C&D evolution thread

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#1
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.
Thus telling us that we should not equate the historical modern synthesis with the current theory of evolution.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#4
Oh, I see. Other stuff is open? How unfortunate.
Well, there are still four forums in which you can post without fear of the Banned of Seven.
The modern synthesis is the current paradigm Paul.
No, it's not. You require the current paradigm to be obsolescent so that you can rag on it.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...onary-theory-may-not-be-what-you-think-it-is/

"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.
I simply found it amusing that the site lists the Disco Tute as the number 11 Christian apologist. Don't you find it amusing?

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#5
Yes I know you have learnt evolutionary theory from the new atheist bloggers.
You have no idea where I learned it.

Yeah I don't think adding neutral theory. Which avoids Natural selection by defintion.
What?

Or near neutral makes a lick of difference to the foundation of the modern synthesis.
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.
That's why I included "Somewhat off topic ..."

I have nothing against Christians, but I am not one. I know you are trying to taunt me but It really makes no difference at all to me.
I never said you were a Christian.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#6
So, what is your view point Paul?
My view is that evolution will use whatever works. The Theory of Evolution includes all the mechanisms that we discover. There is no Capitalized Dogma that we need to defend.

I do not believe that design is involved. I look forward to evidence that I am wrong.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#9
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.
I very much doubt you will find any Third Wayers talking about agency in the cell. They will talk about all sorts of cool mechanisms, but I don't think they will assign agency.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#10
No single aspect could be considered to work alone. I thought that went without saying.
I thought so, too. But then you say things like:

"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.
I've watched them. I don't think he is assigning agency in the sense of volitional action. Perhaps you're using a more general definition of the word.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#11
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!
Of course it's no accident that crucial genes are protected. It's evolutionarily advantageous.

You are still stuck in the modern synthesis view that mutations are random and haphazard.
You're still cramming beliefs down my throat with abandon. Do you have to use the ID playbook and assume that everyone has archaic views of evolution? It's really annoying.

I will try again. In order for natural selection to have an effect, the function must be present and confer some benefit.
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.
I don't think you have the slightest notion how difficult it is to traverse the landscape.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#12
Your strawman attempt to detatch the modern synthesis, neo Darwinism from evolutionary theory is ludicrous and completely refuted. As far as I can see that is your only single point here.
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.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#13
Strawman, it is the consensus view, and it is what is taught in schools all over the world. Àre you saying the modern synthesis is dead? Really? Can I have that confirmed?
Again, here you are requiring that the theory of evolution = the modern synthesis. If you can point us to the official Web site where obsolete scientific theories are listed, we can check.

Neutral theory has been around for decades. You just want to call it evolutionary theory so you can hide behind vagueness, and include anything you want as you said. How conveniant.
All righty then.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#14
Drift and neutral theory? Is that a complete theory?
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.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#15
The modern synthesis is the concensus, neutral theory is not. They are incompatable on the molecular level. One relies on NS the other does not.
You appear to believe that neutral theory eliminates natural selection as an aspect of evolution. That is not the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution

It is all that other stuff that demands a new theory! You can't just keep ading adhoc because the contradictions build up. Which is exactly what has happened.

Stuffing it one bag and calling it the Theory of evolution is not a theory. It is you hiding in the safety of vagueness.
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.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#16
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!
I'm not sure what you mean by "diminish NS to drift." The play separate roles. The question is the relative importance.

I said in the beggining of this thread, we have much to learn.
There is no science in your just stories.
I agree we have much to learn. I don't know what story you're referring to.

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#17
Geez Paul the very first sentence in your link that I already quoted is this...
Note the word "most."

I agree with the interpretation. Pretty clear I think. It marginalizes selection.
I wouldn't use the word "marginalize." What will happen when a mutation is highly deleterious?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE5bNeutraltheory.shtml

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.
I'm not on about the modern synthesis. The modern synthesis is obsolete.

The evidence suggests the majority of all mutations are not completely random at all. Quite the opposite. Lots of references at Shapiro's site.
Does the evidence suggest that the mutations are selected by a designer? If not, then what's the issue?

~~ Paul
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#18
I did. Meaning most changes are not under selective pressure! Meaning most changes are not under the influence of the amazing power of NS.
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.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE5bNeutraltheory.shtml

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/neutral-theory-of-species-diversity-13259703

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.
Link to an example of cells rewriting their genome and we can discuss to what degree the Central Dogma is wrong. I'm sure it is wrong to some degree.

Well design does not require mutations to be selected by a designer or any magic be happening in the cell at all.
Then you'd better define exactly what you mean by "design."

However, because I am arguing for the third way, then the cell itself is the arbiter of its design based on the evidence from microbiology. The issue is about the evidence.
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.
Certainly you will agree that you have to show me proof that "design" is responsible for even one novel gene.

The way I see it. Life's irrefutable appearance of design is not an illusion. The burden of proof is to firmly establish that it is an illusion.
I think you have the burden of proof backward. But since I have no idea what you mean by "design," I'll have to wait for your explanation.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#19
Last edited:
Top