Differing Models on the Origin of Higher Taxa

[randman]

Define neodarwinism as a subset of evolutionary theory that has coherency or is used by evolutionary biologists.

Neodarwinism is not a subset of evolutionary theory used by evolutionay biologists. It is the theory you call "evolution." It's better to use ND here because evolution as common descent is used by other theories, and evolution as microevolution is also part of creationism. NeoDarwinism is another term for the Modern Synthesis, which is standard, basic evo theory.

It's hard to discuss the merits of that theory with someone like yourself if they do not grasp even the most basic concept of the theory which is sequential speciation is the process that evolved the higher taxa.

When you do get a handle on that, we discuss whether it fits the facts or not.

Goggle NeoDarwinism. There is a wiki page for it as well numerous references. It's the general accepted term for modern evolutionary theory aka the Modern Synthesis.

 

[Halfcentaur]

So you admit speciation is the process of evolving the higher taxa or not?

Yes or no will do, please.

WHy do you have such a dishonest and manipulative style of debate? It's because instead of being interested in if you're wrong, you're only interested in tactically cornering your opposition to make them admit you are right.

And yet here you are, championing a fringe theory you're unable to explain how the entire global modern world considers an amusing pseudoscience based on superstition. How is it the world can set aside it's differences to agree on being so wrong on something you claim the evidence makes evident?

You'd think with all the rivalries, something that is evident and true would be seized upon and actually known.

But no, you have to be a Christian to see the truths you claim the evidence demonstrates. You have to be special, you can't just be reasonable and open to logic and evidence.

Your religious construct is designed to reward you when you are doubted. Your sole agenda really then is to take on people who will doubt you. Your superstition has been recognized for what it is in a court of law many times now, in many nations, and this only fuels your agenda. Doubt is all you are after here. You're psychologically addicted to it.

 

[randman]

You still haven't defined what you mean when you ask this. From anyone else I'd take it as the entirely trivial statement that all life has evolved from one common ancestor.

But you seem to be implying that an entire species as a whole evolves through a specific series of sequential states.

What do you mean when you say "sequential speciation"?

ETA:

More or less, except that a species doesn't evolve into another, a specific population of that species evolves.

How have I not defined it? Every species alive today is said to have evolved from a prior species according to evos, and every species that evolved the species today is said to have evolved from a prior species before that and so on all the way back to a hypothetical common ancestor of all of life.

That's basic evo theory. The fact it sounds strange to you is quite telling.

 

[randman]

And yet here you are, championing a fringe theory

So sequential speciation is a fringe theory and not basic evolutionary theory?

Interesting that you'd think that.

 

[ehcks]

Neodarwinism is not a subset of evolutionary theory used by evolutionay biologists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6YfJZ9hxLQ
WRONG, sir.


http://www.jstor.org/pss/192502
"...the term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory is wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895 as a designation of Weismann's theory."

 

[marplots]

From marplots: Side note: Is there some way to limit the length on these? I feel like we are reaching the boundaries of the medium.

Wowbagger: It's called pithiness.

That had me busting a gut with laughter.

We can focus on a particular problem that relates to the OP. Is there a way to objectively talk about design and so flesh out ID? It seems to be the central problem and worth thinking about.

We know, for instance, that design can mimic nature and adopt (in fact, must adopt) natural laws. We could abstract the argument to finding some artifact (proposed artifact, that's what we want to show) on another planet. Without assuming beforehand a natural or artificial cause, is there a way to determine this beyond the rather lightweight statement, "It looks designed to me?"

I'm asking whether you think ID could have substance or if the notion of objective measurement is impossible from the start.

Also, full disclosure -- I am expected to discuss ID with a degreed biologist (a baptist creationist) and am exploring these issues from what I assume will be his point of view, while I will be on the atheist/materialist side.

 

[ehcks]

How have I not defined it? Every species alive today is said to have evolved from a prior species according to evos, and every species that evolved the species today is said to have evolved from a prior species before that and so on all the way back to a hypothetical common ancestor of all of life.

That's basic evo theory. The fact it sounds strange to you is quite telling.

Except you're still wrong. A species does not evolve into another species. A species as a whole does not change. A group of a species can evolve to increase their viability, but the original species is likely still there when this happens.

A species does not sequentially evolve through a series of different forms.

 

[Halfcentaur]

So sequential speciation is a fringe theory and not basic evolutionary theory?

Interesting that you'd think that.

Are you so deceitful you would for a moment even attempt to imply I said that? Your fringe theory is intelligent design, and you're well aware of my meaning somewhere down there amongst your religious shell. Now you're just being a petty liar. Is all you have in your bag of tricks baited semantic traps? Your cherry picked arguments have no effect on your naked foundation of superstition.

Your pleasure center just got another squirt. You're addicted to being doubted and challenged, that's why you're here for a fourth day in a row spending hours of effort in a futile attempt to take on the entire international educated modern world in the form of a small forum of skeptics and scientists.

 

[Paulhoff]

randman wants and needs a so-called god, end of story.

Paul

 

[Tatyana]

So you admit speciation is the process of evolving the higher taxa or not?

Yes or no will do, please.

No, it is one of the methods of forming new species.

It isn't the only one.

Even if I said yes or no, and you win the argument based on the principles of argument alone, it doesn't make you right about anything about evolution.

I really don't think you know what you are talking about, but blinding people with ******** and scientific terms.

