Modern Synthesis Can't Explain Speciation

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
Larry,

​

Larry begins his post by attacking a summary of my argument. Isn’t that a waste of time.

---

Yes, please move on. My post provides a perfect blueprint to do so. Stop your whining.

quote:

---

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.

---

And back to digressing. Either move on or stop whining. This is ridiculous.

quote:

---

Part or your argument that I even quoted in last post stated that mutation is the only mechanism in the Modern Synthesis.

---

No, that is your argument. Irrelevant however, are you going to address where we do disagree? This is all orchestrated to avoid addressing the evidence for common descent as far as I can tell. So move on or admit you have no evidence.

quote:

---

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?

---

And none of the mechanisms you have proposed are more than minor genome changes at any time. If you can't read that is your problem. Do you wish to address common descent or not.

quote:

---

Your entire argument, like the modern synthesis, is only about mutations within a genome.

---

The last post and multiple other post have clearly stated that is not my position regardless of whether you don't like how I use the term Modern Synthesis. Move on to common descent or admit you can't out of ignorance of the subject.

quote:

---

Stop trying to quasi forget quasi blur argument.

---

I've clarified the argument. Move on or admit you can't.

quote:

---

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.

---

Wrong, but believe what you want. We both accept that there are more mechanisms, we only disagree over the term to describe it. Move on to common descent or admit you can't address the evidence.

quote:

---

Your side acknowledge this fact. That’s why you spent so much time discussing the observation evidence of rates of mutation.

---

No, I did that because you couldn't grasp such a simple concept.

quote:

---

The fact that instead of mutation some evolution occurs by horizontal transfer, symbiosis, and etc it clear that I disproved your argument.

---

No, you have disproved a strawman. Whatever. I've made clear what I accept and what I don't. You refuse to move on because you can't. Whatever.

quote:

---

The Modern synthesis because its mechanism for changing genomes is not the only mechanism in actuality makes it a partial theory.

---

Whatever, we have already established we use the phrase with different meanings. Instead of agreeing to not use the term and agree that we both accept other mechanisms besides mutation, you continue to whine about. Why? It adds nothing to the discussion, but it does keep us from addressing what you have refused to address--the evidence for common descent.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well above you said the main problem was something else. What then is your position on evolution leading to diversity above the family level?

quote:

---

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.

---

So where is the evidence that evolution hasn't lead to the diversity of life we know observe from a common ancestor? Instead of listening to you whine about strawman arguments, why not present the evidence you think supports whatever you apparently are willing to argue?

quote:

---

Which I did with my Eukaryote, Prokaryote example. As well as horizontal transfer, Foreign transposons example, and etc.

---

We addressed this issue some time ago. It is now a semnatic disagreement that has nothing to do with the substance of the debate. Deal with it and move on.

quote:

---

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.

---

I doubt it. You seldom make a coherent point.

quote:

---

The only thing stopping us from moving on is you.

---

ROTF

quote:

---

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

---

We disagree over the term Modern Synthesis--we don't disagree over the concepts. Let it go and stop your whining.

quote:

---

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.

---

Why don't you find me a source that supports you then?

quote:

---

Because what you are doing now is pathetic. Your first argument: I agree but we weren’t arguing that or

---

Move on or shut up. There is no substance in this disagreement. Or if you can't move on then admit it.

quote:

---

This 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.

---

Or we can drop the phrase and move on. But then you might be forced to address evidence.

quote:

---

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????!!!

---

Either you will move on or not. Your choice. I'm tired of your whining. If you can't move on, admit you don't know what you are talking about.We don't need the moderator. We need you to decide to address evidence after it is clear we only disagree over a the meaning of a phrase.Cheers,
Larry

accidental double post

​

[This message has been edited by lbhandli (edited 02-13-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:

​

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.

---

From earlier in the thread

quote:

---

The evidence shows, though arguably, that microchanges can cause changes up to the genus,family level. These micro mutations alone can not account for the differences at higher taxa.

---

Given that this is an ambiguous statement, clearly state what you mean by it. In doing so you should clarify if you accept that the living creatures of Earth share common ancestry or not. This requires a statement of yes, you accept common ancestry of all living beings or no, I don't accept common ancestry of all living beings.If you do accept the above, then you should be able to provide what you are claiming is necessary beyond microevolution to produce the necessary variation. If you are going to offer Gould up as an example of how microevolution doesn't lead to macroevolution directly, fine--this is clearly a debate amongst scientists. But to claim that another genetic mechanism is required that produces some radical change in a genome, you need to specify what that change would look like and how it is different from currently observed mechanisms.If you do not accept the above you need to explain then why we observe molecular paralogy, nonfunctional genetic level information, and multiple nested hierarchies.Cheers,
Larry

