Loads of profs and docs dissent from Darwinian "consensus"

[dilute micro]

Well, I'd be interested to hear an example and who these 'top theorists' are.

I'm going to take a wild guess that you're talking about punctuated equilibrium here, given the emphasis you're putting on 'gradual' above, but just as it's widely accepted that mechanisms like genetic drift play a role alongside selection, it's also widely accepted that rapid environmental change can speed up speciation.

Sure there is active debate about the details, but it seems to me wildly inaccurate to suggest that the possibility that speciation sometimes happens fairly quickly in any way challenges the fundamentals of evolutionary biology or that explanations of how such a thing might occur are seriously lacking.

Okay how about blood clotting.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

Here's an example of where merely hypothesizing a Darwin based process as sufficient to support the integrity of the Darwinian process. (note the circular reasoning)

The theorists are the ones whose books we read and such. It's amongst them. Yes even dead ones like Gould. He was very much a pioneer.

No it challenges Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory made specific claims and predictions.

 

[gorski]

Natural selection acting on gradual changes is the number one motor for Darwinian evolution. This is what is being challenged within the top theorists. They don't have a replacement yet.

Actually, the main motor so far - as far as we can tell nowadays - was an outside force and the changes have been very fast but the evolution, after such a cataclysmic event, possibly quite slow... Ask Phil, he loves it...

 

[gorski]

I haven't been here for a while but here's my take.
Evolution in a nutshell,
1) Organisms can produce offspring.
2) Offspring are often not genetically identical to the parents.
3) Some of the differences in offspring compared to parents are to increase or decrease the probability of staying alive and producing offspring.
4) Goto 1).

When someone can dispute any of the above, then that would be a good argument against evolution.

That's not in dispute, as a possibility [see, it's still a theory!]. The dispute is on how exactly does all that function, which elements/principles are at work, where does one put an accent on, how does one - if at all - connect Human Society with such principles [very dangerous!!!] and so forth.

Of course, unless you're a theist... Then, it's a whole different ballgame... But I am not for dogmas of any sort, thanx a bunch and some have taken it [Darwinism] in that direction.

Besides, it would be rather unscientific! Well, at least when it comes to the best of science, not to mention Philosophy!

 

[gorski]

Well, I'd be interested to hear an example and who these 'top theorists' are.

I'm going to take a wild guess that you're talking about punctuated equilibrium here, given the emphasis you're putting on 'gradual' above, but just as it's widely accepted that mechanisms like genetic drift play a role alongside selection, it's also widely accepted that rapid environmental change can speed up speciation.

Sure there is active debate about the details, but it seems to me wildly inaccurate to suggest that the possibility that speciation sometimes happens fairly quickly in any way challenges the fundamentals of evolutionary biology or that explanations of how such a thing might occur are seriously lacking.

My post above was unnecessary - sorry, didn't see this, as I acted very hastily...

 

[dilute micro]

Actually, the main motor so far - as far as we can tell nowadays - was an outside force and the changes have been very fast but the evolution, after such a cataclysmic event, possibly quite slow... Ask Phil, he loves it...

There's nothing wrong with thinking up an idea of how a modified non-gradual theory of evolution can explain what we see. Thing is, it needs to reveal itself from the evidence. It needs to be subject to scrutiny and allowed to fail. So no church. This hasn't been the case with Darwin's theory.

I did go looking for my copy of a book of his trying to find where he mentions Margulis' challenging neo-Darwinists on speciation from micromutations.

"An outside force"

 

[Crispy]

Outside Force = Environmental Change, especially the big, sudden ones (meteor, supervolcano, climate change)

 

[dilute micro]

That's not in dispute, as a possibility [see, it's still a theory!].

What axon said should be in dispute. It doesn't mention selection. Those 4 steps are not enough.

 

[dilute micro]

Outside Force = Environmental Change, especially the big, sudden ones (meteor, supervolcano, climate change)

environmental change? That's not the motor.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What axon said should be in dispute. It doesn't mention selection. Those 4 steps are not enough.

See step 3.

 

[kyser_soze]

What axon said should be in dispute. It doesn't mention selection. Those 4 steps are not enough.

Point 3 covers that...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Okay how about blood clotting.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

Here's an example of where merely hypothesizing a Darwin based process as sufficient to support the integrity of the Darwinian process. (note the circular reasoning)

The theorists are the ones whose books we read and such. It's amongst them. Yes even dead ones like Gould. He was very much a pioneer.

No it challenges Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory made specific claims and predictions.

Darwin didn't know about genes. Current evolutionary biology does.

Darwin didn't know about genetic drift. Current evolutionary biology does.

If you wanted to point to something that 'challenges Darwin's theory' those would be good candidates, but if you wanted to claim there is a crisis in modern evolutionary biology, they wouldn't because they're part of it.

As for punctuated equilibrium, my understanding of that theory is that it doesn't claim any new mechanism for evolution per se. What it claims is that for whatever reason (e.g. environmental change) a small peripheral population which has diverged from its ancestral species by the standard mechanisms suddenly takes over the range of that species, migrating to replace it (or in some cases co-exist with it). Consequently you don't find transitional forms in such a case unless you can find the location where the peripheral population diverged, which has been done in a number of cases, hence the present acceptance of this theory (as being valid for at least some cases) in modern evolutionary biology.

 

[Crispy]

environmental change? That's not the motor.

Think of it more like a nitrous boost to the motor

 

[kyser_soze]

a small peripheral population which has diverged from its ancestral species by the standard mechanisms suddenly takes over the range of that species, migrating to replace it (or in some cases co-exist with it).

