An Unrecognized Fallacy?

[Luc Turpin]

 

Can these statements be demonstrated incorrect?

1- "... a considerable part of Darwinism is not of the nature of an empirical theory, but is a logical truism" - Karl R. Popper

2- "Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do- Lynn Margulis."

3- a)"Artificial selection never produces wholly new characteristics. Without the input of new genes, there is no evidence that natural selection does either." b)"The notion that mutation and recombination can compose new genes is implausible. There is scant evidence that mutation and recombination can compose functional new genes that differ from any known predecessor by more than, say, a dozen essential nucleotides." c)"Evolution does not appear to be gradual, contrary to Darwin's firm prediction." d)"The standard theory cannot explain why the coordinating genes that control the development of embryos and major features are often very similar across totally different species." e)"Convergent evolution is a surprise not well-explained by neo-Darwinism." f)"Macroevolutionary progress is not accounted for by neo-Darwinian microevolution- Brig Klyce

Edited Wednesday at 01:26 PM by Phi for All
Spelling in title

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Can these statements be demonstrated incorrect?

Yes.

They are criticisms of a caricature of the theory rather than the theory itself

Quote

 

1- "... a considerable part of Darwinism is not of the nature of an empirical theory, but is a logical truism" - Karl R. Popper

I assume this refers to “survival of the fittest” which is a glib description of Darwinism, rather than the actual idea.

One must also recognize that evolution encompasses more than Darwin’s ideas. He e.g. didn’t know details of genetics

Quote

2- "Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do- Lynn Margulis."

Mendel was able to make peas change by cross-breeding strains, so I’m at a loss to understand the criticism. I suspect it’s a commentary on Mendel’s ignorance of the existence of mutation.

Quotes without context is a poor way to make a scientific argument. 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Can these statements be demonstrated incorrect?

The works of Darwin that I have read offer in substantial part a report on actual experiments and observations, not any 'theory' at all.

In all the cases I can recall he works from observation to theory, not the other way round.

 

I have not heard of Neo Darwinism and in any case you shoulld make your own arguments, rather than draw upon the works of others.

Quotations should be employed to illustrate what you have already presented in sound (thank you Eise) argument.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

Can these statements be demonstrated incorrect?

1- "... a considerable part of Darwinism is not of the nature of an empirical theory, but is a logical truism" - Karl R. Popper

2- "Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics, which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism, which claims they do- Lynn Margulis."

3- a)"Artificial selection never produces wholly new characteristics. Without the input of new genes, there is no evidence that natural selection does either." b)"The notion that mutation and recombination can compose new genes is implausible. There is scant evidence that mutation and recombination can compose functional new genes that differ from any known predecessor by more than, say, a dozen essential nucleotides." c)"Evolution does not appear to be gradual, contrary to Darwin's firm prediction." d)"The standard theory cannot explain why the coordinating genes that control the development of embryos and major features are often very similar across totally different species." e)"Convergent evolution is a surprise not well-explained by neo-Darwinism." f)"Macroevolutionary progress is not accounted for by neo-Darwinian microevolution- Brig Klyce

Modern evolutionary theory is not "Darwinism."  The modern synthesis has incorporated many newer concepts, with contributions from Huxley, Mayr, Gould, Eldredge, Dobzhansky, Pigliucci, GG Simpson et al which went far beyond Darwin's very limited conceptual base and lack of any genetic basis.  Empirical support for cladogenesis and punctuated equilibrium, epigenetic effects, plasmid sharing in bacteria, non-reductive aspects of macroevolution, population genetics, adaptive dynamics etc have created a theoretical framework that is no more Darwinism than current physics is "Galileanism."  You have created a ridiculous strawman.  The Popper quote is just Popper showing his poor knowledge of evo biology, which is news to no one.  Popper argued in 1974 that evolutionary theory contained no testable laws and is therefore a metaphysical research program.  Guess what?  Four years later he said that he had changed his mind.  

 

Quote

d)"The standard theory cannot explain why the coordinating genes that control the development of embryos and major features are often very similar across totally different species."

