News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Evolution can be explained relatively simply: there are two basic mechanisms:

(1) Evolution: the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

(2) Speciation: the reproductive isolation of daughter populations from the parent populations or other daughter populations.

Evolutionary Biologists sometimes call (1) microevolution and (2) macroevolution. Both of these are observed phenomena, and therefore facts on which we can base a theory:

Theory: these mechanisms are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, natural history, historical record, the fossil record and genetics.

This theory can be tested: compare it to the world around us, natural history, the historical record, the fossil record and genetics and see if there is some element of diversity that is not explained.

This theory can be falsified: all you need is evidence of some diversity that cannot be explained by these two mechanisms.

This theory can also make predictions:

From speciation we can predict that there are common ancestors, and the further you go back in time the more you will find common ancestors between existing life forms linking them into a tree of life, until you reach a point where original species lived.

From evolution we can predict that each lineage will show variation over time, that as you go back in time to those common ancestors that the lineages will become more and more similar until they merge with the ancestral parent population, and thus all evolution occurs within species.

That's it.

Enjoy.

ps - thanks Russ for the larger composing window.

I'd like to ask a question about the mechanisms and the rates of evolution, just to clarify for everyone who is reading. When I think about what I've read about the mechanisms, I think of things like natural selection and genetic drift. However, we were having a conversation earlier about species that seem to be optimally adapted to their environment. Presumably if this is the case, they are unlikely to show much evidence of evolution until the environment itself changes, forcing them to either adapt or go extinct. "Living fossil" species such as crocodiles, jellyfish and cockroaches appear to be very well-adapted to their environments. On the other hand, very rapid evolution has been observed to occur in some species that are colonising or adapting to a new environment, such as this weed.

Just a few ideas to work on here, if no other replies are forthcoming. Apologies if I'm jumping the gun.

Questions:
1.) Is this new "theory" intended as an empirical scientific hypothesis or an historical hypothesis?
2.) Is the use of the term "theory" intended to convey that the proposal has been tested and accepted by members of the communities investigating science or history?
3.) Would it not be less confusing to choose a more distinct title? There are already several "theories of evolution."
4.) By what means do you intend to travel back in time and test the predictions? Will others be provided with such conveyance in order to facilitate independent verification?
5.) How can you certify that you have not already traveled back in time and viewed the results in advance?
6.) Is there a more objective falsification available? "Could not" seems subject to being overcome by sheer credulity. And if one is talking history & time travel, "did not" seems more appropriate.
7.) Under the given definition of 'speciation', approximately how many species of human were extant c.1500 A.D.?

Thanks Linda,

Rather like the dandelion adapting short stems on mowed lawns. One more piece of evidence that evolution is occurring.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0708446105v1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepis

Rates of evolution are dependent on the opportunity and selection pressures in action at any time. Each mechanism could be a topic on it's own, but we can look at the broad picture first:

Observation (1): no two organisms are identical.

Observation (2): some of the differences are hereditary (genetic, genotype), some are due to environmental effects (affect development, phenotype), and some are acquired by the organisms (behavioral, learned, individual traits, memes).

Observation (3): some (not all) of the difference between organisms enable some (not all) of the organisms to survive and breed more than others.

Observation (4) to affect the population of organisms, traits need to be passed from one generation to the next. Genetic traits are passed by genes, environmental traits are passed by the environment, learned traits are passed by memes.

Conclusion (1): hereditary traits that result in differences that enable some organisms to survive and breed better, will become more common in following generations of those organisms than hereditary traits that don't, or that hinder survival and breeding, and evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - will occur.

Conclusion (2): traits due to environmental effects that result in differences that enable some organisms to survive and breed better, will become more common in following generations for those organisms that remain in that environment, compared to environmental traits that don't, or that hinder survival and breeding, and also compared to organisms that leave that environment (or the environment changes).

Conclusion (3): traits that are learned that result in differences that enable some organisms to survive and breed better, will become more common in following generations for those organisms that continue to teach them, compared to acquired traits that don't, or that hinder survival and breeding.

Conclusion (4): hereditary traits, environmental traits, and acquired traits, that don't affect survival or breeding can still spread within breeding populations.

