use. Most old earth christians and Most non literal Christians and Most Christian creationist and Most non christian creationist alike do not believe in that argument.

​

The highest point is that there are a variety of mechanisms that are responsible for the evolution(the variety) of life on this planet. Some we have excellent scientific theories about and Some we do not have excellent scientific theories about and Some we may never have theories about. Are these mechanisms designed or are the spontaneous originated? Are they in actuality random or do they simply appear random because we can not observe a pattern nor have the intelligence to ever know the pattern? (example: Pi is not random, yet if you do know the relationship and saw the series you would infact believe it to be random). Who knows?

​

Because your side can defeat the most simplistic form of creationism, you can't extrapolate and destroy the most scientifically knowledgeable aspects of the philosophy.

​

You can not extrapolate and destroy empiricism because of the uncertainty principle.

​

Hey, don't get me wrong. It is probably fun for Evolutionist to debate with young earth literal christian fundamentalists. But when you are relating to those of us who believe in design and realize that this is merely one philosophical construct and assumption such as Naturalism/Materialism/Empiricism through which one can interpret scientific evidence, it is quite obvious that this argument reduces to one of belief and not science.

​

You see, I proved my partial theory argument quite easily using Modern Science. But Science can never prove Design/Naturalism/Materialism in a google years.

​

Thank You.

---

There is nothing of substance above. Do you have an actual barrier at the family level? Yes or no? If yes, what is it? If no, why are you claiming one?

quote:

---

I'll end with a few Classic Evolutionist staw mans:

​

All Creationist must be young earth literal christian fundamentalist. This approach attempts to force all creationist to argue non scientifically.

---

And no one here has claimed that.

quote:

---

All Creationist must believe in a theistic creator. This approach atempts to force all creationist to argue non philosophically.

---

I never did this now did I?

quote:

---

Creationism versus Evolutionism is the real argument. When it should be Creationism versus Naturalism. Almost all creationism even the young earth literal christian fundamentalist beliefs that life has varied over time. This approach attempts to dodge the major fact that Naturalism/Materialism are interpretive views.

---

How is any of this relevant to the discussion you were having? It seems you are bringing in experiences with others, not with those you actually had a discussion with here.

quote:

---

The Modern Synthesis is not in fact a theory from a particular time. It is a living theory. Like the U.S. constitution, Any modern scientific theory can be added to it, Keep the original name and we can believe it was still a part of the original. This approach is used to present the red herring that Evolution is this one single theory and therefore one would have to produce an entirely different competing theory ex nihilo to defeat it.

---

I've offered to drop the term instead focusing on what you are arguing. You have refused to answer the question contained in the first post of this new thread to date. Why don't you address that question?I'm waiting...

Hi Larry,I changed the name of the thread, hopefully Thmsberry will find it anyway.--Percy

Larry,You wrote:"Do you believe that the current diversity of life was derived from small genetic changes that "built-up" over time? Yes or no? "You keep asking me the very question that I was arguing. It does not make sense to me.I believe that a small part of the diversity of life on this planet was derived from small genetic changes. Thus, this is the reason why I have been arguing the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory. And a good one at that.Your concept of build up. If you mean extrapolation from species to higher taxa, come on.The theories of symbiosis, foriegn transposons, insertions of Dead DNA, and etc. show that such an argument is an exercise in futility because the scientific evidence shows that these theories are extremely valid. They are examples of a mechanism other than microevolution building up to form macroevolution. Assembly of living and nonliving DNA to form more complex living and nonliving organisms is a completely different way of looking at evolution. And it allows for greater genetic diversity than mutation.Also, most of the time during this discussion your side kept trying to trap me in a strawman. I have been saying that no evidence exists to my knowledge that says a genome can be altered above the family level due to genetic mutation. You have been trying to get me to prove that a limit exist in mutation above the family level. When I argue for no such limit. The point is if you have evidence that micro evolution can lead to macro evolution above the family level, the level of novel proteins with novel functions, I would love to see it.Our argument was a major example of how your side tries to back creationist into these weak arguments that Science has strong evidence to already destroy. Weak arguments that most creationist do not believe in anyway. Case in point. My modern synthesis is a partial theory argument has always been a strong attack on the Modern Synthesis' idea of extrapolation. Yet, you make the topic Modern Synthesis can't explain speciation. Which would by definition be a silly weak argument for a creationist to make nor would they ever have to?We are all intelligent enough and knowledgeable enough to remember that Scientist ambigously originated a classification of life called species. Some of these scientist were creationist so they believed that this unit of division represented immutatble divisions of life that "God" created. Then, when Scientist became naturalists. They showed that these divisions were in fact mutable. Life was capable of Evolving. In either case, it is not the evidence that made the difference, but by which philosophy the scientist interpreted it.This is just one of the typical weak arguments or straw mans that naturalist try to trap creationist into."How old is the earth" "Can micro mutations lead to species?" "In order to be a creationist, you must some how ignore the current scientific evidence?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
Larry,