Entirely new argument.
Entirely new argument.This deals with a major problem in Modern Synthesis.Why must the ancestor of all life be a living or once living organism?These theories are based on a belief that some sort of unicellular organism or protounicellar organism is the origin of life on this planet.I am sure you are aware that life or being alive is defined by being able to perform numerous functions.I am not sure what you believe on the topic, but if you believe that it must be a living common ancestor explain why?All of the evidence points to the fact that all life contains DNA, Ribosomal RNA, Transfer RNA, Messenger RNA, and etc. All of these stuctures work together, but why must they have all evolved together in one or only a few protounicellular organisms.Sort of like symbiosis and other what I call horizontal versus vertical mutation processes. Why must the early history of life on this planet be based on a vertical mutation process of one organism?DNA self replication is a separate process (extremely easy in comparison) than the process used to produce proteins and read the messages contained in genes.Why is it not a more valid or equally valid theory that before cellular organism there were loads of self replicating or more precisely approximating structures using nucleic acids most of which simply did nothing more than self approximate.Then came along Ribosomes. Let's face it DNA uses Ribosomes to make Ribosomes. So it is a big paradox where they come from. Unless you know of a theory.The same thing with Messenger RNA, Transfer RNA, and Splicesomes.But they are not attached to any DNA structure they live independently in cells. So Let's assume there existence. Until they were trapped in a another entity called cellular membrame, Why wouldn't the genetic information that makes Ribosome keep making Ribosomes and self replicating itself quite easily just as long as it was could not be decifered by splicesome or ribosomes. But could continue to exist simply because they could self approximate quite easily in a sea of nucleic acid.If your not following me, let's make it real simple. Creating a cellular membrame or some sort of trapping mechanism that could trap Ribosomes and TRNA and loads of free floatin DNA molecules could have easily created a ridicolous amount of cells that performed at a minimum the basic functions that we called life. But each differed considerable in what the rest of their message said. Most had messages that could have been gibberish. But there is no need for there to be just one cell containing just the right combination. It actually is more naturalistic to believe that there were loads of first cells containing loads of different messages. And what we deem as basic living functions are the few intances where the messages are in agreement. But most of the time in comparing DNA we would see gibberish that does nothing and vital genes responsible for basic cellular function would occur all over the place in different organisms. This is exactly what the evidence suggest.I mean this particular discussion could go on for ever. For instance, Transposons represent a different strategy other than self replicating for conveying information and growing nucleotide sequences. The same transposon, for instance one that produces ribosomes or a cellular membranes, jumps from one nucleotide sequence to the next spreading its sequence all throughout the soup. The basic life functions could all be transposons. Who know? Unless you know of another theory.I'll stop there for now. Because I do not want to keep rambling on. If you have a reason why all the basic functions of life had to assemble in only one or even a few organisms, I would benefit a lot more from hearing that than rambling on. This assumption was one of Darwin's main premises, one of neodarwinism, and one of the Modern Synthesis, and etc. But when was it shown to be more probable given that unlike in Darwin's time we know that different independent genetic structures together perform life's most basic function.

quote:

---

The evidence shows, though arguably, that microchanges can cause changes up to the genus,family level. These micro mutations alone can not account for the differences at higher taxa.

---

Why don't you clarify the meaning of this statment?Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Sort of like symbiosis and other what I call horizontal versus vertical mutation processes. Why must the early history of life on this planet be based on a vertical mutation process of one organism?

---

Who really argues such a thing anymore?Lateral transfers are thought to have occurred after divergence from a common ancestor, though I suppose if you want to argue for multiple abiogenesis events, panspermia (directed) or some other event producing life, it is possible though I know of no hard evidnce for these ideas. In one respect you could say that one one common ancestor doesn't have strong evidence either, but by its simplicity it seems more likely.To be very clear, when I'm referring to common descent I include a pattern similar to what we see in the February 2000 issue of Scientific American. See the graphic here:
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/lbhandli
in "My photo album."If you want to modify that for some proposed theory that simply adds the number of lines at the bottom, ok. However, you seemed to be making some assertions about common ancestry of at the family level. I've asked you to clarify that, please do.Cheers,
Larry Handli