Which is why this "standard theory" was abandoned decades ago, and why disciplines like molecular biology, genomics and epigenetics are active areas of research that are continually reshaping modern EB.  

Stop pulling quotes out of context and go learn some evolutionary biology, post 1920.

Quote

Brig Klyce

The astrobiology crackpot who majored in architecture and then read some books?  The guy who thinks Covid is an alien pathogen that floated down from some cometary debris?  THAT Brig Klyce?  Good grief, is that what your other quotes are from?  That's hilarious!

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

c)Evolution does not appear to be gradual, contrary to Darwin's firm prediction

Which is why Ernst Mayr, in the early 1950s, developed the concept of allopatric speciation, which led to Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium and the strongly empirically supported theory of long periods of stasis with occasional rapid bursts of change that is, as of 2024, widely accepted as replacing the archaic phyletic gradualism of Darwin's era.  There remain disagreements on Gould's species selection, but the principal concept of punctuated equilibrium is not disputed, given its immense empirical support.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Mendel was able to make peas change by cross-breeding strains, so I’m at a loss to understand the criticism.

It's an attempt to make a description of the knowledge gaps pre Modern Synthesis (which Mayr began developing in the 1930's) sound like a criticism.  Instead of noting that these conflicts were resolved by the MS, around 1940, it makes it sound like some ongoing internal strife in EB.  Absurd.  Mechanisms of allelic frequency change and mutagenesis were not understood before the MS - stop the presses!  Newsflash!  

[CharonY]

Good post. I would like to add that currently, modern synthesis is at the stage folks in the last century looked at Darwinism. Folks like Koonin, Kutschera  have called for a new synthesis, which to my knowledge is not formalized as such but includes all the elements that modern folks in the field are working with. Molecular studies have introduced the neutral theory, we got a better grip on molecular timing and so on. I.e. the field continues to move on, and is very telling that criticisms are raised by folks using knowledge that is outdated for hundred years and more.

[TheVat]

21 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Folks like Koonin, Kutschera  have called for a new synthesis, which to my knowledge is not formalized as such but includes all the elements that modern folks in the field are working with.

Yes.  I mentioned Pigliucci whose Extended Evolutionary Synthesis seems like one of the more organized and comprehensive updates of the MS, as it combines evo-devo stuff, epigenetics, multilevel selection, and (one of my favorites) evolvability (which means that genomes are structured in ways that make beneficial changes more likely, with populations better able to generate adaptive genetic diversity and more non-deleterious mutations).   I don't know how formalized is what he and Mueller have done, and I know there are other postmodern (if I can call them that) syntheses.  Some are focused on molecular genetics.  I know that conserved sequences and deep homologies are important now in cancer research.

And you mention neutral theory, where random genetic drift of mutant alleles becomes more significant than natural selection, and so very far removed from "Darwinism."  But still compatible with natural selection at the phenotypic level.  

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

postmodern (if I can call them that) syntheses. 

I think Koonin proposed exactly called that. Pigliucci called for an extended synthesis, IIRC. I believe others have been talking about an inclusive evolutionary synthesis. 

The reason for a lack of formalism is that (I think) that molecular discoveries are still moving and anyone trying to ties things down in a nice comprehensive package likely will need to rewrite bits every few years. Also because of that, folks are working in very specialized areas (e.g. molecular clocking of highly specific genes) so it makes it a bit harder to bring everything together neatly. I think in many ways biology and the way biologists work do not make it easy to establish enduring models that are also very precise. So any paradigm that is not at least somewhat vague tends to be overturned at some point. 

16 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Some are focused on molecular genetics.

I would say that much of modern evolution is driven by molecular research, but not only in the areas of what is classically seen as genetics (and is also kind of swallowed by genomic research) but also other molecular works that look into e.g. genome structure, associated functional changes, stability and associated mechanisms. I am highly biased, of course, but at this point it is hard to see how (post)genomic research has not shaped our current understanding of evolution.

12 minutes ago, TheVat said:

And you mention neutral theory, where random genetic drift of mutant alleles becomes more significant than natural selection, and so very far removed from "Darwinism."  But still compatible with natural selection at the phenotypic level.  