Would that be like a soap opera villain dissappearing, then reappearing 2 seasons later with a new face, and managing to seize control of the famliy business empire? Or simply marrying his half-sister?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Would that be like a soap opera villain dissappearing, then reappearing 2 seasons later with a new face, and managing to seize control of the famliy business empire? Or simply marrying his half-sister?

Depends, was his name Globorotalia truncatulinoides?

 

[kyser_soze]

If he was starring in a Brazilian telenovela, that wouldn't be entirely improbable...

 

[dilute micro]

Darwin didn't know about genes. Current evolutionary biology does.

Darwin didn't know about genetic drift. Current evolutionary biology does.

If you wanted to point to something that 'challenges Darwin's theory' those would be good candidates, but if you wanted to claim there is a crisis in modern evolutionary biology, they wouldn't because they're part of it.

As for punctuated equilibrium, my understanding of that theory is that it doesn't claim any new mechanism for evolution per se. What it claims is that for whatever reason (e.g. environmental change) a small peripheral population which has diverged from its ancestral species by the standard mechanisms suddenly takes over the range of that species, migrating to replace it (or in some cases co-exist with it). Consequently you don't find transitional forms in such a case unless you can find the location where the peripheral population diverged, which has been done in a number of cases, hence the present acceptance of this theory (as being valid for at least some cases) in modern evolutionary biology.

How does genetic drift surpass or equal natural selection as the main force of change?

If it did then why wouldn't the people who now know neo-darwinism to be dead know about it? I really don't understand what this has to do with the concerns raised by Margulis, Gould and so forth.

 

[dilute micro]

Point 3 covers that...

See step 3.

Apologies to axon. I read it too fast and thought he left a key point out about selection.

 

[axon]

Apology accepted, now we are all united. We shall go forth and post.

And another thing, I think that punctuated equilibrium*** refers more to the rate of change of species evolving, but that that evolution is still achieved by the same basic mechanism of natural selection** (and random genetic variation).*

*Disclaimer, I have read far too little Gould than I should have so there is a possibility of my opinions being more opinion than fact, and I have had several very nice rum and limes, and some lager, ooh, and some bitter.

**Natural selection including things such as being ever so slightly more successful at reproducing, (slow step-wise evolution) to being better at surviving a meteorite to the head (a definite puncture in the current equilibrium).

***What Bernie gunther said in better detail than me.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

How does genetic drift surpass or equal natural selection as the main force of change?

If it did then why wouldn't the people who now know neo-darwinism to be dead know about it? I really don't understand what this has to do with the concerns raised by Margulis, Gould and so forth.

As far as I am aware the only people who 'know neo-darwinism to be dead' are creationists. Scientists are just getting on with science and adopting new explanations if they make sense.

Margulis may have had some resistance from neo-darwinists to her ideas, but her published theories (unlike those of the creationists) were testable science and eventually became orthodox (mostly) when proven correct.

That's science working, not as the creationists would want to pretend, science failing.

 

[dilute micro]

As far as I am aware the only people who 'know neo-darwinism to be dead' are creationists. Scientists are just getting on with science and adopting new explanations if they make sense.

Margulis may have had some resistance from neo-darwinists to her ideas, but her published theories (unlike those of the creationists) were testable science and eventually became orthodox (mostly) when proven correct.

That's science working, not as the creationists would want to pretend, science failing.

But her theory isn't proved true. It has a whole mess of things unanswered. It's just treated like so many other ideas. It's accepted but arguably out of necessity.

I don't know why you're not at least a tiny bit skeptical about things like 'peer review' and 'scientists' which you seem to think of as being above reproach. There are problems with Darwinian evolution that people have complained about since the book was published. It's not realistic to pretend naturalists are honest and trustworthy while the creationists are not, or that they don't understand the subject and therefore their objections don't count. Some of the best writers on evolution are creationists.

 

[rich!]

I don't know why you're not at least a tiny bit skeptical about things like 'peer review' and 'scientists' which you seem to think of as being above reproach..

That would be like being skeptical of "look before you leap", or "due diligence", or "test a small amount before buying the whole kilo", or "if it worked the last million times, it's safe to assume it will work this time".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Some of the best writers on evolution are creationists.

Really? Like who?

 

[rich!]

Really? Like who?

H. P. Lovecraft.

 

[dilute micro]

Really? Like who?

The best arguments have come from Denton and Johnson, imo.

I think you assumed I meant in favor of Darwinism.

 

[dilute micro]

That would be like being skeptical of "look before you leap", or "due diligence", or "test a small amount before buying the whole kilo", or "if it worked the last million times, it's safe to assume it will work this time".

You miss the point.

Nobody's above reproach. Tell me, do Darwinists assume anything or is it all empirical?

 

[rich!]

You miss the point.

Nobody's above reproach. Tell me, do Darwinists assume anything or is it all empirical?

Well, the beards are a given, of course.

Recording a large amount of data and drawing conclusions comes into it somewhere.

 

[kyser_soze]

Hmm, Mr Diltue Micro, if you have some kind of creationist leanings, I think you should declare them and be upfront instead of this seeming softly softly approach you're taking.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The best arguments have come from Denton and Johnson, imo.

I think you assumed I meant in favor of Darwinism.

Why do you think this? Best not to try to second guess what people think - just take them by what they post. Do you have any links? I'm not familiar with either of these names.

 

[dilute micro]

Well, the beards are a given, of course.

Recording a large amount of data and drawing conclusions comes into it somewhere.

I had one myself for a while.

Would you believe it if a naturalist said so? It's rather naive to think that a 'church' of scientists are spotless. They're as human as anyone else.

 

[dilute micro]

Hmm, Mr Diltue Micro, if you have some kind of creationist leanings, I think you should declare them and be upfront instead of this seeming softly softly approach you're taking.

Actually I'm open minded about the whole thing. As I said, there are problems with every theory, creation theories and naturalistic ones.