darryl88 Posted November 8, 2012 Author Posted November 8, 2012 How sneaky of those biologists to disagree with themselves! Not with themselves, they disagree with eachother.
Arete Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 And actually most of those mechanisms are denied by the neo-Darwinian synthesis. The table of contents in the current issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution (along with Evolution, Journal of Evolution etc.) disagrees with you. Your buzzword list appears in many titles in the current literature on an extremely regular basis: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/ SNP Genotyping Identifies New Signatures of Selection in a Deep Sample of West African Plasmodium falciparum Malaria Parasites Parallel Relaxation of Stringent RNA Recognition in Plant and Mammalian L1 Retrotransposons An ACP-Independent Fatty Acid Synthesis Pathway in Archaea: Implications for the Origin of Phospholipids Molecular Signatures of the Three Stem Cell Lineages in Hydra and the Emergence of Stem Cell Function at the Base of Multicellularity Correlation between Nuptial Colors and Visual Sensitivities Tuned by Opsins Leads to Species Richness in Sympatric Lake Victoria Cichlid Fishes Ultradeep Sequencing Analysis of Population Dynamics of Virus Escape Mutants in RNAi-Mediated Resistant Plants Replacing and Additive Horizontal Gene Transfer in Streptococcus Origin and Spread of Photosynthesis Based upon Conserved Sequence Features in Key Bacteriochlorophyll Biosynthesis Proteins Testing the Infinitely Many Genes Model for the Evolution of the Bacterial Core Genome and Pangenome Genomic Sequencing of Plasmodium falciparum Malaria Parasites from Senegal Reveals the Demographic History of the Population An Alu-Based Phylogeny of Gibbons (Hylobatidae) Opsins in Onychophora (Velvet Worms) Suggest a Single Origin and Subsequent Diversification of Visual Pigments in Arthropods Estimating Divergence Dates and Substitution Rates in the Drosophila Phylogeny Differences in Selection Drive Olfactory Receptor Genes in Different Directions in Dogs and Wolf Loss of the DnaK-DnaJ-GrpE Chaperone System among the Aquificales Evolution and Diversification of the Organellar Release Factor Family Evolutionary History of Continental Southeast Asians: "Early Train" Hypothesis Based on Genetic Analysis of Mitochondrial and Autosomal DNA Data Evolution of the Australian Lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) Genome: A Major Role for CR1 and L2 LINE Elements Evolutionary Dynamics and Functional Specialization of Plant Paralogs Formed by Whole and Small-Scale Genome Duplications Widespread Occurrence of N-Terminal Acylation in Animal Globins and Possible Origin of Respiratory Globins from a Membrane-Bound Ancestor Increased Genome Sampling Reveals a Dynamic Relationship between Gene Duplicability and the Structure of the Primate Protein–Protein Interaction Network A Stochastic Evolutionary Model for Protein Structure Alignment and Phylogeny Distortions in Genealogies Due to Purifying Selection Next-Generation Sequencing Reveals the Impact of Repetitive DNA Across Phylogenetically Closely Related Genomes of Orobanchaceae 1
darryl88 Posted November 8, 2012 Author Posted November 8, 2012 The table of contents in the current issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution (along with Evolution, Journal of Evolution etc.) disagrees with you. Your buzzword list appears in many titles in the current literature on an extremely regular basis: Journals like that are written by different scientists, look up those specific articles or papers etc and check out who they are written by. The paper for example Replacing and additive horizontal gene transfer in streptococcus is a very interesting paper about the role of HGT in bacteria. I just had a long debate the other day with a "neo-Darwinian" and he told me HGT has little to no role in evolution. The other paper you cite Evolutionary dynamics and functional specialization of plant paralogs formed by whole and small-scale genome duplications is about the role of genome duplications in plants, again this is usually ignored by the neo-Darwinians.