I suspect it depends on the the context, i.e. significant for what. If we talk about genetic overall genetic variation, then yes for sure.  

[swansont]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

It's an attempt to make a description of the knowledge gaps pre Modern Synthesis (which Mayr began developing in the 1930's) sound like a criticism.  Instead of noting that these conflicts were resolved by the MS, around 1940, it makes it sound like some ongoing internal strife in EB.  Absurd.  Mechanisms of allelic frequency change and mutagenesis were not understood before the MS - stop the presses!  Newsflash!  

Right. Mendel discovered simple results of genetics but had no details of the mechanism, so the idea was incomplete. Gaps were filled in. A fairly commonplace occurrence in science.

Darwin had descent with modification. Mendel showed traits can be “stored” and various combinations manifest themselves differently. There’s no conflict between the two. Different pieces of a larger puzzle.

It’s evidence of bad faith to pretend that either bit was a fully fleshed-out theory. Darwin acknowledged that there were things yet to be discovered. (IIRC the problem of “blending” was one thing). Creationists often present the argument framed as if Darwinism is the whole theory of evolution. They also present gradualism as if it means the rate of change is perfectly constant, while Darwin was differentiating his idea from saltation.

[CharonY]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

They also present gradualism as if it means the rate of change is perfectly constant, while Darwin was differentiating his idea from saltation.

Not to mention that this is not an either or situation (when talking about the modern forms of gradualism). There are mechanisms that would allow for both, slow gradual change, but also larger macroevolutionary shifts. 

 

[Luc Turpin]

None of you have answered my questions!

Some of you have avoided answering by saying it isn’t so; others took to character assassination for sustenance; others still made broad presentations of their knowledge; but none answered my questions

Here is a simplified version of my questions that need answering with evidence and no interpretation of facts or biasness:

• Without input from new genes, is there any evidence that natural selection will produce new characteristics?
• Can mutation and recombination compose new genes beyond a dozen essential nucleotides?
• Was gradual evolution a surprise or not to Darwin's theory?
• How can we explain that coordinating genes that control the development of embryos and major features are often very similar across totally different species?
• Is convergent evolution well-explained or not by neo-Darwinisms, or even by the synthesis or the newer synthesis?
• Does micro-evolution lead to macro-evolution?

Furthermore, cladogenesis and punctuated equilibrium, epigenetic effects, plasmid sharing in bacteria, non-reductive aspects of macroevolution, population genetics, adaptive dynamics are all surprises not anticipated and removed far away from the original concepts of evolution. I correct myself, they are not far away, but polar opposite of what was expected. It is not a constant reshaping of EB that occurred, but a counter revolution that has not even the slightest thing to do with the original or neo version of the theory. That also is not acknowledged. It should have been vertical gene transfer and it was horizontal. It was to be the pre-determination of genes and its epigenetics as well. It was to be constant , but not punctuated equilibrium. 

So science was unbiased and just kidding when stating that Darwinism was right?

And science was unbiased and just kidding when stating that neo-darwinism was right on the money?

Your house is a mess!

You need synthesis upon synthesis to account for all of the surprises coming out of research.

Having a crackpot amongst us, might as well use him. Explain to me this and tell me that HGT was expected to play such a predominant role in evolution. We are light years away from a selfish gene concept

How did eukaryotic cells evolve? Six Dutch microbiologists and theoretical biologists have reviewed this subject to summarize the latest research. As traditional neo-darwinists they want to rescue the tree-of-life, but most eukaryotic genes are seen to be acquired non-vertically — by various forms of HGT, or by endosymbiosis (red vertical line in graph) and afterward, when mitichondria lost genes to the eukaryotic nucleus. Among eukaryotic genes, only duplicated ones (blue) conform to neo-darwinian philosophy, and they are only "sometines associated with genetic novelty." Fourth among the illustrated mechanisms (yellow), "Truly novel eukaryotic genes that originated de novo through gene genesis from non-coding DNA are arguably the most enigmatic." The review has helpful illustrations, a Glossary and 169 references. Here is the mentioned graph and caption:

The relative contribution and timing of different mechanisms that expanded the genome between FECA and LECA are illustrated, loosely based on the branch length-based estimates from single gene trees. They comprise the contributions to both the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. The red bar indicates the gain of proto-mitochondrial genes upon endosymbiosis. The timing estimates of de novo gene inventions correspond to a minimal estimate of their age based on the earliest duplications they underwent. The black line illustrates the total number of genes in the composite genome, including only those genes that were still present in LECA. The loss of proto-mitochondrial and FECA genes before LECA cannot be timed. EGT, endosymbiotic gene transfer; HGT, horizontal gene transfer.

To comment: the evidence shows that eukaryogenesis relies heavily on transferred genes. The de novo ones also likely came by transfer (what else?) How genes transferred from prokaryotes or viruses acquired their eukaryotic programming is a huge, unanswered question. The puzzle is at least equal for evolution strictly among prokaryotes, where the reliance on transfer is seen to be complete. None of it makes neo-darwinian sense. A radical rethink is needed.

 "The emerging view on the origin and early evolution of eukaryotic cells," by Vosseberg, J., van Hooff, J.J.E., Köstlbacher, S. et al, doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07677-6, Nature, 11 Sep 2024. Truly novel eukaryotic genes that originated de novo through gene genesis from non-coding DNA are arguably the most enigmatic. Previous work indicated that a substantial fraction... do not exhibit discernible homology to prokaryotic sequences.
 

I will finish off this post with a reference that I cannot pin down, but made by one eminent scientist in molecular biology and/or evolutionary biology.

I could not find the actual reference, but being a crackpot myself, I can dispense of this formality.

"Technical advances have brought an accelerating flood of data, most recently, giving us complete genome sequences and expression patterns from any species. Yet, arguably, no fundamentally new principles have been established in molecular biology, and, in evolutionary biology, despite sophisticated theoretical advances and abundant data, we still grapple with the same questions as a century or more ago."

 

 

The ultimate point being made here is to look for un-recognized falacies before talking about recognized ones.

Edited Tuesday at 12:44 PM by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

None of you have answered my questions!

Your question was “Can these statements be demonstrated incorrect?” and the answer to that is “yes” which I posted in the first response.

I see you have other questions, but you hadn’t asked them yet

 

44 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

Here is a simplified version of my questions that need answering with evidence and no interpretation of facts or biasness:

• Without input from new genes, is there any evidence that natural selection will produce new characteristics?
• Can mutation and recombination compose new genes beyond a dozen essential nucleotides?
• Was gradual evolution a surprise or not to Darwin's theory?
• How can we explain that coordinating genes that control the development of embryos and major features are often very similar across totally different species?
• Is convergent evolution well-explained or not by neo-Darwinisms, or even by the synthesis or the newer synthesis?
• Does micro-evolution lead to macro-evolution?

 

A wall-o-text list of questions isn’t the right way to do this, if you have a sincere desire to learn. But if it’s a bad faith effort inspired by Gish-galloping, it’s right on the money.

44 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Furthermore, cladogenesis and punctuated equilibrium, epigenetic effects, plasmid sharing in bacteria, non-reductive aspects of macroevolution, population genetics, adaptive dynamics are all surprises not anticipated and removed far away from the original concepts of evolution.

“far away” is debatable but otherwise pretty much, yes. New things were discovered and the theory was expanded and fleshed out. It’s this way in all of science. It’s not static.

 

44 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

So science was unbiased and just kidding when stating that Darwinism was right?

Science isn’t a person and can’t “state” anything.

44 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

And science was unbiased and just kidding when stating that neo-darwinism was right on the money?

As above.

All science is provisional; it gets updated and refined, if necessary, as new evidence comes to light. It represents the best understanding at the time. Nobody who understands the process would make the claims as you’ve presented them. 

 

44 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Your house is a mess!

Your implied expectations are unreasonable and present a strong odor of bad faith

 

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

We are on apposite sides of this one. You say part of the normal scientific process and I say that accumulating evidence makes for a strong case for a significant shift in how science percieves evolution.