​

You wrote:"Do you believe that the current diversity of life was derived from small genetic changes that "built-up" over time? Yes or no? "

​

You keep asking me the very question that I was arguing. It does not make sense to me.

---

Regardless of what you think you are arguing, you have not made the point clear.

quote:

---

I believe that a small part of the diversity of life on this planet was derived from small genetic changes. Thus, this is the reason why I have been arguing the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory. And a good one at that.

​

Your concept of build up. If you mean extrapolation from species to higher taxa, come on.

​

The theories of symbiosis, foriegn transposons, insertions of Dead DNA, and etc. show that such an argument is an exercise in futility because the scientific evidence shows that these theories are extremely valid. They are examples of a mechanism other than microevolution building up to form macroevolution. Assembly of living and nonliving DNA to form more complex living and nonliving organisms is a completely different way of looking at evolution. And it allows for greater genetic diversity than mutation.

---

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, but well, this contrary to your answer above. How are the above not microevolution? They are small genetic changes correct? Regardless of the specific mechanism they are small changes in alleles over time in a population correct? Or do you have some definition of microevolution that is different from the rest of the world? I hope there is more to your argument than claiming evolution is does not includeLet's stop using the Modern Synthesis. You've been hiding behind it. Let's talk about concepts. Evolution is:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.htmlThe above is an extremely noncontroversial definition of evolution. Is anything you are proposing a challenge to this definition of evolution above producing the diversity of life we currently observe. Notice, this is a yes or no question that could be followed by explanation. But an answer has to start with YES OR NO. Are we clear? (another yes or no question).I haven't been arguing that mutation is the only mechanism to create genetic diversity. One has to wonder what you are arguing since you refuse to distinguish between your views and that which is commonly accepted in science currently. Is there a difference? If so what is the difference?

quote:

---

Also, most of the time during this discussion your side kept trying to trap me in a strawman.

---

No, I've been trying to trap you into a position.

quote:

---

I have been saying that no evidence exists to my knowledge that says a genome can be altered above the family level

---

This is even more bizarre since no one posits a direct family to family transition. Are you arguing against a strawman? The question then is are you arguing evolution cannot produce different families? Or does evolution only operate within families?

quote:

---

due to genetic mutation. You have been trying to get me to prove that a limit exist in mutation above the family level.

---

You have seemingly tried to argue that evolution is limited to within family variation. Are you arguing this is not the case now?

quote:

---

When I argue for no such limit. The point is if you have evidence that micro evolution can lead to macro evolution above the family level, the level of novel proteins with novel functions, I would love to see it.

---

Funny, as many times as I ask you about nonfunctional genetic evidence, molecular paralogy, and multiple matching nested hierarchies you change the subject. What else besides evolution would produce such evidence?Are you arguing that the families were created? And then evolution existed within them? If so, why do we observe the appearance in the fossil record in a certain order?

quote:

---

Our argument was a major example of how your side tries to back creationist into these weak arguments that Science has strong evidence to already destroy.

---

Or how you cannot express yourself clearly. You have avoided making clear claims from the start. If you don't like the clarifying questions I ask, then you should answer them. Funny, after you make a clear answer, I stop asking that question.

quote:

---

Weak arguments that most creationist do not believe in anyway. Case in point. My modern synthesis is a partial theory argument has always been a strong attack on the Modern Synthesis' idea of extrapolation. Yet, you make the topic Modern Synthesis can't explain speciation.

---

Where did I do this exactly? Or was I misunderstanding what you were saying and trying to clarify it?

quote:

---

Which would by definition be a silly weak argument for a creationist to make nor would they ever have to?

---

Does the above question have any meaning? If so would you care to share it with me?

quote:

---

We are all intelligent enough and knowledgeable enough to remember that Scientist ambigously originated a classification of life called species. Some of these scientist were creationist so they believed that this unit of division represented immutatble divisions of life that "God" created. Then, when Scientist became naturalists. They showed that these divisions were in fact mutable. Life was capable of Evolving. In either case, it is not the evidence that made the difference, but by which philosophy the scientist interpreted it.