Conclusion (5): isolated populations of originally similar organisms over time will become different from each other. After several generations they will have different distributions of genetic traits, different traits due to environmental factors and different learned behaviors.

Theory: this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we see in the world today, in historical accounts, in the fossil record and in the genetic evidence.

Note that this is how science operates: take observations, develop conclusions from those observations, formulate a theory based on those conclusions, and then test the theory.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

If I read the dates correctly this second "theory" is posted when the first is only 2 days old. As this one contains nothing resembling a coherent hypothesis, it would seem to have little value. Claiming observations can be explained, isn't that simply restating the goal of science?

If you think this is an example of how science works, I don't know exactly what to suggest... It doesn't help that time is so short; if the pattern holds, the next "theory" is due within 36 hours, and that doesn't give us much time to work. Your might wiki "science", "empirical science", "inductive reasoning". Google some more sources if wiki doesn't cut it, I guess.

Thanks CTD.

They are also the same theory. Just another way of presenting it.

Note that if conclusion 1 is true: [color:"blue"]"hereditary traits that result in differences that enable some organisms to survive and breed better, ..."[/color], that then evolution by definition is inevitable. Several experiments have established that conclusion 1 is true (Linda's example of the weed above is one such). Selection of course operates on each phenotype individual as a whole so the changes of conclusion 1, 2 and 3 are all selected by individual success and failure.

Likewise, if conclusion 4 is true: [color:"blue"]"hereditary traits, environmental traits, and acquired traits, that don't affect survival or breeding can still spread within breeding populations ..." [/color], then change in even static populations in inevitable. Again, there are experiments that show some changes in traits are selectively neutral.

Further note that conclusion 5 means that diversity will also be inevitable, once you have two different populations they will change differently.

Science explains evidence and observations by the means of theories, which are then tested against all the evidence and observations plus new ones that are made based on the theories.

Newton could have said that his theory of the force of gravity, F=GMm/r^2, is sufficient to explain the evidence of attraction we see on earth, in the orbits of planets, and in the behavior of galaxies. We can then test that theory against those observation, and find that it is not sufficient when it comes to galaxies, or the behavior of light passing by stars.

The testing is what makes it science, that and the process of discarding those concepts that are no longer useful or outright false (like geocentricism pr a young age for the earth).

If you would like to pursue how science is done using this simple theory, we can discuss some examples.

We can start by looking at the issue of diversity, and try to set some limits on how much diversity can occur within one species. Canus lupus, and the subspecies C. l. familiaris (dog), seems to be a favorite of creationists:

. . . . <img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/kmiuzewhli.jpg">

We can use this as a baseline for the amount of diversity that can exist within any species, especially as this seems to have occurred in the same amount of time as the 'domestication' of man. Then we can judge if the difference between two samples is more or less than the differences we see within C. l. familiaris from the common ancestor wolf.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

These "theories" are not the same. The second one lists "Observation (2): some of the differences are hereditary (genetic, genotype), some are due to environmental effects (affect development, phenotype), and some are acquired by the organisms (behavioral, learned, individual traits, memes)." The first only lists heriditary differences.

The first "theory" says nothing at all about "Observation (3)", and less about "Observation (4)" than the second one.

That should suffice.

I also noticed that the dog example doesn't seem to work, as the chosen definition of species in "theory" #1 makes each breed a species. The definition has other problems. For example, when does one say the tumbleweed becomes a distinct species from the Russian thistle?

I don't envy you the task of trying to formulate a new story with which to revive evolutionism. While the others are clearly defective, I think you should be able to see that replacing them will require considerable time and effort.

I was actually wondering how he was going go proceed with this. Most biologists use a microscope and he's going to try to outwit them all and do what's never been done simply by using the internet.

are you sure that wolf is not a jackal or a coyote? how does the ancestor mate with himself to get things going anyway?

Thanks again CTD.

You are confusing the evidence that the theory is based on with the theory - in both cases they say that evolution and speciation can explain the diversity of life. This is basically the same theory of evolution scientists have used ever since it was first presented by Darwin. That variation and natural selection would cause descent with modification, and that this was sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, was Darwin's original insight.

First Statement (#254503):Where the mechanisms are evolution and speciation.