No bad faith; trying to tell it as I see it.

[DanMP]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

New things were discovered and the theory was expanded and fleshed out. It’s this way in all of science. It’s not static.

True. I recommend you (all) a documentary on Netflix: "Homo Futurus, the inside story". It is about a controversial(?) theory regarding the mechanism that drove the evolution of humans from primates to modern man, also speculating on humanity’s future evolutionary path. Everything, in this theory, revolves around the sphenoid bone. Very interesting. 

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

None of you have answered my questions!

Waaaaah!  My first reply directly addressed the bulk of your points.  You could spend a few minutes reading a summary of evolutionary theory and remedy your deep misunderstandings of the field's progress.  Not going to do your homework for you.  

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

We are on apposite sides of this one. You say part of the normal scientific process and I say that accumulating evidence makes for a strong case for a significant shift in how science percieves evolution.

No bad faith; trying to tell it as I see it.

I don’t see this as opposite. There has been a shift in how science perceives evolution.

I object to your tone that suggests this is somehow a weakness or flaw (“Your house is a mess!”) or that anyone promised that theories would never be refined. You give the impression that you expect science to cater to your whims. 

[TheVat]

47 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

You say part of the normal scientific process and I say that accumulating evidence makes for a strong case for a significant shift in how science percieves evolution.

A shift?  Yes, that's the normal progress of a scientific paradigm, to include shifts.  That is not however equivalent to saying that the core of early theory - variation, natural selection, heritability, adaptation - has been discarded or overthrown.  

[Luc Turpin]

   

59 minutes ago, swansont said:

1- I don’t see this as opposite. There has been a shift in how science perceives evolution.

2- I object to your tone that suggests this is somehow a weakness or flaw (“Your house is a mess!”) or that anyone promised that theories would never be refined. You give the impression that you expect science to cater to your whims. 

1- The ground has shifted, yes, but there is no recognition-acknoweldgement that major cracks have appeared in the theory of evolution. 

2- Objection noted; It is taken for granted by myself and the scientific community that theories would be refined, but how about being less defensive over the current theory and more open to other possible avenues. Not just because I say so, but because evidence seems to be pushing us there; my "whims" have nothing to do about it; only evidence should rule and change science.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Waaaaah!  My first reply directly addressed the bulk of your points.  You could spend a few minutes reading a summary of evolutionary theory and remedy your deep misunderstandings of the field's progress.  Not going to do your homework for you.  

I don't need for you to do my homework. I am well aware of the field's progress. So much so that I and others in some corners of the scientific community think that it is time to begin considering other avenues of evolution. And don't tell me that I am being creationists as it would be totally off the mark. Finaly, I still don't know the answers to my questions.

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

A shift?  Yes, that's the normal progress of a scientific paradigm, to include shifts.  That is not however equivalent to saying that the core of early theory - variation, natural selection, heritability, adaptation - has been discarded or overthrown.  

How variation, natural selection, heritability and adaptation occur are under a constant barrage of evidence showing that it does not work the way it should. This is worisome for a theory. 

The theory is unrecognizable from its early inception. So why is it still standing on the same foundation?

Edited Tuesday at 04:10 PM by Luc Turpin
for precision sake

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Here is a simplified version of my questions that need answering with evidence and no interpretation of facts or biasness:

• Without input from new genes, is there any evidence that natural selection will produce new characteristics?
• Can mutation and recombination compose new genes beyond a dozen essential nucleotides?
• Was gradual evolution a surprise or not to Darwin's theory?
• How can we explain that coordinating genes that control the development of embryos and major features are often very similar across totally different species?
• Is convergent evolution well-explained or not by neo-Darwinisms, or even by the synthesis or the newer synthesis?
• Does micro-evolution lead to macro-evolution?

The issues with these questions is that most are based on false premises. I.e. there are flawed assumptions regarding, both, the overall process of evolution as well as molecular mechanisms. I will try to shortly address them, but ultimately they can only be remedied if you change discard most of your assumption and start learning from the bottom up.