Larry,
I wrote: Sort of like symbiosis and other what I call horizontal versus vertical mutation processes. Why must the early history of life on this planet be based on a vertical mutation process of one organism?Larry wrote: Who really argues such a thing anymore?
Lateral transfers are thought to have occurred after divergence from a common ancestor, though I suppose if you want to argue for multiple abiogenesis events, panspermia (directed) or some other event producing life, it is possible though I know of no hard evidnce for these ideas. In one respect you could say that one one common ancestor doesn't have strong evidence either, but by its simplicity it seems more likely.Here is the problem that I constantly have in discussing things with you. You attempt to make the claim that your side does not make the arguments that it in fact does make.For example, www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.htmlIf you check this link, the entire website for that matter, which your side refers to almost as if its your bible, it makes these sort of claims all of the time.In the link, note: the reference to Douglas Futuyma. He writes, Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."Now, I must point out that Futuyma is correct, obviously, in what constitutes biological evolution. His definition is so exact because it avoids the mechanisms of evolution debates and gets right to the unifying element. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next.But note the foremention quote ends with him speaking of the Modern Synthesis idea of extrapolation. And furthermore, it states that evolution embraces the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to etc.Here is one of the most respected books in the field making the very argument that you claim no one makes any more.In addition, you wrote: Lateral transfers are thought to have occurred after divergence from a common ancestor. You claim no one makes the argument anymore and then you went and made the very same argument that you said no one makes anymore.Finally, One of the biggest problem with your counterargument was the statement: In one respect you could say that one one common ancestor doesn't have strong evidence either, but by its simplicity it seems more likely.What does this mean? I am going to need more clarity. Because one common ancestor large enough to contain all the functions that we now call life is just not more simpler than a sea of small nonliving molecules randomly forming a variety of the independent functions until one of these randomly forming molecules that with the aide of ribosomes(another small nonliving molecule) could produce cellular membranes which can capture nucleic acid chains.I mean let’s say to be called alive requires six functions.
You are saying that the belief that all of these functions assembled together in one protorganism with only one DNA sequence is some how simpler than what I am arguing.I am saying: The functions of life were assembling in a sea of molecules that mostly did absolutely nothing from a life forming perspective. Simple self replication began with DNA or some precursor of just nucleic acids that could not have the function of producing proteins. It could just self replicate or self approximate. There are ridiculous number of possible combinations of these self approximating molecules that could be formed. Most of which would not be able to communicate with Spliceosomes and Ribosomes when they as well "randomly" formed. But more than one could and we know this because all the various sequences of DNA on our planet are able to communicate with Spliceosomes and/or Ribosomes. Many of these sequences would code for cellular membranes that would trap nucleic acid chains. Some of these would trap more than just nucleic acid, they would capture Ribosomal RNA, Transfer RNA, and etc. all the way until they could trap other whole cells or protocells that would become what we call organelles.Please show why emerging from a single complex protoorganism is a simpler theory. Also, please show why such a theory is more probable than the perspective that I have briefly sketched.

Larry,You quoted me saying somewhere:The evidence shows, though arguably, that microchanges can cause changes up to the genus,family level. These micro mutations alone can not account for the differences at higher taxa.Why don't you clarify the meaning of this statment?
Cheers,
LarryI thought you wanted to move on. This is the very straw man that your side wants to trap me in.If you know of evidence that the genomes of organism at the family level of distinction differ by micromutations please present it. I am not arguing that this is a fact (the strawman). I am arguing that it has not been observed nor is there cooberating evidence for this speculation. Do you have actual evidence to the contrary and not speculation based on extrapolation?Also, the biggest problem with this speculation is that the evidence shows that it is not responsible for the differentiation between Kingdoms on this planet. I.e a higher taxa differentiation. You see, what is the point of arguing the possiblity of extrapolation from micro mutation to macro mutation at higher taxa if the evidence shows that it in fact did not happen this way at higher taxa.Why are you trying to get clarity on the very argument that we just finished and you said you wanted to move on from?

quote:

---

Here is the problem that I constantly have in discussing things with you. You attempt to make the claim that your side does not make the arguments that it in fact does make.

---

Perhaps a remedial reading class would help you.

quote:

---

For example, www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

​

If you check this link, the entire website for that matter, which your side refers to almost as if its your bible, it makes these sort of claims all of the time.

---

Copy and paste specific passages that deny horizontal gene transfer and then link them as well. This is a ridiculous claim. If you plan on standing by it back it up. Of course the FAQ on mutations specifically lists symbiosis, horizontal transfer, plasmids, as well as other inter species transfers. Or have you simply not bothered to read the site before whining about it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

quote:

---

In the link, note: the reference to Douglas Futuyma. He writes," Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

​

Now, I must point out that Futuyma is correct, obviously, in what constitutes biological evolution. His definition is so exact because it avoids the mechanisms of evolution debates and gets right to the unifying element. "The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. "

​

But note the foremention quote ends with him speaking of the Modern Synthesis idea of extrapolation. And furthermore, it states that evolution embraces the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to etc.

---

Actually it is an inference from the evidence. Why do you take issue with it? What evidence do you have that falsifies common descent? You aren't challenging common descent in any meaningful way except to say that it isn't always vertical. No one claims there are also horizontal transfers in common descent. So what is your point?By clipping the quote you are giving false impressions of it. Why?Futuyama says:

quote:

---

"Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to
the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.

---

quote:

---

Here is one of the most respected books in the field making the very argument that you claim no one makes any more.

---

Here you are either purposely lying or you are simply dumb. You choose.I responded that no one claims that lateral transfers don't happen nor do people claim that such transfers were insignificant and provided an example of a modified tree of life from the Scientific American February 2000 issue. That is perfectly consistent with what Futuyama claims. So I have no idea what you are now taking issue with.Remember the actual discussion that was had? Or are you just conveniently making it up in your head?Thmsberry:

quote:

---

Why must the early history of life on this planet be based on a vertical mutation process of one organism?

---

Me
"Who really argues such a thing anymore? "Now what in Futuyama's quote takes issue with lateral gene transfer or other interorganism method of genetic change? Your assertion is beyond bizarre.

quote:

---

In addition, you wrote:" Lateral transfers are thought to have occurred after divergence from a common ancestor." You claim no one makes the argument anymore and then you went and made the very same argument that you said no one makes anymore.