Second Statement (#254552):Where "this" included the observations and conclusions that show that evolution and speciation are essentially inevitable, and will continue to occur as long a life exists. The changes in the genes are permanent (fixed) once speciation has occurred, while the effects of environment and behavior are temporary and can be lost at any moment. They are included in this fuller statement of the supporting structure behind the theory of evolution because they are also part of the process of natural selection, just as weather and cosmic catastrophe are part of natural selection.

Not really, because the different breeds are not fully isolated reproductively from each other or the wild wolves, and will gladly cross breed when allowed to run free (b reeds are also often bred back with other breeds to change the mix of mutations available for further selection). "Purebred" stock does, however, demonstrate amply the ability of even a little isolation to show remarkable changes between populations. One could argue that the Great Dane and Chihuahua would find breeding difficult, and would appear to represent extremes of a ring species like the Asian Greenish Warbler. Like the rate of evolution, the rate of speciation would depend on selection pressure and opportunity for divergence.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

I'm confusing nothing. Neither of these "theories" has enough in common with Darwin's proposal to be equated therewith. The definitions given are of more recent origin, and there's no trace of the struggle required by Darwin's version of "natural selection". Darwin's attempt was more understandable. Had he merely said "things change", I suspect even his atheistic comrades would've blown him off.

There's a question that begs to be asked: if Darwin's story, or any of the subsequent forms of evolution were satisfactory, why would you be undertaking these rewrites? Would you mind explaining some of the shortcomings?
Purebreeds are reproductively isolated by the humans in their environment. As any reproductive isolation is sufficient under your chosen definition, they are separate "species".

Now why don't I offer a competing hypothesis? Might make the thread a little interesting, I think.
Presenting The 2008 Variety Hypothesis
Observation: variety occurs in living and non-living matter, and information.
Hypothesis: It can be explained by employing the imagination.
Conclusion: Variety and imagination are sufficient to account for all forms of variety.
Testing and falsification: this can be tested against any and all forms of variety, and will be falsified if nobody can imagine a way to account for a given instance of variety.

This grows more unsatisfactory the more I look at it. A deceased lifeform is reproductively isolated, so any time something dies we can call it a different species. Best we know, all formerly living things are unable to reproduce.

Menopause can be claimed, as well as sterility of any cause, as a "speciation event". Could make for some cheap & easy "discoveries". Newsflash: Your Grandmother's a New Species: Homo Geriatriaticus!" But this kind of thing isn't very helpful in the quest for knowledge.

Thanks again CDT,

Response to #254627

The "struggle to exist" was one of his observations -- more offspring were created in each generation cycle than were needed to replace the existing population, yet the existing populations did not increase in size in the same proportion, and some decreased. His conclusion was that natural selection - the fact that some individuals were better suited to survive and breed than other versus limited natural resources (environmental factors) - would be inevitable, resulting in the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. His "theory of evolution" (although he never used the word, it was adapted later from embryologists) was that descent with modification was sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.

"Things change" is a simplification, a strawman, as it doesn't include what changes nor how it changes: in evolution what changes is the hereditary traits, and how they change is that some are better suited for survival and breeding under prevailing environmental conditions than others, and thus will become more "popular" within the populations.

Sometimes you need to word the same ideas in different ways to reach people that don't understand the basic concepts. I'm sure you've run across instances of this in school and the work place.We also do know more about the mechanisms of how hereditary traits change than Darwin did - he basic knew that "things change" but did not know that the mechanisms involved mutations and genes.

You could say that his theory predicted genetics, and the subsequent discovery of DNA and genetic mutations are just another validation of his original theory of Descent with Modification.

My definition doesn't really involve the definition of species, rather it is concerned with the process of speciation. At some point in the process we would recognize different species, but there is usually disagreement on when that occurs. If it makes you feel better to call them "species" go ahead, that doesn't affect the rest of the argument in the slightest. The biological definition of species is rather mutable, but the real issue is the process of division of populations into non-breeding sub-populations and that this allows subsequent genetic divergence of the populations. Certainly that is the case with the purebred dogs, just as much as it is with the Asian Greenish Warblers. As I said above, dogs could be considered a ring species as well.

What you have is the accumulated effect of an environmental condition causing a difference in selection in different populations, however if you remove the environmental effect you will see interbreeding and the mixing of genes. This demonstrates the temporary effect of environmental factors on selection of populations, however you will note that the merged population will have different genes to select in subsequent populations than exist in the wolf population. Those traits were selection neutral during the isolation environment.