Arete Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) Journals like that are written by different scientists, look up those specific articles or papers etc and check out who they are written by. The paper for example Replacing and additive horizontal gene transfer in streptococcus is a very interesting paper about the role of HGT in bacteria. I just had a long debate the other day with a "neo-Darwinian" and he told me HGT has little to no role in evolution. The other paper you cite Evolutionary dynamics and functional specialization of plant paralogs formed by whole and small-scale genome duplications is about the role of genome duplications in plants, again this is usually ignored by the neo-Darwinians. Yes, I have a subscription to MEB and understand that a scientific journal issue is not written by a single author... So essentially what you're arguing is that the field of modern evolutionary biology is ignoring the bulk of the journal articles it publishes? Because that would be nonsensical. It seems like your continual push for a "new paradigm" is based on a rather huge strawman argument. Edited November 8, 2012 by Arete 1
jeskill Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Just out of curiosity, this "neo-darwinist" who said that horizontal gene transfer wasn't that important -- what kind of organisms doe he/she study? Is he or she a student or professor or other? 1
darryl88 Posted November 9, 2012 Author Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) It seems like your continual push for a "new paradigm" is based on a rather huge strawman argument. No, its based on the scientific evidence which users on internet forums are not aware about or either ignore. Here is the evidence evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian framework. Eugene Koonin Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475 and Eugene Koonin, Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics, Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034 Writes: In the post-genomic era, all the major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the tree of life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the modern synthesis inherited from Darwin, namely gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable. Equally outdated is the (neo-) Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution; clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection. Koonin also states in the above paper "The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair". Eugene Koonin, in his research paper, titled "Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics", published 12 Feb 2009, says: "Now, 50 years after the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis, evolutionary biology undoubtedly faces a new major challenge and, at the same time, the prospect of a new conceptual breakthrough"....."By contrast, the insistence on adaptation being the primary mode of evolution that is apparent in the Origin, but especially in the Modern Synthesis, became deeply suspicious if not outright obsolete, making room for a new worldview that gives much more prominence to non-adaptive processes"......"Collectively, the developments in evolutionary genomics and systems biology outlined here seem to suggest that, although at present only isolated elements of a new, 'postmodern' synthesis of evolutionary biology are starting to be formulated, such a synthesis is indeed feasible. Moreover, it is likely to assume definitive shape long before Darwin's 250th anniversary" His papers can be read here: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2784144/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2651812/ Michael Rose and Todd Oakley Michael R Rose and Todd H Oakley, in their research paper, titled "The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis" published on 24 November 2007 wrote: "The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century". See their section in the paper titled "Dead parts of the Modern Synthesis" http://www.biology-d...content/2/1/30/ Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb have written many papers, one of which was titled "Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis". According to the paper: This paper presents some of the recent challenges to theModern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominated evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus of the paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the idea that variations that arise during development can beinherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources ofhereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, themechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework forevolutionary biology. Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders Mae Wan Ho and Peter Saunders in their paper Beyond neo-Darwinism an epigenetic approach to evolution write: We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework the natural selection of random mutations is insufficient to account for evolution. The role of natural selection is itself limited: it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new species or for major evolutionary change. The evidence suggests on the one hand that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution; and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519379901917 Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee et al. Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee, Marcus W. Feldman and Jeremy Kendal in their paper titled Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology on niche construction: In spite of its success, Neo-Darwinism is faced with major conceptual barriers to further progress, deriving directly from its metaphysical foundations. Most importantly, neo-Darwinism fails to recognize a fundamental cause of evolutionary change, "niche construction". This failure restricts the generality of evolutionary theory, and introduces inaccuracies. It also hinders the integration of evolutionary biology with neighbouring disciplines, including ecosystem ecology, developmental biology, and the human sciences. Ecology is forced to become a divided discipline, developmental biology is stubbornly difficult to reconcile with evolutionary theory, and the majority of biologists and social scientists are still unhappy with evolutionary accounts of human behaviour. The incorporation of niche construction as both a cause and a product of evolution removes these disciplinary boundaries while greatly generalizing the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3093243/ J. B. Edelmann and M. J. Denton J. B. Edelmann and M. J. Denton write in their "The uniqueness of biological self-organization: challenging the Darwinian paradigm" how the neo-Darwinists have ignored self-organization which is an important factor in evolution. http://mechanism.ucs...zation.2007.pdf It's not only these either, I have another 40 or so all saying similar things. Of certain users online when this information is presented refuse to even look at these scientific papers and just even throw out personal attacks, change the subject or attack the scientists and not even look at this evidence. Edited November 9, 2012 by darryl88