---

That is simply willful ignorance. I pointed out what is now typically accepted as the tree of life and then made the point that most scientists argue for a common ancestor. The argument that I was countering is that people argue only for vertical evolution. No one does. The above quote doesn't change that. It specifically says lateral gene transfer did exist and played an important role. And it takes the most commonly held position that life originated from a common ancestor and after divergence from that lateral gene transfer exists.If you, however, want to argue for multiple first organisms coming to be go ahead. Such a claim is quite remarkable however, and I'd be interested in seeing the evidence. Then lateral transfer could have happened before any divergence. I see no reason to assume or infer multiple first organisms though. [QUOTE] Finally, One of the biggest problem with your counterargument was the statement:" In one respect you could say that one one common ancestor doesn't have strong evidence either, but by its simplicity it seems more likely."What does this mean? I am going to need more clarity.It means multiple first organisms seems pretty hard to posit without some sort of evidence as to why such an event is necessary.

quote:

---

Because one common ancestor large enough to contain all the functions that we now call life is just not more simpler than a sea of small nonliving molecules randomly

---

Abiogenesis theories don't claim randomly forming molecules. They do claim chemistry is non random and this is well established. It is also a very basic point.And I'm not necessarily debating abiogenesis. Pick another possibility if you like that is consistent with the evidence for evolution.

quote:

---

forming a variety of the independent functions until one of these "randomly" forming molecules that with the aide of ribosomes(another small nonliving molecule) could produce cellular membranes which can capture nucleic acid chains

---

This sentence is such a train wreck that by the end you have no real point. Why don't you try a again.

quote:

---

You are saying that the belief that all of these functions assembled together in one protorganism with only one DNA sequence is some how simpler than what I am arguing.

---

No, I'm saying that a single common ancestor seems more likely to me do to observations of evolution over time as well as genetic analysis such as the paralogy represented in both the round worm and yeast.

quote:

---

I am saying: The functions of life were assembling in a sea of molecules that mostly did absolutely nothing from a life forming perspective. Simple self replication began with DNA or some precursor of just nucleic acids that could not have the function of producing proteins. It could just self replicate or self approximate. There are ridiculous number of possible combinations of these self approximating molecules that could be formed. Most of which would
not be able to "communicate" with Spliceosomes and Ribosomes when they as well "randomly" formed. But more than one could and we know this because all the various sequences of DNA on our planet are able to communicate with Spliceosomes and/or Ribosomes. Many of these sequences would code for cellular membranes that would trap nucleic acid chains. Some of these would trap more than just nucleic acid, they would capture Ribosomal RNA,Transfer RNA, and etc. all the way until they could trap other whole cells or protocells that would become what we call organelles.

---

And I'm not discussing abiogenesis. I'm assuming life exists regardless of how it got here. If you noticed I specifically allowed for other manners for life to begin on Earth. If you are claiming that there were multiple abiogenesis events. Okay. However, I fail to see how that any of this is really a challenge to what Futuyama or the talkorigins.org faq. It simply changes the tree of life picture I mentioned to being more than one tree that interchanges genetic information.

quote:

---

Please show why emerging from a single complex protoorganism is a simpler theory. Also, please show why such a theory is more probable than the perspective that I have briefly sketched.

---

I'm not arguing that. However, the real problem comes in with paralogy studies. Now the yeast and round worm example under your theory could be that they came from one tree instead of the other trees or it could

quote:

---

Larry,

​

You quoted me saying somewhere:

​

The evidence shows, though arguably, that microchanges can cause changes up to the genus,family level. These micro mutations alone can not account for the differences at higher taxa.

​

Why don't you clarify the meaning of this statment?
Cheers,
Larry

​

I thought you wanted to move on. This is the very straw man that your side wants to trap me in.

---

ROTFWMK
How is quoting you and asking you to clarify a strawman?the quote is here:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=1&m=104#104What does the claim mean. I was asking you to move on to this claim. Instead of paraphrasing you and having you claim I was marking a strawman quote you and asked you what you meant. Both nonfunctional genetic evidence and the multiple nested hierarchies are found to be consistent with "micro changes" that eventually lead up to higher diversity levels than simply within families.
I have no idea what you mean because every time I try and clarify it you whine that I'm misrepresenting your position. So what is your position?Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

If you know of evidence that the genomes of organism at the family level of distinction differ by micromutations please present it. I am not arguing that this is a fact (the strawman). I am arguing that it has not been observed nor is there cooberating evidence for this speculation.

---

Since speciation is the only taxonomic level that evolution can be observed directly, your objection is silly-no one claims that one species of one family suddenly becomes a species of another family. However, there is corroborating evidence in molecular paralogy, nonfunctional genetic evidence and the multiple nested hierarchies that match each other relatively closely.

quote:

---

Do you have actual evidence to the contrary and not speculation based on extrapolation?

---

Ummm shared characteristics? I'm not sure how many times I've mentioned this, but repeating myself is getting to be tiring.

quote:

---

Also, the biggest problem with this speculation is that the evidence shows that it is not responsible for the differentiation between Kingdoms on this planet. I.e a higher taxa differentiation.