You should call this the "god did it" theory, as it is just as testable. What we are talking about is using the evidence that we have of change in life over time, and explaining them with known (observed) amounts of variation within populations. The test is with the evidence, not with the imagination.

Response to #254662

This is confusing individuals with populations -- when populations die they become extinct and there is no remaining species.

Evolution does not occur in individuals, but in populations of individuals that have differential success in surviving and breeding and passing on their hereditary traits.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

For anyone that wants to discuss what evolution really involves, rather than fantasies, can use this thread as a starting point.

There is a very simple, and foolproof method for defining the contents of evolutionism: let the evolutionists define it. I do not jest.

Do not ask them and expect a meaningful answer; such would be folly. Let their actions define the term. When they expel a scientist, find out what he questioned. When they insist that children be indoctrinated, they'll give you their beliefs. In this manner, a comprehensive definition can be obtained, and it will be far more accurate than anything published in dictionaries or textbooks.

Now, let's see the heathens <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/reallymad.gif" alt="" />

Russell,

Please feel free to take up CTD's challenge and repeat your two definitions of evolution here (you posted them already on another thread) and then we can see that they are in fact talking about the same thing/s.

Please also feel free to point out any mistakes I may have made, as CTD seems to think that your opinion and mine are incompatible.

And for ikester and CTD and others please note: I have never shied from being proven wrong and accepting that fact -- CTD has experienced this fact and should remember it -- all I ask is evidence that shows what I said was wrong. I try to apply the same standard I expect of others to my own posts.

Enjoy.

Hi RAZD

I’ve read through CTD’s complaints and, while I think you have a few of the details slightly wrong I can’t see any glaring problems with your description of ToE here.

One definition of evolution which I gave was the change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next which is another way of saying pretty much what you said in point 1 so I think we agree on that.

Point two I think you need to explain better, CTD is right to complain about this one though he overplays it I would suggest as you are certainly on the right track. Reproductive isolation is a prerequisite to the formation of new species but it is not quite the definition of such. Isolation can be imposed such as by selective breeding or a geographic change to a wild organism’s range that splits them. In this situation the separate groups can evolve in different directions and so become separate species who are incapable of interbreeding even if they come into contact again. At that point they have become separate species. It is the inability to interbreed even when they are in contact which defines species. There are some grey areas where interbreeding is possible but produces poor offspring or where creatures are physically capable of interbreeding but, due to their genetics will not do so under normal circumstances. These are simply examples of species which have not totally separated though they are clearly on the path to do so unless something dramatic changes to force them back together.

Micro and Macro evolution are very vague terms with no specific fixed meaning. I personally try to avoid using them preferring to explain what has changed without the labels. It makes for less confusion.

Your four observations all appear fairly obvious, I can’t see any reason that anyone would have a problem with them.

Conclusion (1): is pretty much a more detailed restatement of our definitions of evolution at its simplest level. No conflicts here.

Conclusion (2): I agree with what you are trying to say here but I’d say it slightly differently. The point to emphasise is that fitness is contingent on current conditions so traits that fit within a given niche will become more common among organisms which inhabit that niche. Optimum fitness is a moving target unless the niche remains unchanged. It also varies for organisms of a given species which inhabit a large range as the exact conditions will vary from one extreme of their range to the other. Interbreeding within the population will average out such variations unless or until reproductive isolation comes into play at which point the extremes will probably diverge towards speciation.

Conclusion (3): I’d suggest that this is a controversial point. Meme’s may well be passed on due to their ability to be passed on rather than on their utility. That is certainly one of the conclusions of Meme theory as it stands today. Obviously organisms will be selected based on the combination of their phenotype and their meme’s. Organisms which carry detrimental meme’s will be selected against while those which carry beneficial meme’s will be selected for. It’s a very confusing picture. If an organism phenotype can bias it to selectively learn beneficial meme’s and reject detrimental ones that will be the most fit combination I would suggest.