1) Natural selection does not produce any characteristics. Natural selection increases the frequency allelic variations that already exist.

2) I am not sure what you mean with essential nucleotides. However the rise of new genes often involves gene duplication, which you did not even mention. Subsequently recombination and mutations can shape them.

3) I am not sure what you mean by that. Surprise to whom? Darwin assumed a gradual vs saltatory mechanism, if that is what you mean. However, as Swansont mentioned, in modern terms we mean phyletic gradualism which is in contrast to punctuated equilibrium, which essentially is also a gradualist model, just intersected with phases of stability.

4) In short: evolution. Because we are all related (instead of independently created) the embryogenesis of vertebrates is very similar. 

5) Convergent evolution is sufficiently explained even by the simple model proposed by Darwin. I.e. similar selective pressures are likely to lead to similar phenotypes (though he would express it differently).

6) There is some debate regarding whether this distinction is necessary, as some would argue it is just a matter of scale. The short answer is yes and there are examples. Yet there are gaps, but these are because we do not have a full understanding how our molecular composition creates certain phenotypes. This is because molecular functions are massively complex and is pretty much the same reason why we do not understand things like cancer fully yet. But on the theoretical level the answer is still a yes to the question

 

[Luc Turpin]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The issues with these questions is that most are based on false premises. I.e. there are flawed assumptions regarding, both, the overall process of evolution as well as molecular mechanisms. I will try to shortly address them, but ultimately they can only be remedied if you change discard most of your assumption and start learning from the bottom up.

1) Natural selection does not produce any characteristics. Natural selection increases the frequency allelic variations that already exist.

2) I am not sure what you mean with essential nucleotides. However the rise of new genes often involves gene duplication, which you did not even mention. Subsequently recombination and mutations can shape them.

3) I am not sure what you mean by that. Surprise to whom? Darwin assumed a gradual vs saltatory mechanism, if that is what you mean. However, as Swansont mentioned, in modern terms we mean phyletic gradualism which is in contrast to punctuated equilibrium, which essentially is also a gradualist model, just intersected with phases of stability.

4) In short: evolution. Because we are all related (instead of independently created) the embryogenesis of vertebrates is very similar. 

5) Convergent evolution is sufficiently explained even by the simple model proposed by Darwin. I.e. similar selective pressures are likely to lead to similar phenotypes (though he would express it differently).

6) There is some debate regarding whether this distinction is necessary, as some would argue it is just a matter of scale. The short answer is yes and there are examples. Yet there are gaps, but these are because we do not have a full understanding how our molecular composition creates certain phenotypes. This is because molecular functions are massively complex and is pretty much the same reason why we do not understand things like cancer fully yet. But on the theoretical level the answer is still a yes to the question

 

Noted that you answered my questions.

[CharonY]

12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- The ground has shifted, yes, but there is no recognition-acknoweldgement that major cracks have appeared in the theory of evolution. 

This is not true. Scientist do not propose new things if they think existing theories are covering sufficient ground. I.e. the fact that amendments and changes are published are an acknowledgement that we need to advance things. But for scientists this is the just the regular job. We cannot and do not publish things that are well known. What would be the point of that? Once sufficient evidence has emerged, we use the most up-to date model (or fight over which we think is more accurate). I think you are unders some misconception about how scientists use and apply theories and models. 

17 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

How variation, natural selection, heritability and adaptation occur are under a constant barrage of evidence showing that it does not work the way it should. This is worisome for a theory. 

The theory is unrecognizable from its early inception. So why is it still standing on the same foundation?

That is a gross mischaracterization of the current state of knowledge. We keep finding new mechanisms, and we keep re-evaluating the weight of of each mechanism. However we also understand that the history of each species or even population can diverge and that there is no simple universal theory that can perfectly explain each population we see. The histories can be hugely complex with some parts of the genome shaped by natural selection at one point in the past, but the selective pressures might have changed with other forces taking over. 

Again, it looks to me more like not being aware of evolutionary research (and I am not really up to date either) and making rather bold statements based on flawed premises.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

   

1- The ground has shifted, yes, but there is no recognition-acknoweldgement that major cracks have appeared in the theory of evolution. 