---

That is some fascinating backtracking. What about inbetween Kingdom and Family? Even at the Kingdom level I'm not sure what besides mutation you are claiming though. Hybridization through gene flow? I suppose, but that really isn't much of a theory since differentiation would already be going on. Recombination? That isn't exactly controversial either.

quote:

---

You see, what is the point of arguing the possiblity of extrapolation from micro mutation to macro mutation

---

Macro mutation? What is a macro mutation? Since mutations are acted upon by other mechanisms before being potentially passed on this is really silly choice of words and extremely unrepresentative of what scientists claim. It seems to assume the same gene is acted upon repeatedly, which while possible, certainly isn't the typical case in the short run. Indeed some gene don't change for millions of years.Additionally, I'm curious as to your definition of mutation. Could you provide what you are using and then explain how you distinguish between intra organism mutations and inter organisms mutations. You seem to be claiming that symbiosis and other inter organism mutations are something other than a mutation and that is a very strange way to identify them in relation to their affect on heritable material.

quote:

---

at higher taxa if the evidence shows that it in fact did not happen this way at higher taxa.

---

Again, you seem to be expecting a family to family transition in one speciation. And this ignores the genetic evidence that does demonstrate clear linkages between families and linkages that are closer when families are theorized to be more closely related.

quote:

---

Why are you trying to get clarity on the very argument that we just finished and you said you wanted to move on from?

---

You really are dense. This is what I kept asking you to move on to. The argument before was over what the Modern Synthesis is. You argue a restrictive definition similar to Gould, I argue that it isn't actually a theory, but a set of theories that marry genetics with the mechanisms of evolution.

quote:

---

The current Synthetic Theory has grown around that original synthesis. It is not just one single hypothesis (or theory) with its corroborating evidence, but a multidisciplinary body of knowledge bearing on biological evolution, an amalgam of well-established theories and working hypotheses, together with the observations and experiments that support accepted hypotheses (and falsely rejected ones), which jointly seek to explain the evolutionary process and its outcomes. These hypotheses, observations, and experiments often originate in disciplines such as genetics, embryology, zoology, botany, paleontology, and molecular biology. Currently, the "synthetic" epithet is often omitted and the compilation of relevant knowledge is simply known as the Theory of Evolution. This is still expanding, just like the "holding" business corporations that have grown around an original enterprise, but continue incorporating new profitable enterprises and discarding unprofitable ones.

---

pg 7961.
Ayala, Francisco J. and Walter M Fitch. "Genetics and the origin of species: An Introduction." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. USA Vol 94 7691-7697. July 1997.It is over what is included in the Modern Synthesis that we disagreed before just as Gould disagrees with the above. Though you might find it interesting that Stebbins and Ayala in 1981 point to specific cases where the scientists credited with the the Modern Synthesis specifically discuss drift and its relative impact within the framework. I don't have the cite handy, but they do mention both Fisher and Wright. However, since Gould and others disagree, I thought we should move on to the substance of the disagreement which wasn't over the definition of the Modern Synthesis, but the claims you may be making, but choose not to elaborate in relation to common descent.Cheers,
Larry