Conclusion (4): I don’t agree with point four. Hereditary traits can certainly spread within a population even if they are don’t affect fitness or even in some cases if they are detrimental. There are a number of mechanisms known for this such as the gene’s for such a trait being located next to a very beneficial trait and, effectively, hitchhiking with it into successive generations so I agree with this point.
Acquired traits arrive in a population because of exposure to their environment so they will be individually acquired or not based on each individual’s experience. Such traits don’t play a part in evolution excepting for their interactions with phenotype of the organisms. An example would be tanning, different phenotype will react differently to sun exposure from tanning to burning to developing skin cancer and dying. The heritable traits will become more or less common in the population based on their fitness effects in the organism’s environment but the environmental effects and acquired traits don’t spread.

Conclusion (5): I agree. Such divergent populations constitute insipient speciation events. Several such have been observed in the wild and in lab tests in great detail even to the point of full speciation. Fascinating research indeed!

I agree with your theory points. I think there are some more interesting tests of ToE and some more telling predictions but the one’s you have cited are certainly telling.

I'll get further into this exchange and comment as I get time.

All the best

Russell

Hi LindaLou

I don’t know if anyone’s commented on your rate of evolution post a the top of this thread. You have hit on a very interesting point. Have you ever heard of a book called “The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time” by Jonathan Weiner. It explores some very detail study of evolution in real time in the wild on the island of Daphne Major in the Galapagos. Among other things an insipient speciation event was observed during a sever multi year drought on the island. It showed exactly what you are suggesting, that evolution actually moves quite quickly when conditions change and its normal slow pace is actually a reflection of the stability of the niches most organisms inhabit rather than an indication of a limit to evolution itself. The author suggested that Darwin would be most surprised to learn just how fast evolution can be when species are put under pressure by rapid changes in their environment.

Russell

Hi again CTD

It’s just about bed time for me so I’ve only got a few minutes to comment on one of your posts to this thread.

1) New theory? What new theory?
1) I would suggest this is a restatement of a well established scientific theory called the modern syntheses of the theory of evolution.
2) theory is the correct term for the best scientific explanation we have for a given phenomenon.
4) As you come to understand what ToE says you’ll realize that no time machine is required. Try to work with us here to come to an understanding of what ToE actually says rather than the corrupted, vacuous straw men that you will come across at so many creationist web sites. If you can do that we may make some progress here. At least you will hopefully be able to move beyond the I failed evolution 101 complaints into some that show serious understanding of what it is you are dissing. That would be far more interesting.
6) there’s a long list of potential falsifications that can be envisaged for ToE. I’ve already given you some, we can discuss more as we go on here if that would help.
7) 500 years ago there was just one species of humans that I am aware of. Several others existed within the last 100000 years but all had died out by 1500 years. At least one lasted till around 30000 years ago but that is the most recent I can think of off the top of my head. I agree that the definition of species given was not well enough worded. My comments above will hopefully clarify what ToE actually says on this point.

In Reason

Russell

No not much comment there, Russ. I do like your illustrations of bacteria which evolve beneficial mutations. And while genetics tends to go over my head for the most part -- maybe because I'm ill and can't focus as well as I used to -- I appreciate the knowledge you've shared here. We've had discussions here about static populations whose environments do not change significantly over time and we've also talked about "living fossils" such as coelacanths and crocodiles. For the life of me I wouldn't be able to tell you where to find them though. This forum format is getting pretty unwieldy. I can't remember where we were talking about the lack of a need for a god, either -- I'll try to get back there at some point

Hi SoSick

how does the ancestor mate with himself to get things going anyway?

If you look at the definition given in this thread so far you’ll see how speciation occurs. The ancestor of the wolf was not a wolf. It was however a wolf like creature. Evolutionary changes over time altered it till it became what we call a Wolf but each of those changes was simply the organisms maintaining their fitness in a changing environment. Once enough of these changes had accumulated the creatures which resulted were no longer the species they had been initially. They became wolves.

Evolution works gradually. At all times a given population will contain at least a viable breeding population with enough individuals to mate together to produce the next generation. If this was not the case, and it has often not been, those species will go extinct and so could not be the ancestor of a modern species. So for all current species we know that it has never been the case in their history that their line did not contain a viable breeding population.