---

I find reproductive isolation to be quite good for living creatures when discussing speciation. Other taxa are less clear and that is why your family claim seems so strange.

quote:

---

This is just one of the typical weak arguments or straw mans that naturalist try to trap creationist into.

---

Since many creationists claim that species are kinds then, it not a strawman. In your case it is often difficult to tell what you are arguing.If you are arguing that small genetic changes cannot lead to the genetic diversity we observe today1) Provide evidence that such small genetic changes cannot
2) offer a competing theory with supporting evidenceCheers,
Larry Handlin

​

[This message has been edited by lbhandli (edited 02-09-2001).]

This has been a very productive dialogue, and very civil by the standards of many boards, but I thought I'd step in and encourage the participants to try not to let past history affect the discussion. I know the progress is slow and tortured and frustrating, but looking at this from the outside it does look like progress.On a related note, I am working on assessing this thread's prior incarnation, I swear. And on a personal note, thanks for having the discussion here. Warms my heart! More importantly, it excercises the site, which should eventually provide the necessary confidence that it is solid enough to promote outside just the Yahoo club. Plus, significant improvements are coming.--Percy

Larry,Thanks for this link. It was quite fair: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.htmlBoth sides do have a part in the ambiguity about what evolution is. Evolutionists allows incorrect definitions of Evolution to enter the public sphere. and The majority creationist do not read the scientific communities agreed definition of Evolution and act on these incorrect definition.Now, for the problem.In your last post, you attempted to make a couple claims to place me into a straw man.The first argument is you intentionally substitute the word Evolution with Modern Synthesis. At one point, you even went as far as saying let's just forget about the Modern Synthesis. This is one of the most classic straw man's. I am arguing that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory. Evolution is a scientific fact. Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool have varied and will continue to vary over time. Sometimes in the past, I used a short cut rather than writing the entire argument over and over again. Example: One of my arguments is that all life on this planet did not descend from a living common ancestor. I sometimes shorten the counter argument by simply saying descent with modification. If this practice confuses you, you will notice that I typically write the long form at least once before abbreviating. Once again, these are all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis, but not evolution. Do I have to repeat that it is a straw man to say that most or all Creationist do not believe in Evolution (life varies over time) or that they have to?The next point you are making is an intentional blur. The insertion of the genes in a genome that produces an entirely new biochemical systems. Such as the one that produces spicesomes, a Nucleus, and other organelles that makes the difference between Eukaryote and Prokaryotic cells is not an example of micro mutation. You want to redefine these macro changes into micro changes and then argue that symbiosis, foreign transposon, and etc. can be injected into the Modern Synthesis' micro to macro mutational extrapolation. First of all, the idea of micro and macro change in the modern synthesis is one of mutation. Foreign living and dead DNA is not even a part of the macro or micro mutation paradigm. They simply are not mutations. They are additions to a pre-existing genome from outside of the genome and not biochemically produced mutations within a genome. I do not want to dwell on this too much because it is pathetic attempt at mismatching of different theories. Sort of like what was attempted with Neutral theory.So anyway, these theories of acquisition of foriegn and living DNA in a genome show that all life on this planet can not be said to come from the accumulation of micro mutations to macro mutations. They are evidence and examples that evolution did not act this way all the time. Thus again, my argument. Modern Synthesis is a partial theory.The last straw man you tried to place me into is to say one of your side's favorite straw man. You intentionally tried to claim that I am attacking Evolution instead of what I am actually doing attacking the Modern Synthesis. So by using all Creationist are against Biological Evolution instead of the truth, we as a consensus are merely against the strongest philosophical arguments of naturalism/materialism/humanism, you challenge me to come up with a counter theory to evolution. Which no Creationist ever needs to do? It is the role of scientist to come up with additional theoretical mechanisms for Evolution other than micromutation building up to macromutation in Modern Synthesis and they have numerous times with foreign living and dead DNA entering the genomes of organisms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:

​

Now, for the problem.

​

In your last post, you attempted to make a couple claims to place me into a straw man.

---

Why is asking you clarifying questions a strawman?

quote:

---

The first argument is you intentionally substitute the word Evolution with Modern Synthesis.