Larry,Thmsberry wrote:Why are you trying to get clarity on the very argument that we just finished and you said you wanted to move on from?Larry wrote:You really are dense. This is what I kept asking you to move on to. The argument before was over what the Modern Synthesis is. You argue a restrictive definition similar to Gould, I argue that it isn't actually a theory, but a set of theories that marry genetics with the mechanisms of evolution.
Larry quotes:The current Synthetic Theory has grown around that original synthesis. It is not just one single hypothesis (or theory) with its corroborating evidence, but a multidisciplinary body of knowledge bearing on biological evolution, an amalgam of well-established theories and working hypotheses, together with the observations and experiments that support accepted hypotheses (and falsely rejected ones), which jointly seek to explain the evolutionary process and its outcomes. These hypotheses, observations, and experiments often originate in disciplines such as genetics, embryology, zoology, botany, paleontology, and molecular biology. Currently, the "synthetic" epithet is often omitted and the compilation of relevant knowledge is simply known as the Theory of Evolution. This is still expanding, just like the "holding" business corporations that have grown around an original enterprise, but continue incorporating new profitable enterprises and discarding unprofitable ones.pg 7961.
Ayala, Francisco J. and Walter M Fitch. "Genetics and the origin of species: An Introduction." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. USA Vol 94 7691-7697. July 1997.Larry wrote: It is over what is included in the Modern Synthesis that we disagreed before just as Gould disagrees with the above. Though you might find it interesting that Stebbins and Ayala in 1981 point to specific cases where the scientists credited with the the Modern Synthesis specifically discuss drift and its relative impact within the framework. I don't have the cite handy, but they do mention both Fisher and Wright. However, since Gould and others disagree, I thought we should move on to the substance of the disagreement which wasn't over the definition of the Modern Synthesis, but the claims you may be making, but choose not to elaborate in relation to common descent.Larry, this is classic example of what I am talking about. You say that you want to move on but all you really want to do is to try and trap me into the same straw man. But I will bring up one point.Look at the quote. You are arguing somehow that the synthesis that the quote is speaking about the Modern synthesis that we were arguing about. This is a horrible misrepresentation. It is merely talking about a new theory of Evolution that occasionally makes use of the word Synthesis. I quote: Currently, the "synthetic" epithet is often omitted and the compilation of relevant knowledge is simply known as the Theory of Evolution. In addition, the quotes makes it quite obvious that this theory of Evolution is not the Modern Synthesis, the original synthesis. I quote:The current Synthetic Theory has grown around that original synthesis. Once again, your quote is an excellent illustration of my argument that the Modern Synthesis is merely a partial theory.Why are you trying to bring up this strawman over and over again?Extrapolation from micro mutations within an organism genome over time is not the sole mechanism that we know of for evolutionary change. Thus, the evidence shows that the Extrapolation claim in the Modern Synthesis simply did not occur. Thus, like most scientific theories, we should not completely throw it away. The Modern Synthesis becomes and is a good partial theory. That was my argument. Why do you keep trying to make one of my subarguments a straw man when the main argument was demonstrated by me and agreed on by you? And once again, it is quite pathetic for you to try to make the claim that the Modern Synthesis is the same as Current Synthetic theory. My goodness. Can you make such a claim with a straight face? Also, if you are just genuinely confused because both theories have the word Synthesis in them, it would explain to me why you made the erroneous claim that the Neutral theory is a part of the Modern Synthesis.On another note, you keep bringing up genetic evidence. If you notice in our new discussion that you are not addressing, I am arguing that the variety of life that we see on the planet did not descend from a living organism. Living organisms, not a single organism, emerged containing all the functions of life with varying Self replicating structures (which we now call DNA, but could have been an RNA precursor). These organisms emerged from a enormous amount of self replicating or self approximating molecules manipulating non self approximating molecules (the ones that make up Ribosome, Spliceosome, Tranfer RNA, and cellular Membranes). Because horizontal processes are involved. The evidence suggest that the small number of similarities in Genomes at higher taxa are based on horizontal processes.When you talk about genetic evidence at above the family level what are you exactly talking about? Remember the argument before this was that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory. Does your evidence deal with Mammals. .1% of animal life or how about vertebrates 2% of animal life. Or does represent all known kingdom classification. In terms of the evidence with animals, does it deal with the actual similarities in the animal genomes or does it just limit itself to common genes. Or does it avoid the nuclear DNA all together and concentrate on Ribosomal RNA, Mitochondria DNA, and/or etc. which in my argument would be very similar anyway. In a nutshell, do not just say you have genetic evidence. Evolution shows that at some point all the life on this planet was not complex, multicellular, or even vertebrates. The evolutionary mechanisms that caused the variety of life to change when it did not have vertebrates, and when it was not multicellular, and when it was not complex would be responsible for greater than 99% of all the variety that has ever existed and evolved on this planet. Personally, I have not seen any genetic evidence that accomplishes much more than showing that the Modern Synthesis is a good partial theory discussing evolutionary mechanisms for less than 1% of the variety that have existed on this planet. And Great for sub family changes in Mammals and other Vertebrates. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. What is your genetic evidence?If you truly want to move on, why did you totally avoid addressing my argument that common descent from a complex living organism is not simpler than descent from a series of simple structures each containing some of the functions that we no define as life.

Are you claiming that all diversity is the result of horizontal drift?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thmsberry:
Larry,

​

Thmsberry wrote:Why are you trying to get clarity on the very argument that we just finished and you said you wanted to move on from?

​

Larry wrote:You really are dense. This is what I kept asking you to move on to. The argument before was over what the Modern Synthesis is. You argue a restrictive definition similar to Gould, I argue that it isn't actually a theory, but a set of theories that marry genetics with the mechanisms of evolution.
Larry quotes:

​

The current Synthetic Theory has grown around that original synthesis. It is not just one single hypothesis (or theory) with its corroborating evidence, but a multidisciplinary body of knowledge bearing on biological evolution, an amalgam of well-established theories and working hypotheses, together with the observations and experiments that support accepted hypotheses (and falsely rejected ones), which jointly seek to explain the evolutionary process and its outcomes. These hypotheses, observations, and experiments often originate in disciplines such as genetics, embryology, zoology, botany, paleontology, and molecular biology. Currently, the "synthetic" epithet is often omitted and the compilation of relevant knowledge is simply known as the Theory of Evolution. This is still expanding, just like the "holding" business corporations that have grown around an original enterprise, but continue incorporating new profitable enterprises and discarding unprofitable ones.

​

pg 7961.
Ayala, Francisco J. and Walter M Fitch. "Genetics and the origin of species: An Introduction." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. USA Vol 94 7691-7697. July 1997.

​

Larry wrote: It is over what is included in the Modern Synthesis that we disagreed before just as Gould disagrees with the above. Though you might find it interesting that Stebbins and Ayala in 1981 point to specific cases where the scientists credited with the the Modern Synthesis specifically discuss drift and its relative impact within the framework. I don't have the cite handy, but they do mention both Fisher and Wright. However, since Gould and others disagree, I thought we should move on to the substance of the disagreement which wasn't over the definition of the Modern Synthesis, but the claims you may be making, but choose not to elaborate in relation to common descent.

