This little video is excellent, it briefly outlines where the central concepts of the modern synthesis emerged. Remember it was well before the age of genetics and DNA. The modern synthesis is not modern at all.
"The answer to your question is, yes, I think we have to face up to the fact that the derived, hardened, version of the Modern Synthesis did not give due credit to random genetic drift and it completely ignored Neutral Theory." ---Larry Moran
As I said earlier, in the last couple of decades or more we have discovered a number of new mechanisms that are at work. As it stands these are just adhocs to the modern synthesis. Many of them breaking the very fundamental rules. This has been decades in the making, and it is ongoing. It has been these very things that have prompted many to call for a rethink. There is no formalized post modern synthesis. That is what Koonin is saying.
I agree completely. You seem to require me to be stuck with an obsolete viewpoint.
Christian apologists? WTF? You just can't help yourself can you? The subjects of religion and evolution are completely inseparable to you. Must be just terrible to have naturalists such as third way folks dumping on "evolution" as you put it. You can't just cry creationist! 99% of your argument is voided and the the other 1% is just plain wrong.
Indeed, the aspects that have been added to the theory since the modern synthesis (pre-1950) do not make a difference to that specific synthesis. That's why the theory is not equal to the modern synthesis any longer.
As for the disco tute listed as apologist, umm.... big surpise there. See you just can't help yourself. Completely out of the blue. Even when the thread is about another way.
Natural selection will also sift out bad mutations, they say. Neutral mutations are neither beneficial or deleterious. So it is assumed that mutations can accumulate under the nose of NS without being filtered out. The mutation must have some effect on the organism good or bad for NS to be able to act upon it. Neutral is essentially neutral to NS. No amazing power available here.
Right, but neutral theory is in addition to the rest of the theory. You speak as if it replaces it.
For the third way the agency is in the cell. There seems ample evidence. We then walk a very fine line.
Well not me, I know exactly why digital semantic code will never emerge from mud. But that is another subject, one we know all too well. Let's stick with the third way.
"Yeah I don't think adding neutral theory. Which avoids Natural selection by defintion."
"Random drift, neutral theory that avoids the amazing power of NS."
"Neutral is essentially neutral to NS. No amazing power available here."
James Shapiro who's book the third way is named after refers to cellular cognition and decision making. Small but not stupid are his words. Just watch the videos. Don't be scared. It is really quite fascinating.
You can mix and match your mutations as much as you like, it makes no difference. Different mutations are accumulating, the neutral ones are immune to the amazing power of NS. NS will filter bad ones as long as they don't accumulate to quick. If it were truly random deleterious ones would be the norm, and selection could not keep up.
I don't think bad mutations are the norm even when they are random.
The rate is very limited, 6 per genome in one study.. Most are said to be neutral. This is because crucial genes are protected. This is no accident. Neutral mutation is equal to targeted randomization. You can't claim neutral theory for youself buddy!
What do you mean by "the function"? Some small function has to be present, yes. But it certainly doesn't have to be the function we see today. Surely you're not making some kind of irreducible complexity argument.
To reach the islands of functionality in the genome fitness landscape, multiple steps must be taken. The distances are vast actualy, astronomical so. Like a mountainous landscape as soon as you start the trek for functionality to the next functional peak you descend out of fitness. Blindfolded by the way, even if there were little hopping stones of functionality, which there are not, you could not see them. You can't fly there on the amazing power of NS.
You require that evolutionary theory = the modern synthesis so that you can continually point out how the theory of evolution is outdated, doesn't tell the whole story, and leaves out important new ideas. I have no such requirement.
A complete theory of evolution? If we include just the genetic drift aspects, then no. If we include all the aspects of evolution, then yes. The issue is about the relative importance of the different aspects in producing life as we see it today.
If you want to argue for design in evolution, I have no idea why you spend so much energy arguing about the exact definition of the "theory of evolution." It's irrelevant to your thesis.
So you think that with additional research we can come up with a simpler theory that still takes all the observations into consideration? That would be cool, but there is no reason in principle why that should happen. For example, it is clear that natural selection plays a role and genetic drift plays a role. How would a simpler theory reduce these two aspects down to one?
You don't need to keep playing the personality game. The theory of evolution is not finished, so of course scientists will be arguing with one another. That's how science works.
I am quite sure you don't read my posts too well. I quoted the theory from that link already. It is all pretty clear. A bunch of assumptions.. You can't have it both ways. You diminish NS to Drift. This is why Larry thinks he is departing from the modern synthesis. I say whoopdy doo!
It must because of the reason that is evident in it's name. It is neutral to selection!. As I have been saying.The majority of all molecular changes that is, not all. This is the big departure from the modern synthesis you are on about. Yes I know.
The debate is over how much is "most." You appear to believe that the debate is over. You also seem to be discounting the importance of the changes that are under the influence, and whether we are talking about close or distant species.
As above. Yes that interpretation of the jumble of assumptions seems accurate, or do you mean how neutral theory is just as likely to fix deleterious mutations? Invoking neutral mutations gives in to randomness. Won't help you build a new protein Paul. You youself have ruled out randomness. You are all over the place.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're assuming (a) that "most" means "all," and (b) that the relative importance of selection versus drift has been the same since the beginning.
Whoot! All right we have some agreement after all. Well that is what they teach in schools all around the world as fact. That is what has been thrust down our throats as truth! That is what is in place when atheists tell us there is no controversey! Wow. Can I use that in my sig?
You will take the word "obsolete" to mean "completely wrong," of course.
It goes much much further than neutral theory Paul. The complete concept of the gene has changed. The central dogma is bust. Cells literally can rewrite their own genome to adapt! Neutral theory is small potatoes.
The cell is the aribiter of its entire design? Don't you have the usual problem of how this got started?
I say show me proof random mutation, neutral or otherwise, selection or drift can be shown to be responsible for even one novel gene. And you can't do it. That is Ok no one else can. How about a new protein fold? Nope. No help there either.