---

Wrong. I asked you if evolution by that definition could lead to the diversity of life we observe currently from a common ancestor. Perhaps you should read what I write.

quote:

---

At one point, you even went as far as saying let's just forget about the Modern Synthesis.

---

Yes, since you intentionally obscure any discussions I'm trying to get you to answer questions about concepts and address them. You continue to choose to obscure.

quote:

---

This is one of the most classic straw man's. I am arguing that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory.

---

And not much else.

quote:

---

Evolution is a scientific fact. Frequencies of alleles in a gene pool have varied and will continue to vary over time.

---

Cute. Would you care to have a discussion based on what I asked you or do you plan on continuing to obscure stuff.

quote:

---

Sometimes in the past, I used a short cut rather than writing the entire argument over and over again. Example: One of my arguments is that all life on this planet did not descend from a living common ancestor.

---

So are you going to address the questions regarding paralogy, nonfunctional shared genetic material and the nested hierarchies that address this point or not? This appears to be the only reference in your entire post, but I specifically asked you how you address these issues.

quote:

---

I sometimes shorten the counter argument by simply saying descent with modification. If this practice confuses you, you will notice that I typically write the long form at least once before abbreviating.

---

Your writing resembles that of one writing from their stream of conscious thought. The greatest weakness of this is you rarely address the primary questions I ask instead ranting that questions are strawman arguments.

quote:

---

Once again, these are all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis, but not evolution.

---

Nice dodge. Would you care to deal with the issue of common descent or not?

quote:

---

Do I have to repeat that it is a straw man to say that most or all Creationist do not believe in Evolution (life varies over time) or that they have to?

---

This does not follow from the your previous statement at all. Would you care to deal with your claims regarding common descent or not?

quote:

---

The next point you are making is an intentional blur. The insertion of the genes in a genome that produces an entirely new biochemical systems. Such as the one that produces spicesomes, a Nucleus, and other organelles that makes the difference between Eukaryote and Prokaryotic cells is not an example of micro mutation. You want to redefine these macro changes into micro changes and then argue that symbiosis, foreign transposon, and etc. can be injected into the Modern Synthesis' micro to macro mutational extrapolation.

---

"Macro" only in what sense? They probably would be defined as a new species so yes, but not in a way that you seem to be implying. How is this a challenge to common descent? It seems that you are actually making a strong case for common descent, but with new mechanisms. Of course, they aren't new, since they are included in any text on biological evolution, but if it makes you happy, whatever.

quote:

---

First of all, the idea of micro and macro change in the modern synthesis is one of mutation.

---

Many scientists phrase it differently, but frankly you are avoiding the issue again.

quote:

---

Foreign living and dead DNA is not even a part of the macro or micro mutation paradigm.

---

What? Would you care to show me who argues for macromutations?

quote:

---

They simply are not mutations. They are additions to a pre-existing genome from outside of the genome and not biochemically produced mutations within a genome.

---

Neither is horizontal gene transfer, but that doesn't preclude it from being evolution. What is your point?

quote:

---

I do not want to dwell on this too much because it is pathetic attempt at mismatching of different theories. Sort of like what was attempted with Neutral theory.

---

LOL--it is all you have dwelled upon so the above is nonsense. If you don't like it take it up with those who simply argue that the Modern Synthesis is the genetic level of evolution. Regardless it isn't really relevant to the primary questions I've been asking you now is it?

quote:

---

So anyway, these theories of acquisition of foriegn and living DNA in a genome show that all life on this planet can not be said to come from the accumulation of micro mutations to macro mutations.

---

What the hell is a macromutation? No one argues the above today, but for someone whining about questions being strawman arguments you need to stop making them yourself.

quote:

---

They are evidence and examples that evolution did not act this way all the time. Thus again, my argument. Modern Synthesis is a partial theory.

---

How are they evidence against common descent?

quote:

---

The last straw man you tried to place me into is to say one of your side's favorite straw man. You intentionally tried to claim that I am attacking Evolution instead of what I am actually doing attacking the Modern Synthesis.

---

Yes, asking you to clarify what you are saying is a horrible thing to do and I apologize profusely. Really.

quote:

---

So by using all Creationist are against Biological Evolution instead of the truth, we as a consensus are merely against the strongest philosophical arguments of naturalism/materialism/humanism, you challenge me to come up with a counter theory to evolution.

---

No, evidence against common descent.

quote:

---

Which no Creationist ever needs to do?

