Differing Models on the Origin of Higher Taxa

[RecoveringYuppy]

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.

Nobody seems to agree that there is anything sequential about this. Speciation is happening in parallel in multiple lines.

Why not use normal terminology?

 

[Tatyana]

Nobody seems to agree that there is anything sequential about this. Speciation is happening in parallel in multiple lines.

Why not use normal terminology?

Exactly.

There isn't a 'sequential speciation' in any biological dictionary.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Except you haven't a source for your claim, except yourself.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

That is wrong, randman. I am saying that you do not know what sequential speciation is.
Read my post:

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.

Read the bolded part.
IOW: There is a term called "sequential " or "cascaded" speciation that is used in specific contexts. See for example Sequential speciation and the diversity of parasitic insects (PDF). This is not general usage.

It displays ignorance to insist that this term is a fundamental part of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory.

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.

Yes - there are cranks in all fields of science.
But that is not a reason to use the term "evos. That is just a nonsense word. The proper term would be evolutionists.

 

[randman]

Sequentual speciation or put it another way, monophyletic gradualism, is evolutionary theory whether you guys want to admit it or not and is spelled out clearly in the OP and later.

You guys were wrong.

 

[randman]

This is Point 1 in the OP. It's true, clear and undeniably what ND aka "evolution" says. You guys just didn't have a basic concept of what evo theory is.

1. The dominant theory of evolution is the Modern Synthesis also commonly referred to as NeoDarwinism. I have typically abbreviated this to Darwinism and explained why, but most here seem to insist on just calling it "evolution" despite evolution being defined as a microevolutionary process involving the change in the frequency of alleles. Of course then, a mere change in the frequency of alleles is not necessarily the origin of higher taxa, and so working with that label does not address the topic at hand.

Whatever one wants to call it (I shall use ND for brevity's sake), ND posits sequential speciation however one wants to define species as the process that occurs evolving the higher taxa. One species evolves into another and then another and so forth until you have different genera, different families and so forth. However one wants to describe the process is besides the point. There is a clear process envisioned of small genetic changes adding up over time in populations to produce new species, genera, families and so forth. We can get into that in more depth later.

 

[Halfcentaur]

You guys just didn't have a basic concept of what evo theory is.

Then why are you here for a fourth day in a row spending hours a day to debate the subject with us "guys"?

 

[randman]

Then why are you here for a fourth day in a row spending hours a day to debate the subject with us "guys"?

Hope to find someone educated.....may be an unwise effort even one or two are familiar with the debate.

 

[PixyMisa]

So, randman, everyone is wrong about evolution except you? All the biologists who study it and put it to practical use, don't understand it? And the new crops and antibiotics produced by applying that knowledge don't actually exist?

 

[randman]

So, randman, everyone is wrong about evolution except you? All the biologists who study it and put it to practical use, don't understand it? And the new crops and antibiotics produced by applying that knowledge don't actually exist?

Actually I have not disagree with mainstream science on what evo theory is. That's what you guys are doing.

Now, I do believe NeoDarwinism cannot explain macroevolution and have for a long time and am glad to see more and more biologists beginning to take a similar stance and study other approaches.

But you really likely have no idea what I am talking about. If you couldn't grasp sequential speciation, how are you going to get a handle on the mechanisms for it?

 

[Cavemonster]

Randman,
Do you know what sequential speciation means?

It is used by biologists to describe the way in which new species form an environmental change which serves as the impetus for new species to evolve in response, for instance parasites evolve to take advantage of new host plants.

http://www.biology.uiowa.edu/forbes/FederForbes2010EcoEnt.pdf
http://globes.nd.edu/reulist2011.shtml

Your usage of the term is entirely incorrect.

 

[Wowbagger]

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

If, hypothetically speaking, it happens to not be impossible from the start, you wouldn't know that from the stance of current Intelligent Design advocates. They have so far wasted all of their time with assertions, denials, analogies, semantics tricks, etc.

If I.D. is going to transform into a real science, they are going to need some seriously higher-quality researchers.

If I.D. turns out to be real, (and I honestly can't say its impossible, though I will say it is extremely unlikely)... it will change the world forever! Far more dramatically than anything else ever done in science!
Think about the impact knowledge of our Design would have on medical research and species conservation!! It boggles the mind!!

(So, what are they waiting for?!)

Now, I do believe NeoDarwinism cannot explain macroevolution

We know that "macroevolution" is really the sum of lots of "microevolutions" over time. We can see this happening in computer simulations. But, if you're not going to buy those, we can collect other evidence to support the idea, too.

One example, in the wild, finds mosquitoes evolving new features to parasitize rats since the opening of the London Underground:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito


We also know macroevolution works within artificial selection. This example about how wild cabbage has been turned into many different vegetables we know today:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_30
What would make it impossible for nature to do the same sort of thing, but at a slower rate?