2- Objection noted; It is taken for granted by myself and the scientific community that theories would be refined, but how about being less defensive over the current theory and more open to other possible avenues. Not just because I say so, but because evidence seems to be pushing us there; my "whims" have nothing to do about it; only evidence should rule and change science.

How about being less offensive with your ignorance-based accusations?

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I don't need for you to do my homework. I am well aware of the field's progress.

Evidence is to the contrary.

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

And don't tell me that I am being creationists as it would be totally off the mark.

Then stop parroting creationist talking points

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

How variation, natural selection, heritability and adaptation occur are under a constant barrage of evidence showing that it does not work the way it should. This is worisome for a theory. 

The theory is unrecognizable from its early inception. So why is it still standing on the same foundation?

This would seem to be more indicative of your lack of understanding than issues with the theory.

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

This is not true. Scientist do not propose new things if they think existing theories are covering sufficient ground. I.e. the fact that amendments and changes are published are an acknowledgement that we need to advance things. But for scientists this is the just the regular job. We cannot and do not publish things that are well known. What would be the point of that? Once sufficient evidence has emerged, we use the most up-to date model (or fight over which we think is more accurate). I think you are unders some misconception about how scientists use and apply theories and models. 

I maintain my point that what we have discovered about evolution in the last twenty years or so is far beyond what was expected and it has shifted the ground while maintaining almost the same assumptions as before these findings were made.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

 However we also understand that the history of each species or even population can diverge and that there is no simple universal theory that can perfectly explain each population we see. The histories can be hugely complex with some parts of the genome shaped by natural selection at one point in the past, but the selective pressures might have changed with other forces taking over. 

Respectfully happy to hear you say this.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Again, it looks to me more like not being aware of evolutionary research (and I am not really up to date either) and making rather bold statements based on flawed premises.

I will continue looking at evolutionary research and try and get a pulse of where it is going.

I may very well be making rather bold statements, but it never ceases to amaze me that when I look at research on the topic, that results don't match with expectations.

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

How about being less offensive with your ignorance-based accusations?

I was direct, but not trying to be offensive. I was making a statement of fact, not accusations.

I am many things; not knowledgeable as you, but ignorant I am not.

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Evidence is to the contrary.

It's your right to have an unfavourable opinion of me.

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then stop parroting creationist talking points

Since when being in disagrement automatically equates to creationism? I have no talking points, nor agenda, except maybe convince some to have a hard look at their assumptions.

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

This would seem to be more indicative of your lack of understanding than issues with the theory.

Could be my lack of understanding or "Galileanists" such as "I" not realizing that a page has turned.

 

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I may very well be making rather bold statements, but it never ceases to amaze me that when I look at research on the topic, that results don't match with expectations.

I would suggest that you pull out a paper where you find such a situation and we can discuss it. The question to me is whose expectations the results are not matching.

 

[Luc Turpin]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I would suggest that you pull out a paper where you find such a situation and we can discuss it. The question to me is whose expectations the results are not matching.

 

Agree to share a paper with you. The expectations are oftentimes those of the researcher.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I was direct, but not trying to be offensive. I was making a statement of fact, not accusations.

You were making assertions of opinion. 

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am many things; not knowledgeable as you, but ignorant I am not.

Ignorance is a deficit of knowledge. You can’t be less knowledgeable and also not ignorant to some extent. The goid news is that ignorance can be fixed.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

 Since when being in disagrement automatically equates to creationism? I have no talking points, nor agenda, except maybe convince some to have a hard look at their assumptions.

You might review what I said. I said you were parroting creationist talking points, not that you are a creationist.

But creationism is incorrect, and the objections raised by creationists are flawed; they are either incorrect about details of evolution, or about the process that we call science. You say you aren’t a creationist but you haven’t shown this by taking the steps of understanding evolution and science. You use the tactic of argument-by-quote; which underscores that you lack understanding.

The underlying issue is how you can lack knowledge and yet be utterly convinced that you’re correct.