---

What?

quote:

---

It is the role of scientist to come up with additional theoretical mechanisms for Evolution other than micromutation building up to macromutation in Modern Synthesis and they have numerous times with foreign living and dead DNA entering the genomes of organisms.

---

First, who claims micromutations into macromutations?Second, how is this a challenge to common descent?Cheers,
Larry Handli

Larry,Let me explain how your side uses straw man's.In the last post because I did not fall into the straw man that you tried to set up in one of your previous posts, so you in turn made the claim that you did not understand what I meant by my use of the term macromutation. When I had defined exactly what I was talking about in the exact same post and the previous post.Come on. Your more intelligent than that.Species and higher taxanomical differences amongst organism can be seen in the macro differences in their genomes. The Modern Synthesis argues that these changes result from mutations. But how? Micro mutations accumulate over time and by extrapolation the macro changes amongst the creatures are the result of this accumalation. Thus, if you believe in the theory, Genomes of two organism differ by accumulated micromutations or micro building up to macro mutational differences.We are obviously not talking about Goldsmidth's poorly considered theory of macromutation. Which is obvious? Because we are not talking about that theory nor have we been, but we are talking about the build up of mutations i.e. the extrapolation aspect of Modern Synthesis. Yet, you claim to be totally unaware or not to understand the exact topic that we are talking about.Next, you try to move to a different argument, without conceding the first.Do you accept that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory because the accumulation of mutations within a genome have been demonstrated as not being the only mechanism by which organisms evolve. For example, living and dead DNA elements can be added to pre-existing genomes to form new genomes which result in the formation of new organisms.If you concede to this phase of my argument, then we could move on to a new discussion of whether or not all the diversity of life on this planet has evolved from a common ancestor that was and/or is living.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
Larry,

​

Let me explain how your side uses straw man's.

​

In the last post because I did not fall into the straw man that you tried to set up in one of your previous posts, so you in turn made the claim that you did not understand what I meant by my use of the term macromutation. When I had defined exactly what I was talking about in the exact same post and the previous post.

---

Why don't you cut and paste it for me. What is a macromutation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:

​

The Modern Synthesis argues that these changes result from mutations. But how? Micro mutations accumulate over time and by extrapolation the macro changes amongst the creatures are the result of this accumalation. Thus, if you believe in the theory, Genomes of two organism differ by accumulated micromutations or micro building up to macro mutational differences.

---

For someone who whines about using the proper language the above is incredibly nonstandard and misleading.

quote:

---

We are obviously not talking about Goldsmidth's poorly considered theory of macromutation.

---

We aren't. Given your writing, it is very unclear. You have the power to be clearer--use it.

quote:

---

Which is obvious?

---

This make no sense in context.

quote:

---

Because we are not talking about that theory nor have we been, but we are talking about the build up of mutations i.e. the extrapolation aspect of Modern Synthesis.

---

Given that macromutation is not used in the literature it is rather bizarre actually.

quote:

---

Yet, you claim to be totally unaware or not to understand the exact topic that we are talking about.

---

Given your writing and obscuring of what you are saying, I'm trying to clarify. And I'm tired of your whining.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thmsberry:

quote:

---

Next, you try to move to a different argument, without conceding the first.

---

No, I'm trying to get straight answers out of you which you are doing a fine job of avoiding. Why are you avoiding simple questions?

quote:

---

Do you accept that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory because the accumulation of mutations within a genome have been demonstrated as not being the only mechanism by which organisms evolve.

---

No one argues such a thing. But I'll accept that there are more than mutations that lead to increases in genetic diversity. Of course I have the entire discussion. Apparently you have a reading and writing problem.

quote:

---

For example, living and dead DNA elements can be added to pre-existing genomes to form new genomes which result in the formation of new organisms.

---

Yes. And I accepted that. Why are you asking again? This is exactly why I asked the question concerning common ancestors and small genetic changes leading to the current diversity of life. You have answered that you do not accept this, but refuse to address further evidence and whine over semantics as hard as I try and discuss concepts.

quote:

---

If you concede to this phase of my argument,

---

I concede you use nonstandard language. I do, however, hold that modern science considers all of the above mechanisms that lead evolution to produce the diversity of life from a common ancestor. However, you won't discuss this.

quote:

---

then we could move on to a new discussion of whether or not all the diversity of life on this planet has evolved from a common ancestor that was and/or is living.