​

Larry, this is classic example of what I am talking about. You say that you want to move on but all you really want to do is to try and trap me into the same straw man. But I will bring up one point.

---

No, I'm trying to get you to move on by explaining over and over and over again what we were disagreeing over. You appear not to understand so I have to repeat and repeat and repeat myself. If you would stop whining about it, we could move on. If you noticed I posted two other posts to which you don't both to substantively reply. Why not?

quote:

---

Look at the quote. You are arguing somehow that the synthesis that the quote is speaking about the Modern synthesis that we were arguing about. This is a horrible misrepresentation. It is merely talking about a new theory of Evolution that occasionally makes use of the word Synthesis. I quote: Currently, the "synthetic" epithet is often omitted and the compilation of relevant knowledge is simply known as the Theory of Evolution. In addition, the quotes makes it quite obvious that this theory of Evolution is not the Modern Synthesis, the original synthesis. I quote:The current Synthetic Theory has grown around that original synthesis. Once again, your quote is an excellent illustration of my argument that the Modern Synthesis is merely a partial theory.

---

That is a nice try. And you answered the question of are you really that dense with a resounding yes. Thank you. The argument we were having concerned the definition of the Mondern Synthesis. I argued the above which is what Ayala and Fitch argue the Modern Synthesis is and your denial of what they mean reaches new levels of bizareness. If you don't believe me from the quote, read the article.

quote:

---

Why are you trying to bring up this strawman over and over again?

---

What strawman? How is it a strawman specifically? How is pointing out that in arguing about the meaning of the Modern Synthesis we were not addressing the real question I was asking you about concerning common descent? That can't be a strawman it is pointing out that you haven't realized what the discussion has concerned for quite some time. WAKE UP!

quote:

---

Extrapolation from micro mutations within an organism genome over time is not the sole mechanism that we know of for evolutionary change.

---

Yes, there is also recombination.

quote:

---

Thus, the evidence shows that the Extrapolation claim in the Modern Synthesis simply did not occur. Thus, like most scientific theories, we should not completely throw it away. The Modern Synthesis becomes and is a good partial theory. That was my argument.

---

And it was a pointless argument since we define what the Modern Synthesis is. Big deal. The above was meant to point this out to you to try and get to the actual substantive disagreement. In doing so I pointed out the debate that Ayala and Fitch and Ayala and Stebbins had with Gould concerning how they defined the Modern Synthesis. This apparently is way over your head however and you do not even realize that many scientists don't hold the Modern Synthesis as a theory in the strict sense, but a synthesis of several different fields that contribute to biological evolution. HELLO IN THERE MCFLY. PAY ATTENTION.

quote:

---

Why do you keep trying to make one of my subarguments a straw man when the main argument was demonstrated by me and agreed on by you?

---

Where did I do this specifically? Please cut and paste and link to it. DO IT OR RETRACT. This is dishonest and you should apologize. I said at one point if I defined the MS as you do you would be correct in relation to your claims. Given you are arguing for a different definition of the MS though, that just means we were talking past one another.

quote:

---

And once again, it is quite pathetic for you to try to make the claim that the Modern Synthesis is the same as Current Synthetic theory.

---

No, pathetic is you reading a quote from Science and two well established researchers who claim the same thing and then deny that they do. You have failed to even produce Gould's counters to their arguments and yet you declare unilateral victory despite the clear evidence of a debate in the literature. That is either dishonest or ignorant. You choose, but it is pathetic.

quote:

---

My goodness. Can you make such a claim with a straight face?

---

Because researchers in the field of study use the same definition. HELLO! There is a debate about it and you act as if you are the sole authority for some bizarre reasoning. Why don't you do some reading and then come back and apologize?

quote:

---

Also, if you are just genuinely confused because both theories have the word Synthesis in them, it would explain to me why you made the erroneous claim that the Neutral theory is a part of the Modern Synthesis.

---

Read Ayala and Stebbins 1981 and stop your whining. Or do I need to quote from it how the mention that both Fisher and Wright considered the debate over the relative importance of drift to selection?You are just acting silly now. To claim Gould is right is understandable, to not understand there is a debate over the term is pure PATHETIC IGNORANCE. I have given you cites and quotes---if you disagree fine, let's move on and just not use the term. However to claim that no debate occurs in science over the meaning of the term Modern Synthesis is simply wrong. The fact that I can cite two articles 13 years apart is proof you are wrong. Get over it.

quote:

---

On another note, you keep bringing up genetic evidence. If you notice in our new discussion that you are not addressing, I am arguing that the variety of life that we see on the planet did not descend from a living organism. Living organisms, not a single organism, emerged containing all the functions of life with varying Self replicating structures (which we now call DNA, but could have been an RNA precursor). These organisms emerged from a enormous amount of self replicating or self approximating molecules manipulating non self approximating molecules (the ones that make up Ribosome, Spliceosome, Tranfer RNA, and cellular Membranes). Because horizontal processes are involved. The evidence suggest that the small number of similarities in Genomes at higher taxa are based on horizontal processes.