jeskill Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 So you're saying that it's people on internet forums that are anti-HGT, not peer-reviewed authors? I must admit your argument is confusing me. For the record, I love horizontal gene transfer. 1
jp255 Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 How many threads do you intend to start on the same topic darryl88? What is your aim? The majority of the mechanisms you have spoken of are recognised by the biological consensus and, indeed, were developed/discovered by the biological consensus. It is not earthshattering news to learn that evolutionary theory ..... evolves. Why do you think it is? That was amazing anticipation. I also wander what exactly he wants and how this is any different from the other threads. No, its based on the scientific evidence which users on internet forums are not aware about or either ignore certain users online when this information is presented refuse to even look at these scientific papers and just even throw out personal attacks, change the subject or attack the scientists and not even look at this evidence. Why exactly does this bother you so much? Does it surprise you that there are people who maintain their positions, regardless of any counter evidence, on this matter? Are the opinions of people on internet forums representive of the opinions of scientists? 1
Arete Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 It's not only these either, I have another 40 or so all saying similar things. Of certain users online when this information is presented refuse to even look at these scientific papers and just even throw out personal attacks, change the subject or attack the scientists and not even look at this evidence. My point is that a very cursory examination of the scientific literature clearly demonstrates that there is widespread/unequivocal acceptance of the mechanisms you listed in your OP. Crying for a "paradigm shift" because of resistance to concepts, when that resistance is non-existent is a strawman argument. Paradigm shifts in scientific fields don't happen because people on internet forums don't accept scientific evidence. 2
darryl88 Posted November 9, 2012 Author Posted November 9, 2012 (edited) Paradigm shifts in scientific fields don't happen because people on internet forums don't accept scientific evidence. The paradigm shift IS occuring within evolutionary biology at the moment, not only have I been invited to some of these meetings and conferences as a student there is also many recent books and publications out on the subject. Once again you have IGNORED the evidence (see my post koonin et al) explaining the shift beyond neo-Darwinism, this has been happening since 2007 and can be trace back even to the 80s. So yes in REALITY the paradigm has occured and IS occuring as I type this. But no this is not accepted on internet forums, becuase most folk on internet forums are NOT scientists in the field and are not aware about any of the latest events in evo-devo etc, they are not aware of this shift and any SCIENTIFIC PAPER given to them explaining the shift beyond neo-darwinism and they will deny. It is all very sad to see. But yes as another user said, scientists are not forum users, so why am I even wasting my time? Lets leave science to the scientists, if ignorant forum users do not want to be up to date and uphold an ignorant outdated view of evolution then so be it. If you want to learn you know where the papers are and you can even contact these scientists yourself for confirmation or even attend some of their conferences and or lectures. Cheers. Edited November 9, 2012 by darryl88 -3
Arete Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 If you want to learn you know where the papers are and you can even contact these scientists yourself for confirmation or even attend some of their conferences and or lectures. Cheers. Just a tip - if you were at the joint SSE/SSB/ESEB meeting, you might have attended one of those lectures by me and may have even encountered some of my papers it's dangerous to make assumptions about forum user's backgrounds. There simply isn't a "revolution" going on in the field, and no "paradigm shift" to reject the "modern synthesis". You go to the meetings and what you're saying simply isn't happening. The overwhelming attitude of scientists to your "revolution" is a big "Err yeah, we know." The gains in knowledge are incremental and do not reject, but add to previous knowledge. This "Neo-Darwininan" hold out and need for a massive paradigm shift you keep shoving down everyone's throats simply doesn't exist. 2
Ophiolite Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 Define the "biological" consenus. By biological consensus I mean the broad sweep of current thinking followed by the experts in the field. This thinking is expressed in research papers, lectures, text books and arguments in wine bars. And actually most of those mechanisms are denied by the neo-Darwinian synthesis. As has been pointed out by Arete and others, on this thread, on other threads you have started and on other forums where you have presented the same argument: you are mistaken. You want to give the current concepts a new name because they have, in your view, deviated too far from Darwinism and neo-Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis. A new name will not alter the fact that the 'biological consensus' recognises these mechanisms you are so engrossed by. I have been saying this for a long time but users on internet forums only seem to mention genetic drift or natural selection and it is getting very boring seeing this becuase evolution is far more complex than just those mechanisms, why are all the other mechanisms and processes ignored and never mentioned? Can you explain? Yes, I can explain: 1) You should stay in more and actually read what is written. You might find these other mechanisms are discussed from time to time. 2) However, you also need to recognise that a large portion of internet traffic about evolution consists of arguments with creationists. Since many of these do not even understand basic evolutionary theory it is natural that it is the long established, 'simpler' mechanisms that receive emphasis. 2
jeskill Posted November 10, 2012 Posted November 10, 2012 I wholeheartedly agree with #2. I would also add that if you had a burning desire to talk about mechanisms such as HGT, all you have to do is start up a thread. 1
overtone Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 No' date=' its based on the scientific evidence which users on internet forums are not aware about or either ignore. [/quote'] Horizontal gene transfer comes up all the time on internet forums, in the context of GMOs and antibiotic regulation and agribusiness use of various chemicals and gene therapy and so forth and so on. Most of the rest of those concepts you listed also come up, in discussions of intelligence testing, race and ethnicity, organic this and that, disease treatments, extinction rates and causes, where dogs came from, and so forth. All of these discussions, on scientific forums anyway, are dominated by people who think they are arguing from a standard evolutionary perspective, with its roots and base in Darwin's theory. They see no conflict such as you claim. My suspicion is that you think these concepts are being ignored because the exact terms you listed are not always employed, and you don't recognize the concepts themselves.