---

I've been waiting--what are you waiting for?
You could start with the questions concerning non-functional DNA similarities, paralogy and the multiple nested hierarchies that match and how they fit with your argument. Or you could whine some more.Cheers,
Larry Handlin

Let’s recap for a second.In yahoo, I try to get agreement on two consensus points.1) The measure of classical scientific theory is not whether or not the person who voices the theory is a scientist but rather or not the theory is verifiable and predictable.
2) The fossil record taken alone can not be said to be evidence of the Modern Synthesis.In EVC forum.net, I began my stronger argument that the Modern Synthesis is not a complete theory but a partial theory. The previous parts of my argument ended in Post 9 of NUTFRFHE. And the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument began in Post 13 of NUTFRFHE,I began my argument by attacking the idea of extrapolation of micro mutations being responsible for the macro changes in creatures above the genus level.My opposition was not receptive to my mutations do not produce new gene with new function argument.Then, My opposition at one point claimed at one point Neutral theory was a part of the Modern Synthesis, then later claimed it to be the framework that Neutralist and Selectionist work in. Both if one studies the History of Biological Evolution, one will find is incorrect. The Modern Synthesis and Neutral theory are distinct theories which differ in their view of how the genetic drift function and the ways at which micro mutations can accumulate. But I won’t digress in this summary.So I used the theories of symbiosis, foreign transposons, horizontal transfer, and etc. to show that another mechanism not a part of the Modern Synthesis did in fact play a part in producing the variety of life on this planet. I.E. showing that the Modern Synthesis is in scientific fact a partial theory.
QEDNow, Larry is using the most pathetic argument technique. Conceding to the opponents argument by amnesia. He is a agreeing to the very thing we are arguing and saying that no one was even arguing that Modern Synthesis was a partial theory. Let’s examine Larry’s comments in Post 12 of Modern Synthesis can’t explain Speciation.He quotes me when I (Thmsberry) asked the question: Do you accept that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory because the accumulation of mutations within a genome have been demonstrated as not being the only mechanism by which organisms evolve.Larry replies: No one argues such a thing. But I'll accept that there are more than mutations that lead to increases in genetic diversity. Of course I have the entire discussion. Apparently you have a reading and writing problem.It’s not my reading or writing problem it is Larry’s convenient amnesia of the entire debate. When the debate began he knew what we were talking about. I’ll give you three examples that he knew what we were arguing. It’s pathetic that I even have to do this.Larry in Message 18 of NUTFRFHE:You wrote: This is, again, a silly argument that misunderstands the very basis of the claims made. Changes from generation to generation shouldn't be that radical as you claim are necessary and, in fact, the current rates of change are quite sufficient. The challenge for you--yes you sinc you misunderstand the modern synthesis at it core is to prove that minor changes can't add up to major changes over time. There doesn't appear to be a barrier--can you demonstrate one?Also, you wrote: No new mechanism is needed--you misunderstand the mechanism as it fits in the Modern Synthesis.
You need to demonstrate that the rates of change are inadequate. You have offered no evidence that the rates are.
This is part of his intial response to my Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument. He claimed that it was complete theory. No new mechanisms were needed. Yet, now he has abandoned this arguementLarry in 73 of NUTFRFHE: More of his argument that the Modern Synthesis is not a partial theory
Larry in 80 of NUTFRFHE: goes as far as saying the Modern Synthesis not only is not a partial theory but exist as the framework by which neutralist and selectionist work under.Percy,When you act as moderator of the discussion, I hope this helps you and whoever to see why I stopped debating in this forum earlier. I proved my argument. I should not have to waste my time trying to convince the other side when they have in fact conceded to my argument in a moderated discussion. The reason I responded to your end of the thread post was because I could have misunderstood you, but you appeared not to realize that the opposition agreed with the main argument that I presented in this forum. I have learned in life it’s a waste of time and that you gain absolutely nothing trying to get people to realize when they lost an argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
Let’s recap for a second.

​

In yahoo, I try to get agreement on two consensus points.

​

1) The measure of classical scientific theory is not whether or not the person who voices the theory is a scientist but rather or not the theory is verifiable and predictable.
2) The fossil record taken alone can not be said to be evidence of the Modern Synthesis.