---

Then address paralogy. It specifically discounts this claim and it points out that later genes are largely evolved from those of early ones. The basic elements of the cell are highly comparative and the differences you are saying are small are well accounted for by the growing away from the center of the tree. If you were correct we would see significant differences in the most basic genes relating to cells from different species looking very different from one another.Additionally, as you continually fail to respond to multiple nested hierarchies that match each other, lateral transfer having such a dramatic impact would not create such a pattern.

quote:

---

When you talk about genetic evidence at above the family level what are you exactly talking about?

---

For paralogy we see it between yeast and roundworms. Guinea Pigs and primates share the lack of the ability to produce vitamin C that most other mammals have. If not for the common descent eventually creating new families this shouldn't be the case. Different structures would exist for the production of vitamin c between these different families. In this case the same gene is inactive in both groups while active in the rest of mammals.Additionally, the nested hierarchies based on genetic evidence have no other explanation.

quote:

---

Remember the argument before this was that the Modern Synthesis is a partial theory.

---

LOL.

quote:

---

Does your evidence deal with Mammals. .1% of animal life or how about vertebrates 2% of animal life. Or does represent all known kingdom classification.

---

If you are going to ask questions like this why didn't you bother to read what I cite to you? Your laziness knows no bounds.

quote:

---

In terms of the evidence with animals, does it deal with the actual similarities in the animal genomes or does it just limit itself to common genes. Or does it avoid the nuclear DNA all together and concentrate on Ribosomal RNA, Mitochondria DNA, and/or etc. which in my argument would be very similar anyway. In a nutshell, do not just say you have genetic evidence. Evolution shows that at some point all the life on this planet was not complex, multicellular, or even vertebrates. The evolutionary mechanisms that caused the variety of life to change when it did not have vertebrates, and when it was not multicellular, and when it was not complex would be responsible for greater than 99% of all the variety that has ever existed and evolved on this planet. Personally, I have not seen any genetic evidence that accomplishes much more than showing that the Modern Synthesis is a good partial theory discussing evolutionary mechanisms for less than 1% of the variety that have existed on this planet. And Great for sub family changes in Mammals and other Vertebrates. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. What is your genetic evidence?

---

It has been cited to your previously. If you want more research it can be provided, but I'm curious as to how you explain what we do observe. If you accept that, then what is it that would be different with other biological populations? What are you claiming would be different about them as to not follow the same patterns? You are asserting there is a difference but not giving any reason other than the lack of absolute knowledge.

quote:

---

If you truly want to move on, why did you totally avoid addressing my argument that common descent from a complex living organism is not simpler than descent from a series of simple structures each containing some of the functions that we no define as life.

---

I did address it. Can you read? Or do you just refuse to? I'm curious as to which it is.It doesn't matter to the argument unless you are claiming that families separately evolved from such processes. Are you doing that? I doubt even you are making that ridiculous of a statement.Essentially you seem to be saying either abiogenesis occurred which if fine, but not a part of biological evolution or that multiple abiogenesis events occurred producing several limbs that then diverge even more. While it is true this would be different from the tree of life I mentioned--it doesn't really change much except having several trees.If you do want to be serious, why don't you lay out exactly what you do think created the diversity of life on Earth?Cheers,
Larry

Larry,<>

​

<>

​

You quote me:

​

This would require one of two things. A: You believe in macromutations. I.E. Hopeful monster. Which is not a part of the Modern Synthesis. Or B: You believe nonfunctional changes accumulate in a genome caused by mutation and at some point these neutral changes come together in just the right combination of individuals or individual, thus producing a new function. A function that may remain neutral or is selected. This would be a sort of combination of Neutral theory and the Modern Synthesis.

​

<>

​

Larry write:Oh, I see the problem, you don't understand what one means when discussing the Modern Synthesis. Silly me, I thought you actually READ what people linked to. How dumb of me:
From:http://talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
quote:

​

"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

​

Perhaps you need to do a little reading...

​

<

​

In post 89 of NUTFRfHE,>>

​

You quote me (Thmsberry), The argument between Selectionist and neutralist is not mediated by the Modern Synthesis. The Neutral theory came years about 30 after the Modern Synthesis. Your side is notorious for this sort of blurring. It is extremely typical. One aspect of the main differences between the theories is how mutations accumulate.

​

<http://www.colorado.edu/epob/epob3200ramey/Lecture10.html . The link help clarified what I meant by the Modern Synthesis and your comment illustrated that you got my point.>>

​

You begin by quoting the link: When these pieces came together, the fields of genetics and evolution were revitalized after decades of nasty, unfruitful debate among academics. This "Modern Synthesis" married the fields of population genetics,
evolution, and paleontology (blossoming in the 1930's).
<>

​

You Larry wrote:This is the only reference I see and nothing in it a challenge to what I have been claiming--what is your point? Population genetics has advanced since the Modern Synthesis but the essential holding still stand.

​

<