darryl88 Posted November 13, 2012 Author Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) The below chart proving how many parts of the neo-Darwinian synthesis have been replaced by a more modern synthesis in the 21 century. For a close view of the table and references for this scientific evidence, please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm....84144/table/T1/ From The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? by Prof Eugene Koonin. http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2784144/ The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable. Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection 16, 17. And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit. The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone. What's next? The answer that seems to be suggested by the Darwinian discourse of 2009: a postmodern state not so far a postmodern synthesis. Above all, such a state is characterized by the pluralism of processes and patterns in evolution that defies any straightforward generalization. There are another 100 of so papers saying similar things how evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism since 2007. Only internet users deny this evidence, ignore it and don't even comment on it. In real life scientists are discussing this and working on the new synthesis. Click the table to enlarge: Edited November 13, 2012 by darryl88
Arete Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) The below chart proving how many parts of the neo-Darwinian synthesis have been replaced by a more modern synthesis in the 21 century. Rather than citing the same author over and over - do you want to point where the symposium on the revolutionary new evolutionary synthesis was at the 2012 joint evolution meetings? If it's happening at all these meetings it should have been all over the biggest evolution meeting in the world this year right? http://www.confersen...012/program.htm (Hint: there wasn't one) Edited November 13, 2012 by Arete
darryl88 Posted November 13, 2012 Author Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) Rather than citing the same author over and over Still ignored the papers and the table I see. Speechless on the matter. the symposium on the revolutionary new evolutionary synthesis was at the 2012 joint evolution meetings? Interesting, I have never heard of it, so it must of not had much media coverage but I agree does look like an important event considering the European Society for Evolutionary Biology were there. Do you have a listing of the scientists who spoke at this meeting, and what they were actually discussing? Here is the program for the events: http://www.confersen...012/program.htm This is pretty EMBARRASSING, a live rapper rapping to evolution at one of the events, pointless poster sessions, note also how the last two days of the events were only awards, nothing to do with discussing evolutionary theory. It seems there was also bias at the events: http://sandwalk.blog...ion-ottawa.html Note the event "Next-generation' genomics of parallelism and convergence (SSE); Towards an evolutionary community ecology", "Symposia: The physiological mechanisms that shape life histories (ESEB); Eco-evolutionary dynamics: how ecological and evolutionary process influence one another (CSEE)" would be topics of the extended synthesis, not of orthodox neo-darwinism. So your claim that the 2012 joint evolution meetings contains no element of the extended or new evolutionary synthesis is false. http://www.nature.co...html?s=news_rss The 2008 meeting in Austria to suggest an extended evolutionary synthesis has wide media coverage and even appeared in the Nature Journal of Science. http://rationalwiki....onary_synthesis The meeting consisted of: John Beatty (University of British Columbia)<li>Werner Callebaut (University of Hasselt) <li>Sergey Gavrilets (University of Tennessee)<li>Eva Jablonka (Tel Aviv University)<li>David Jablonski (University of Chicago)<li>Marc Kirschner (Harvard University)<li>Alan Love (University of Minnesota)<li>Gerd B. Müller (University of Vienna)<li>Stuart Newman (New York Medical College)<li>John Odling-Smee (Oxford University)<li>Massimo Pigliucci (Stony Brook University)<li>Michael Purugganan (New York University)<li>Eörs Szathmáry (Collegium Budapest)<li>Günter P. Wagner (Yale University)<li>David Sloan Wilson (Binghamton University)<li>Greg Wray (Duke University). No rapping or sillyness, every meeting at the Altenberg was about how our knowledge has expanded since the original foundations of neo-Darwinism. Indeed things like Phenotypic plasticity, genetic assimilation, niche contruction and epigenetic Inheritance have now all proven to be a reality. Yet you deny these mechanisms? Science is not static you know. Edited November 13, 2012 by darryl88