So the last non wolf ancestor of the wolf would have looked a lot like a wolf and would have been genetically compatible with wolves, at least with wolves of it’s day, such that they could interbreed. If you only look at distant points in the history of a given species you see quite different creatures that possibly could not interbreed but if you looked at each successive generation along the path to their current form each generation would look a lot like the previous and the next and would be capable of interbreeding with both. It’s only if you take distant products of those lines from many generations apart that you will see reproductive incompatibility and so speciation but of course that is an artificial view.

In Reason

Russell

Hi CTD

there's no trace of the struggle required by Darwin's version of "natural selection"

Actually conclusion 2 in the above describes differences in organisms abilities leading to selective advantages/disadvantages. While the “struggle for life angle” and the “red in tooth and claw angle” are not explicitly stated getting yourself killed due to a lack in your genetic ability must be seen as a disadvantage and certainly would prevent your gene’s being passed on in line with this point.

There's a question that begs to be asked: if Darwin's story, or any of the subsequent forms of evolution were satisfactory, why would you be undertaking these rewrites? Would you mind explaining some of the shortcomings?

Darwin wrote his work over 150 years ago, we’ve learned quite a bit since then, well some of us have. Today’s version of ToE is a refinement of Darwin’s original, it takes into account new findings but the gist of natural selection is still there in a largely unchanged form. Darwin’s original idea is still at the heart of the modern formulation of ToE despite the twisted logic that some use to try to ignore that fact.

Now why don't I offer a competing hypothesis?

More empty rhetoric CTD? Skunk Funk again is it then? Of course if you have an actual theory to present please go ahead. It would make this a most interesting thread to have a competitor to ToE presented. Do you have such a theory? Or does this one stink as much as the skunk?

In Reason

Russell

Hi CTD

There is a very simple, and foolproof method for defining the contents of evolutionism: let the evolutionists define it. I do not jest.

No you do not jest, you wiggle and squirm, you twist meanings and juxtapose points unrelated in an amazingly athletic attempt to confuse anyone reading this thread into seeing problems with the theory left right and centre. You have said that I disagree with this formulation but to the extent that you are correct the disagreements are minor and don’t affect the core of ToE. What people here, people who really want to understand should note is that CTD never actually engages with what ToE says. He spends a great deal of time nit picking wording and vague disagreements between parts of this version and parts of that version and the motives of historical figures in this debate. If ToE was so untenable wouldn’t you think he could show some actual flaws in what the theory says? If it were so untenable wouldn’t you think he could come up with a viable alternative, one that fits with the evidence we have already? He has made only a few very feeble attempts to do so to date that I am aware of.

The above work from CTD is a classic example of creationist obfuscation. He has managed to avoid engaging with any of the real issues while throwing enough light weight shrapnel into the air that no one here, even if they seriously wanted to understand what is going on, would have any real chance of doing so. It’s a classic example of the style. Throw out 100 complaints, all easily refuted, and move on. Those following along are likely to run out of steam reading through the refutations before they get to the end and thus will conclude that there was a real problem with the idea of ToE as presented just by the weight of fluff thrown into the air. Watch how he never actually engages with the guts of the theory his complaints focus on wordings.

Can you please try something for me CTD? Can you try to work with us to gain an understanding of what ToE says? I for one would find your complaints far more interesting if they had any actual substance to them. A substance built out of an actual understanding of what ToE says is the idea basis for refuting it. Forget the motives of those who wrote it, forget the minor disagreements between different wordings in various peoples expositions on ToE. Try to do what we all should and see behind these minor points to the guts of the issue. Try to see what ToE is actually saying and engage with that. Can you do that CTD?

I hope you can.

In Reason

Russell

Thanks for the input Russell2.

Yes that is a common definition. I prefer hereditary traits, as alleles are difficult to apply to fossils, while traits can be seen in the bones (the effects of the alleles). I also tend to be more of a naturalist than a genetics type, and prefer visible traits for field observations.

Speciation is difficult to define, for living and fossil organisms, agreed. I've also seen the terms "arbitrary speciation" and "non-arbitrary speciation" applied to fossils, where the first is just an arbitrary collection of accumulated changes since the type fossil of the ancestor was discovered. When you have a long lineage that shows change over time, choosing where to break these into different species categories is arbitrary.

Non-arbitrary is when you have a clear division of the population into two or more daughter populations. Pelycodus is provides an example of both of these types of speciation typical in the fossil record:



Here you see a couple of "arbitrary speciation" events at the bottom and then a "non-arbitrary speciation" division at the top.