---

1) Testable, confirming evidence is present, and potentially falsifiable2) Your sentence is a train wreck. While I don't usually chastize people for grammar(because I often don't proofread these posts) your inability to write clearly is hampering any sort of reasonable discussion.The fossil record is evidence that is consistent with common descent. That record may be consistent with other potential theories as well. Since the Modern Synthesis concerns evolution at the genetic level fossils are primarily relevant to the pattern of evolution -- gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium.This is a pedantic point.

quote:

---

In EVC forum.net, I began my stronger argument that the Modern Synthesis is not a complete theory but a partial theory. The previous parts of my argument ended in Post 9 of NUTFRFHE. And the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument began in Post 13 of NUTFRFHE,

​

I began my argument by attacking the idea of extrapolation of micro mutations being responsible for the macro changes in creatures above the genus level.

​

My opposition was not receptive to my mutations do not produce new gene with new function argument.

​

Then, My opposition at one point claimed at one point Neutral theory was a part of the Modern Synthesis, then later claimed it to be the framework that Neutralist and Selectionist work in.

---

And Larry Moran, a working scientist who argues drift is the most important element, agrees. I've tried to get you to move on by dealing with concepts and evidence and you continually whine.

quote:

---

Both if one studies the History of Biological Evolution, one will find is incorrect. The Modern Synthesis and Neutral theory are distinct theories which differ in their view of how the genetic drift function and the ways at which micro mutations can accumulate. But I won’t digress in this summary.

---

Digressing is your typical strategery.

quote:

---

So I used the theories of symbiosis, foreign transposons, horizontal transfer, and etc. to show that another mechanism not a part of the Modern Synthesis did in fact play a part in producing the variety of life on this planet. I.E. showing that the Modern Synthesis is in scientific fact a partial theory.
QED

---

Are these mechanisms genetic mechanisms?

quote:

---

Now, Larry is using the most pathetic argument technique. Conceding to the opponents argument by amnesia. He is a agreeing to the very thing we are arguing and saying that no one was even arguing that Modern Synthesis was a partial theory.

---

Wrong, I'm arguing you have wrongly defined the Modern Synthesis. It isn't really a theory, but a set of theories of which modern evolutionary biology adheres to. It is a synthesis (wow) of genetics and mechanisms for selection. While I may call it a theory from time to time, I'm wrong when I do so.The point being, we disagree over what the Modern Synthesis is. Fine. To get past this I've been begging you to address concepts to clarify what we are both arguing. I have never argued that mutations are the only mechanism to lead to common descent. You assumed this due to our differing views over what the Modern Synthesis is. When I've attempted to move away from what is apparently loaded terminology, you keep going back and claiming a victory. Impressive.Essentially you are trying to create a controversy and continue to whine about it while I ask you to move on to discuss your rather odd claims about common descent being limited to intra family diversity. Today's findings by the competing teams working on decoding the Human Genome present you even more problems. You choose not to address the evidence of common descent, but to continue to whine over a two different claims about the Modern Synthesis.If the Modern Synthesis was what you claim it to be, then we would be in agreement over that it would be a partial theory. However we don't agree on what the Modern Synthesis is and despite many requests for you to provide sources supporting your claims, you chose not to. Fine again. However, since we aren't going to agree on that issue, I tried to move to concepts and you continue to argue about the Modern Synthesis.

quote:

---

Let’s examine Larry’s comments in Post 12 of Modern Synthesis can’t explain Speciation.

​

He quotes me when I (Thmsberry) asked the question: Do you accept that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory because the accumulation of mutations within a genome have been demonstrated as not being the only mechanism by which organisms evolve.

​

Larry replies: No one argues such a thing. But I'll accept that there are more than mutations that lead to increases in genetic diversity. Of course I have the entire discussion. Apparently you have a reading and writing problem.

​

It’s not my reading or writing problem it is Larry’s convenient amnesia of the entire debate. When the debate began he knew what we were talking about. I’ll give you three examples that he knew what we were arguing. It’s pathetic that I even have to do this.

---

Wrong again. I know what we are talking about and I know that you have a rather strange way of defining the Modern Synthesis. We disagree and you are claiming that because your "definition" of the Modern Synthesis doesn't include other mechanisms that I'm being dishonest. The problem is I've provided you with my interpretation of the Modern Synthesis and you fail to understand that when I was referring to it, I meant a different set of concepts. Despite my many attempts to point this out, you keep going back and trying to argue from your definition, while I've tried to get you to move on to discuss common descent.We both clearly accept that there are more mechanisms that lead to genetic diversity than just mutations. There is no disagreement over that. We do disagree over whether or not that is the Modern Synthesis or not. Instead of continuing to fight over the definition I've tried to move to concepts. You have not been willing to move on.

quote:

---

Larry in Message 18 of NUTFRFHE:

​

You wrote: This is, again, a silly argument that misunderstands the very basis of the claims made. Changes from generation to generation shouldn't be that radical as you claim are necessary and, in fact, the current rates of change are quite sufficient. The challenge for you--yes you sinc you misunderstand the modern synthesis at it core is to prove that minor changes can't add up to major changes over time. There doesn't appear to be a barrier--can you demonstrate one?