Arete Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 Still ignored the papers and the table I see. Speechless on the matter. No. I've addressed them previously more than one of your many threads on the subject. I don't feel like repeating myself. Interesting, I have never heard of it, so it must of not had much media coverage but I agree does look like an important event considering the European Society for Evolutionary Biology were there. Do you have a listing of the scientists who spoke at this meeting, and what they were actually discussing? It's the largest annual meeting of evolutionary biologists in the world. It's the joint meeting of the Society for the Study of Evolution (Evolution), the Society of Systematic Biologists (Systematic Biology) and American Society of Naturalists (American Naturalist) this year the European Society of Evolutionary Biology (Journal of Evolutionary Biology) and the Canadian Society of Ecology and Evolution. There were over 3000 attendees. Plenaries were by Scott Edwards, Spencer Barrett, Stevan Arnold, David Mindell and Adam Eyre-Walker. I personally spoke about a phenotypic plasticity paper I recently had in JEB. I'm rather shocked that as an EEB student you've not heard of the meeting. This is pretty EMBARRASSING, a live rapper rapping to evolution at one of the events, pointless poster sessions, note also how the last two days of the events were only awards, nothing to do with discussing evolutionary theory. Sorry you found the 9pm entertainment choice embarrassing. I'm again shocked that you think poster session are "pointless" Every major conference in Every discipline has them. I'm currently at the Tropical Medicine meeting and there are 4 poster sessions for graduate students predominately to present their work. It seems there was also bias at the events: http://sandwalk.blog...ion-ottawa.html Do you even read what you post? there's a BIAS towards studying genomic regions with a known evolutionary function - to quote Joe Felsenstein in your own link : " But proving that the fitness differences are small enough to be neutral is incredibly hard, so that the matter will still be in doubt even if no fitness differences are detected. Short summary: evolution can do an experiment much bigger and much longer than we can." Note the event "Next-generation' genomics of parallelism and convergence (SSE); Towards an evolutionary community ecology", "Symposia: The physiological mechanisms that shape life histories (ESEB); Eco-evolutionary dynamics: how ecological and evolutionary process influence one another (CSEE)" would be topics of the extended synthesis, not of orthodox neo-darwinism. So your claim that the 2012 joint evolution meetings contains no element of the extended or new evolutionary synthesis is false. I'm repeating myself - there is widespread acknowledgement that these mechanisms exist. I myself spoke at this particular meeting on phenotypic plasticity. The reason your position is a strawman argument is that by and large, evolutionary biologists don't see the need for a "new paradigm" to accept the role of these mechanisms in evolution. The 2008 meeting in Austria to suggest an extended evolutionary synthesis has wide media coverage and even appeared in the Nature Journal of Science. There's no point in embarking on a "My meeting was better than your meeting" debate, although you seem to be trying to suggest it. The joint Evolution meetings is again, the largest Evolutionary Biology meeting in the world. Here's a link to evolution 2013 http://www.evolutionmeeting.org Yet you deny these mechanisms? Science is not static you know. No I don't. Suggesting that me not accepting your "revolution" meaning I don't believe in HGT or phenotypic plasticity is the very heart of why you have a strawman argument. 5
jeskill Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Professor Spencer Barrett? Awesome. He co-taught the first year evo/eco course I took waaaay back when I was an undergrad. I'm beginning to think darryl88 is a troll.
Ophiolite Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Arete, as you are no doubt aware the forum software only allows one to award a single positive 'like'. Were that not the case I would have flooded your post #25 with them. You have systematically dismantled the nonsense that darryl has been posting in multiple threads and forums, and done so surgically and comprehensively. You have demonstrated him to be the troll that jeskill suspects. Thank you. I suggest there is nothing more to be said and that ignoring future, let's be kind, misinterpretations of reality by darryl would be the best approach. 1
Arete Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Professor Spencer Barrett? Awesome. He co-taught the first year evo/eco course I took waaaay back when I was an undergrad. Yes - the one and only. I hope you liked the course he's an incredibly admirable biologist. Arete, as you are no doubt aware the forum software only allows one to award a single positive 'like'. Were that not the case I would have flooded your post #25 with them. You have systematically dismantled the nonsense that darryl has been posting in multiple threads and forums, and done so surgically and comprehensively. You have demonstrated him to be the troll that jeskill suspects. Thank you. I suggest there is nothing more to be said and that ignoring future, let's be kind, misinterpretations of reality by darryl would be the best approach. Thanks - very flattering. I think the take home here is that the advent of all these mechanisms has been cumulative, rather than revolutionary. Horizontal gene transfer, sympatric speciation and so forth don't replace allopatric stochastic diversification, they are additional to that mechanism. Sure, they change the way we view evolution and increase our understanding, but they are not replacing what we already know. They are incrementally adding to it. This is why it's not a "revolution" and "new paradigm". If you have to make out that other scientists don't recognize things that they actually study and publish on - as in my humble, relatively early career case, in order to make your point seem pertinent, then you don't really have a point.