 

[Tatyana]

How have I not defined it? Every species alive today is said to have evolved from a prior species according to evos, and every species that evolved the species today is said to have evolved from a prior species before that and so on all the way back to a hypothetical common ancestor of all of life.

That's basic evo theory. The fact it sounds strange to you is quite telling.

You are about 50-100 years behind the science.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html

 

[Halfcentaur]

Except you're still wrong. A species does not evolve into another species. A species as a whole does not change. A group of a species can evolve to increase their viability, but the original species is likely still there when this happens.

A species does not sequentially evolve through a series of different forms.

Which is why so often people who don't understand evolution don't understand why there are still monkeys if more specialized monkeys like apes (including humans) evolved from them.

It's sort of like asking why are there still wolves if we bred dogs from wolves.

 

[randman]

You are about 50-100 years behind the science.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html

Nope. I am not. You just don't grasp what Neodarwinism and evolution is apparently.

You guys keep saying stuff like there is more to evolution, and I say, yep, but all of that still involves sequential speciation.

No species according to NeoDarwinists, is here without evolving from some species before that. Every species is said to be explained by common descent.

 

[randman]

Your link actually makes some of the same arguments I've been telling you guys of.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that evolution has produced more complex life-forms over the past four billion years. The tough question is: why? It is usually simply assumed to be the result of natural selection, but recently a few biologists studying our own bizarre and bloated genomes have challenged this idea.

Rather than being driven by selection, they propose that complexity initially arises when selection is weak or absent. How could this be?

Exactly, the NeoDarwinian paradigm doesn't explain everything. This was predicted by critics of ND, and now we see numerous lines of research such as epigenetics and all sorts of things showing where ND is incorrect or not complete.

But it's worth noting, most evos have yet to switch to something as radical as saltionism. They still hold to sequential speciation but are beginning to realize natural selection is not the magic wand they insisted on for so many decades.

 

[Tatyana]

No, it is one of the methods of forming new species.

It isn't the only one.

Even if I said yes or no, and you win the argument based on the principles of argument alone, it doesn't make you right about anything about evolution.

I really don't think you know what you are talking about, but blinding people with ******** and scientific terms.

Nope. I am not. You just don't grasp what Neodarwinism and evolution is apparently.

You guys keep saying stuff like there is more to evolution, and I say, yep, but all of that still involves sequential speciation.

No species according to NeoDarwinists, is here without evolving from some species before that. Every species is said to be explained by common descent.

Link me to a definition of sequential speciation on the inter net please.

Preferably, on a biological dictionary.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Every species is said to be explained by common descent.

Yep. Now why do you keep tacking all your baggage on to that?

But it's worth noting, most evos have yet to switch to something as radical as saltionism. They still hold to sequential speciation but are beginning to realize natural selection is not the magic wand they insisted on for so many decades.

How would saltationism be different from what you're calling sequential speciation?

BTW get a spell checker. If you want to make the "evos" look bad you should at least spell the basic words correctly.

 

[Soapy Sam]

That's right. So you can label biota any way you want but it doesn't change because of it.

Regardless, ND posits that all of life evolved from a common ancestor via sequential evolving of populations into new and different populations resulting in the organisms classified as higher taxa.

Right?

Or you disagree? If so, are you saying ND does not explain the origin of these groupings of higher taxa?

Not at all. Just pointing out what you already know- the map ain't the territory.

 

[randman]

Guess who said this (without googling it).

As you'll see ..., both types of transitions often result in a new "higher taxon" (a new genus, family, order, etc.) from a species belonging to a different, older taxon. There is nothing magical about this. The first members of the new group are not bizarre, chimeric animals; they are simply a new, slightly different species, barely different from the parent species. Eventually they give rise to a more different species, which in turn gives rise to a still more different species, and so on, until the descendents are radically different from the original parent stock.

So sequential speciation is how evos think the higher tax evolved.

 

[Reality Check]

...
So sequential speciation is how evos think the higher tax evolved.

No - that is how evolutionary biologists think that all species and thus taxa evolve (note the present tense).
That is just speciation.
The "sequential" is redundant in general. Before the speciation event (e.g. the evolution of nylon eating bacteria), there is one species. After the speciation there are 2 species - a "before event" species and an "after event" species.
Then each of the species can also evolve and produce more species. And each of these species can evolve and produce even more species. Etc.

But there are contexts in which there is "sequential" speciation defined, e.g. where the evolution of a species opens up niches that allow new species to evolve. See for example Sequential speciation and the diversity of parasitic insects (a PDF).

 

[randman]

No - that is how evolutionary biologists think that all species and thus taxa evolve (note the present tense).
That is just speciation.
The "sequential" is redundant in general. Before the speciation event (e.g. the evolution of nylon eating bacteria), there is one species. After the speciation there are 2 species - a "before event" species and an "after event" species.
Then each of the species can also evolve and produce more species. And each of these species can evolve and produce even more species. Etc.

But there are contexts in which there is "sequential" speciation defined, e.g. where the evolution of a species opens up niches that allow new species to evolve. See for example Sequential speciation and the diversity of parasitic insects (a PDF).

Note the bolded part. You are agreeing with me that evos (Neodarwinists) posit sequential speciation is how the higher taxa evolve and yet evos here insisted that was a lie.

One reason I use the term "evos" is there are biologists that don't think this is correct. Some are saltationists. Some are saltationists that are IDers. Some are IDers and creationists that don't even accept common descent.