The key is that diversity has begun the moment that two populations cease to share genes. If they later coalesce back into a common population then this just adds some new variations to the mix.

I agree. I've tried on other forums to have creationists there explain what they think "macroevolution" is, but have not had any real luck in that endeavor, no matter that it appears to be a central element of creationist claims.

Oops I see I had an error there, it should have read:

Sorry about that and any confusion caused.

The point here was that each of the different forms of traits that can be inherited can be neutral and still be spread in the population as long as the conditions for the traits inheritance are maintained.

Genetic maintained by inheriting DNA
environmental maintained by inheriting the environment
learned maintained by inheriting the learning

And yes, this also includes any traits that are mildly detrimental in that they don't completely inhibit the survival and breeding of the organisms affected.

So they may hitchhike as well as be either +/-/neutral?

It seems that mate recognition behavior is often the key to me, thus the lack of breeding at the cross-over of ring species, while we can create artificial insemination hybrids of camels and llamas. Later diversification mutations may make it impossible to mate (different shape genitalia in daughter species of mosquitos), but it began with different behavior, perhaps as a response to different ecologies.

Enjoy.

What everyone cannot fail to notice, including you, is that I've offered a foolproof method. Actions speak most clearly. The problem you have with my method is its clarity and certainty - why not just admit it.

Scroll up & see how few posts I wasted on the nonsense. No great deal of time was involved. When the amusement value dropped low enough, I offered a solution.

Which one? One cannot even begin to discuss a version before RAZD produces a new one. More of the spam strategy. But they can't pick a winner. Natural selection cannot create a winner for them. It can only kill that which is presented to it. Until they produce a winner, the losers just keep dying. Unlike life, which cannot reproduce when dead, loser ideas inspire more spam.

You want me to write evotheories? What's it pay?

Not a lot of effort went into Skunk Funk, but it's proven its worth. And Occam's razor favors it, you understand.

I think you're confusing who's who. My posts say "CTD" in the column to the left. It's blue and underlined.

I already have. My method allows all evolutionists to participate. Thanks for your generous contributions, BTW.

I would dishonour the efforts of evolutionists if I change my policy. For that, and a number of other reasons, I shall continue to allow evolutionists to define evolutinism by their actions. It is the only honest and fair course of action, is it not?

Hi RAZD

The key is that diversity has begun the moment that two populations cease to share genes. If they later coalesce back into a common population then this just adds some new variations to the mix.

True enough but speciation I think has to wait until they are separated by more than distance or physical barriers, there has to be a genetic component at least in mate choice behaviours if not direct genetic incompatibility before they can be counted as separate species.

So they [meme’s] may hitchhike as well as be either +/-/neutral?

Yes though if they are indeed replicators in a Darwinian sense then they will spread and evolve based on their abilities to spread and evolve above their utility to the organisms which carry them. Obviously a meme that killed it’s host is not going to get passed on so there are limits to this and meme’s that are useful are likely to get a boost in organism capable of realizing the limits of the meme’s.

Russell

Hi CTD

What I see clearly from you, time and again, is that you try very very hard to avoid actually engaging with ToE when it is presented to you. Can anyone reading this see any point of ToE that CTD has actually, successfully, engaged with? How many of his posts actually get into what ToE says as opposed to nit picking at perceived inconsistencies with it’s presentation?

You want me to write evotheories? What's it pay?

In science the normal practice, if you have a problem with a theory is to come up with a better one. If you have problems with the current theory but you can’t better it then you haven’t advanced our understanding very much. Even a flawed theory is better than having no idea at all how something works. Can you do it? It doesn’t have to be an “evotheories” whatever that is just a tenable explanation for the observed facts of evolution that we see around us. Oh and most importantly it has to explain these things better than the current scientific theory. Can you do it?

Not a lot of effort went into Skunk Funk, but it's proven its worth.

It was pretty obvious that you didn’t spend much time on it, it all unravelled pretty fast once questioned though as an obfuscation tool it seems to have value, what other use it has I have no idea.

And Occam's razor favors it, you understand.