​

Also, you wrote: No new mechanism is needed--you misunderstand the mechanism as it fits in the Modern Synthesis.
You need to demonstrate that the rates of change are inadequate. You have offered no evidence that the rates are.
This is part of his intial response to my Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument. He claimed that it was complete theory. No new mechanisms were needed. Yet, now he has abandoned this arguement

​

Larry in 73 of NUTFRFHE: More of his argument that the Modern Synthesis is not a partial theory
Larry in 80 of NUTFRFHE: goes as far as saying the Modern Synthesis not only is not a partial theory but exist as the framework by which neutralist and selectionist work under.

---

Yes, and given our differing conceptions of the Modern Synthesis this all makes sense. The one thing I'll correct above is in saying there don't need to be any new mechanisms in genetics, I'd have been more accurate to say there may well be new mechanisms but nothing radical in the past is required to produce the diversity of life.So are you going to address common descent or not?Cheers,
Larry Handlin

Larry,Larry begins his post by attacking a summary of my argument. Isn’t that a waste of time. It’s already known that you disagree with some elements of the argument. But your side agreed to the extent that we could move on. Please let’s not forget that happened.Once again, It was just a recap.Your right. I do digress a little. But so does everyone in these forums. However, I typically won’t take it more than a few sentences in a paragraph. Like for instance, this one.You then, try to claim that I do not know what the Modern Synthesis is. This was a part of your Neutral theory is a part of the Modern Synthesis. However, this argument is totally irrelevant to my horizontal transfer, symbiosis, and etc. argument.Part or your argument that I even quoted in last post stated that mutation is the only mechanism in the Modern Synthesis.Changes from generation to generation shouldn't be that radical as you claim are necessary and, in fact, the current rates of change are quite sufficient. The challenge for you--yes you sinc you misunderstand the modern synthesis at it core is to prove that minor changes can't add up to major changes over time. There doesn't appear to be a barrier--can you demonstrate one?Your entire argument, like the modern synthesis, is only about mutations within a genome. Stop trying to quasi forget quasi blur argument.The modern synthesis deals only with mutation within a genome. Whether they accumulate through natural selection, genetic drift, or whatever way you choose to have it. The main claim of the modern synthesis and the only mechanism of changing a genome in modern synthesis is mutation within the pre-existing.Your side acknowledge this fact. That’s why you spent so much time discussing the observation evidence of rates of mutation.The fact that instead of mutation some evolution occurs by horizontal transfer, symbiosis, and etc it clear that I disproved your argument. The Modern synthesis because its mechanism for changing genomes is not the only mechanism in actuality makes it a partial theory.The main problem was. Your side tried so hard to back me into a (straw man) argument that I did not support that somehow a barrier must exist above the family level. You did not realize that all needed to do to actually prove my argument was to show that another mechanism for evolution existed that was not in Modern Synthesis. Which I did with my Eukaryote, Prokaryote example. As well as horizontal transfer, Foreign transposons example, and etc.Can we go on? Because I would really like to learn from you about common descent. I already suspect that you view this theory differently than I do. Because I refer to it as descent with modification, which is a major distinction as will see.But just because I want to move on with this discussion, It makes no sense if you won’t admit that either your side disagreed with my argument and later you discovered you were wrong or simply did not notice that I proved my argument or You should not have disagreed with Modern Synthesis is a partial theory argument because it was right in the very first place.Because what you are doing now is pathetic. Your first argument: I agree but we weren’t arguing that orThis new even worst argument: Well, I actually sort of agree and I don’t. Since we don’t agree that the Neutral theory is a part of the Modern Synthesis, I can claim that you don’t understand the Modern Synthesis. And because I say you don’t understand the Modern Synthesis. You can’t argue what is a mechanism and what is not a mechanism in the Modern Synthesis, even though I know that the argument that you presented by Symbiosis works effectively and is no way a part of the Modern Synthesis. And Even though, Once again, I sort of gree with you.
What????!!!Once again, Can we move on.Theoretically, the moderator can intervene in such a discrepency. So can we move on?