darryl88 Posted November 14, 2012 Author Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) evolutionary biologists don't see the need for a "new paradigm" to accept the role of these mechanisms in evolution. There is no possible way phenotypic plasticity, niche construction, epigenetics, endosymbiosis etc etc can fit into the "neo-Darwinian" framework without atleast a serious expansion or major revisionism, these mechanisms are about as far away from "Darwinism" as you can get. Note how orthodox neo-Darwinians such as Jerry Coyne have denied epigenetics and Niche construction etc etc. What pisses me off is the amount of loons on the internet thinking anything and everything can fit into "neo-Darwinism", that is the real straw man argument, no matter what is presented you will still say it is somehow compatible with orthodox Darwinism, sorry but that is not the case. Read the papers that I have cited. http://jeb.biologist...09/12/2362.full A paper explaining how Phenotypic plasticity and evolution by genetic assimilation was denied by the neo-Darwinists and shows how these mechanisms can be put into the synthesis via an expansion. "No. I've addressed them previously more than one of your many threads on the subject. I don't feel like repeating myself." There is no evidence you have read any of the papers I have cited, you have not been able to comment on a single one of them. You are the reason evolution makes so little progress thesedays on the internet you are rejecting any evidence based on your personal beliefs, what you are doing is no different than what the creationists do. This is anti-scientific. If you want to make a case back up your claims with scientific peer-reviews. I have over 100 SCIENTIFIC papers proving that evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism due to discovery of many of these new mechanisms which has made many tenets of the old synthesis obsolete. The burden is on you guys now to show me your scientific papers. "You have systematically dismantled the nonsense that darryl has been posting in multiple threads and forums, and done so surgically and comprehensively. You have demonstrated him to be the troll that jeskill suspects. Thank you. I suggest there is nothing more to be said and that ignoring future, let's be kind, misinterpretations of reality by darryl would be the best approach." He has not dismantled anything. He has like yourself has ignored every scientific paper presented and offered nothing but personal opinion. If you guys are not trolling then post me scientific papers to back up your claims. Do you even read journals? the problem is the internet when it comes to evolution is filled with old farts, these old dudes have no clue what is actually new in evolution and about the new synthesis. you have been given 100% scientific proof via scientific papers showing how evolution has moved beyond neodarwinism, only ignorance denies these facts. Edited November 14, 2012 by darryl88
Ronald Hyde Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Nothing in Nature works by 'paradigms', everything works by mechanisms. That is the reason the paradigm of neodarwinism is irrelevant, it never was relevant to begin with. The best and easiest way to tell if a theory is 'hokey' is if it fails to supply a mechanism or mechanisms.
jeskill Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) hmmmm. "loons" "old farts" "what you are doing is no different than what creationists do". That sounds pretty troll-ish to me, darryl88. Hint: if you want to be taken seriously, you should consider not calling people names, or making assumptions about the other forum members. After all, we all know what happens when we assume .... This whole hubabaloo you're trying to create kind of reminds me of a story a former prof told about the "classification wars" taxonomists used to get into. It was basically all over how best to create clades. Apparently it devolved into fisticuffs at one conference, I kid you not. People always get so riled up about semantics/taxonomy/general word definitions in science. Probably because it's hard to debate a p-value, but easy to debate whether or not we should allow paraphyly in a tree (or HGT into the modern synthesis, as it may be.) Edited November 14, 2012 by jeskill 1
zapatos Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 There are another 100 of so papers saying similar things how evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism since 2007. Only internet users deny this evidence, ignore it and don't even comment on it. In real life scientists are discussing this and working on the new synthesis. I don't know what part of the world you are from, but pretty much every scientist I have ever met or heard of is an internet user. 3
Recommended Posts