Macroevolutionary thinking seems to be "correct enough" to save the endangered Kakapo: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060401_kakapo

Further reading:
Obseved instances of Speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Evidence collected that confirms Macroevolution models: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Here is a summary of the issue:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

Can you refute any of the scientific findings in those links?

If Intelligent Design is supposed to be a superior science, then what new findings could it add to this discussion?

 

[randman]

Randman,
Do you know what sequential speciation means?

It is used by biologists to describe the way in which new species form an environmental change which serves as the impetus for new species to evolve in response, for instance parasites evolve to take advantage of new host plants.

http://www.biology.uiowa.edu/forbes/FederForbes2010EcoEnt.pdf
http://globes.nd.edu/reulist2011.shtml

Your usage of the term is entirely incorrect.

I explicitly defined "sequential speciation" as species evolving more species evolving more species....should have been abundantly clear. Sequential here is just saying that all species today evolved from species before them and so forth back to a common ancestor according to Neodarwinists.

In other words, it's not saltationist (in context of this debate that should be clear).

 

[Cavemonster]

I explicitly defined "sequential speciation" as species evolving more species evolving more species....should have been abundantly clear. Sequential here is just saying that all species today evolved from species before them and so forth back to a common ancestor according to Neodarwinists.

In other words, it's not saltationist (in context of this debate that should be clear).

You don't get to define biological terms. Especially when they're already taken.

 

[randman]

We know that "macroevolution" is really the sum of lots of "microevolutions" over time. We can see this happening in computer simulations.

Correction. You believe that. You don't know that. Moreover, a computer simulation runs via a program from an intelligent designer.

One example, in the wild, finds mosquitoes evolving new features to parasitize rats since the opening of the London Underground:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...round_mosquito

So what? Means absolutely nothing. I can show you people that walk, and hey, they run, trot, skip and can even crawl and roll around on the earth. None of that is evidence man walked to the moon.

 

[randman]

You don't get to define biological terms. Especially when they're already taken.

Really? Maybe you guys should quit using "evolution" then and start referring to either Neodarwinism or the Modern Synthesis.

 

[Cavemonster]

Really? Maybe you guys should quit using "evolution" then and start referring to either Neodarwinism or the Modern Synthesis.

Your weird insistence on the term neodarwinism has been addressed.

So are you arguing that in a discussion of evolution, it is reasonable for you to coin an idiosyncratic phrase completely divorced from actual usage, and insist that it's central to evolutionary theory?

Aside from the science, can you really not see the problem in this from the communication perspective?

 

[randman]

Your weird insistence on the term neodarwinism has been addressed.

Neodarwinism is what the modern theory is. "Evolution" means a lot of things. I can evolve to become a better human being, for example.

Neodarwinism is quite specific.

 

[Cavemonster]

Neodarwinism is what the modern theory is. "Evolution" means a lot of things. I can evolve to become a better human being, for example.

Neodarwinism is quite specific.

Yes, it was the term for a specific, and important past incarnation of evolutionary theory.

We've been over this.

Remember your google search where the vast majority of the results were creationist/id sites? Dictionaries use the term, but the only uses by scientists in the top results are Dawkins giving a lecture on the history of evolutionary theory, and one use by Gould, again, referring to a specific version of synthesis, a version that is not currently held.

Here's Gould on neo-darwinism.
http://www.economist.com/node/1143240

The wikipedia page citation that the term is used today leads to this.

Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name.

 

[Wowbagger]

You believe that. You don't know that.

We know that macroevolution is "correct enough" to help us solve real world scientific problems.

We know that macroevolution is "correct enough" to launch new discoveries that yield new empirical knowledge.

We know the idea of "micros" summing up to "macros" does not contradict any evidence uncovered, so far.

We also know that I.D. adds nothing to the discussion.

If what I have is a mere "belief", it is certainly much more reliable than your own.

We can not rely on your word about macroevolution. It contributes nothing to the productivity of science. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

Moreover, a computer simulation runs via a program from an intelligent designer.

Granted. But...

1. The results of the computer's findings are, in the end, not what intelligent designers designed. They are what the computer designed, and sometimes they surprise the very scientists who wrote the programs.

2. The findings can be applied to field research. The computer can predict a better idea of what to look for, in the wild. And, we can see how closely the data matches. You can't do that with I.D.

3. As I said, computer sims are not the strongest evidence, anyway. We do have physical evidence for that.

So what? Means absolutely nothing. I can show you people that walk, and hey, they run, trot, skip and can even crawl and roll around on the earth. None of that is evidence man walked to the moon.

It helps build the a case for macroevolution. It does not build one for I.D.