You’ll have to explain that one to me. Sr William did stipulate that the theory had to work not just that it had to be simple. While Skunk Funk certainly scores on the second it fails miserably on this first requirement.

If you think I have confused you with someone else could you please point out, from the posts above, where you have actually engaged with what ToE says as opposed to nit picking at the exact explanations given here for it. You claim to understand it but you’ve shown no ability to demonstrate that to date I would suggest.

I shall continue to allow evolutionists to define evolutinism by their actions. It is the only honest and fair course of action, is it not?

Perfectly fair and reasonable but will you do me a one favour, once they have done so will you actually show us that you understand what has been said and engage with the ideas put rather nit picking at the wording of the definitions until we all die of old age. If a particular point is not worded clearly enough for you ask someone to clarify until you can understand what we’ve been saying. You claim time and again to understand ToE so that shouldn’t be too hard for you.

In Reason

Russell

As I have said, I prefer to let evolutionists define evolutionism. It's been maintained that "evolution" is somehow restricted to that which has always been observed: offspring differing from their parents. Obviously this is not so.

Even the well-known evopusher, Eugenie Scott says (bold supplied by CTD)

Seems to solve that little puzzle about why discoveries in astronomy are a threat to the religion.

They're still retreating, folks.

The Altenberg 16

Not my discovery, for the record.
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1950

This is pretty pathetic. We insist on indoctrinating you and your children with X. We haven't worked out what X is, but that's none of your concern.

I suppose it's good that they're still retreating, but fer cryin' out loud!

I will admit that I didn't read the entire article but this seems to be covering an argument among scientists about the mechanisms that cause new traits to occur in organisms. What specifically does this article say that evolutionists are retreating from?

There seems to be no indication among the scientists that evolution may not have occurred.
There seems to be no indication that natural selection was going to be put aside as one of the mechanisms of evolution.
There appears to be no redefinition of evolution or the basic premises of evolution.

Why should a shortfall in knowledge about the internal workings of evolution prevent us from teaching what we do know? See my examples of your "X" statement.

"We insist on indoctrinating you and your children with the idea that the force of gravity exists between 2 masses. We haven't worked out what the mechanism of gravity is, but that's none of your concern."

"We insist on indoctrinating you and your children with the knowledge that Jesus is the sacrifice for the forgiveness of your sins. We haven't worked out Why God required Jesus to be sacrificed in order for God to forgive us, but that's none of your concern."

If you wish to discuss specific portions of the article, then I will read the article and respond.

There is not a consensus; the project is not finished. There are many ideas and opinions held by those who have been invited to participate in the project. Some have already abandoned NeoDawinism. Some don't think 'natural selection' plays a role. Some insist there must be a self-organizing force inherent in matter, much like I've seen you hinting after. Others think NeoDarwinism can be salvaged with a major overhaul.



Another thing I noticed was how some, rather than abandoning 'natural selection', have adopted a creationist view that it is a conservative rather than creative agent. I suggest, however that creationists should re-evaluate, and drop it altogether. Should the evolutionists drop it, you will be behind the curve and have to play catch-up. 'Natural selection' must either be tautological or have no meaning at all.

Would not any scientists following the facts to their logical conclusion be disqualified from participating?

I haven't worked out the numbers, if it should come to a vote. But more than one of them have indicated it is greatly overrated and misunderstood.

Well, here
(about midway through the article)

Implicit in those discussions is the fact that nobody's employing "change in alleles", or any of the other watered-down definitions. Change is inevitable. When people are even 3% serious, they don't bother with such nonsense.

They also see that "mutation and natural selection" cannot produce the desired results: a plausible story.
Really? You mean the same basic premises Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck accepted? There is still a desire to account for the world we live in and the life we see while denying it was all created.

If you mean the pathetic redefinitions which have been promoted on this forum, it's quite obvious they have something else in mind.
I never said it should. I think it's a great topic for a "Social Studies" or history class, this phenomenon of evolutionism.

Gravity is defined.

Teaching knowledge is not indoctrination. You might want to rephrase your parody of a false analogy.

Thanks for the offer. It may be a bit premature to discuss some things. It should prove amusing if they're able to cobble anything together. Very amusing. But I am not yet such an expert evolutionologist that I can predict the outcome. My best guess is that they'll be ignored after a brief period of hype. Inertia is inertial.