Differing Models on the Origin of Higher Taxa

[Reality Check]

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.

Wrong: Point 1 in the OP lies, is unclear and undeniably nothing with what "NeoDarwinism" says.

The Modern evolutionary synthesis never "posits sequential speciation".
​

You are raising a straw man by misrepresenting what the theory of evolution is about in many ways

1. Using a term "sequential speciation" which is not used in the theory Neo-Darwinism except as a specific type of speciation.
2. Using the term "posits". Posit means to create a postulate or axiom.
   That is what happens in mathematics.
   Science does not do this. Scientists start with the evidence and create hypotheses.
3. The theory of evolution does not stop at micro-evolution. Micro/macro evolution are merely convenient labels for separating evolution into areas of interest.
   A change in the frequency of alleles is necessarily the "origin of higher taxa", i.e. speciation in Neo-Darwinism since there is no other mechanism in the theory to create species.

But you do get it right that in Neo-Darwindism: "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."

 

[PixyMisa]

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

No, sorry, as has been shown again and again, your claims as to what evolutionary theory says are almost invariably false. Occasionally you get something right, but a clock running backwards is right four times a day.

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.

As I pointed out before, this is either blatant dishonesty or inexcusable ignorance. There is no off switch for genetic change. There is no point at which DNA says "no more!" And all evolutionary theory requires to explain the development of the higher taxa is for that impossible, non-existent mechanism to not exist, which it conveniently doesn't.

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?

Speciation isn't sequential. This is not something that other's can't grasp, it's something that isn't real.

 

[randman]

Name and quote a specific statement of mine, not something you fabricated and claimed I said, that mischaracterized what mainstream evo theory says.

 

[randman]

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.

Show where this is any mistake in the above description except you guys don't like using the word "sequential" before speciation, but clearly species are said to evolve into species and so on to produce the species today under ND.

 

[Wowbagger]

Do you folks mind if we skip the semantics arguments? Who cares if randman uses the word "evo" or "neo-darwinism" or whatever other words he uses. There are more important points to make, in how he is factually wrong.

Yes, his lack of proper terminology is indicative of one who does not understand the subject of which he is speaking, very much. But, saying so is attacking a mere symptom of the larger problem: Try to demonstrate to him that his understanding of evolution science could use some improvement!

If we succeed, improvements to his vocabulary will follow on their own.

Thank you.

 

[Paulhoff]

Well, the word "darwinism" is BS to begin with, that only is used by those that don't understand evolution. In fact, Darwin didn't want to use the word "evolution", but like BIG-BANG, the word stuck.

Paul

 

[Cavemonster]

Do you folks mind if we skip the semantics arguments? Who cares if randman uses the word "evo" or "neo-darwinism" or whatever other words he uses. There are more important points to make, in how he is factually wrong.

Yes, his lack of proper terminology is indicative of one who does not understand the subject of which he is speaking, very much. But, saying so is attacking a mere symptom of the larger problem: Demonstrate to him that his understanding of evolution science could use some improvement!

If we succeed, improvements to his vocabulary will follow on their own.

Thank you.

I actually disagree. His lack of proper terminology isn't the result of ignorance, it is the result of dishonesty and disregard for clarity, truth and communication.

I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but he's clearly shown that he has no interest in honesty or clarity.

The debate over evolution in broad terms is not a problem of failure to understand, or ignorance. The problem is not that people haven't seen the evidence, or that it hasn't been explained to them clearly, the issue is cultural and not informational.

I don't think he's bound to change on that point either, but if I could choose between the two battles, between acceptance of the facts of evolution, and acceptance of basic critical thinking and communication, I'll choose the latter every time. The no one will ever change their mind about evolution ( at least not in a way I care about) until they learn how to listen and communicate honestly, and clearly.

 

[Wowbagger]

Well, the word "darwinism" is BS to begin with, that only is used by those that don't understand evolution. In fact, Darwin didn't want to use the word "evolution", but like BIG-BANG, the word stuck.

With all due respect, that has little to do with the real issues presented in this thread.

If someone wants to start a new one specifically about proper use of terminology in the field of biology, they are certainly welcome to.

His lack of proper terminology isn't the result of ignorance, it is the result of dishonesty and disregard for clarity, truth and communication.

Perhaps. But, even then, there are still better ways to address the situation than "you are using that word wrong!"

This is a general point, and one not aimed at only those we are presently conversing with.

 

[randman]

Well, the word "darwinism" is BS to begin with, that only is used by those that don't understand evolution. In fact, Darwin didn't want to use the word "evolution", but like BIG-BANG, the word stuck.

Paul

Then why do scientists use the term even in peer-reviewed papers published by respected journals?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Then why do scientists use the term even in peer-reviewed papers published by respected journals?

Probably to distinguish Darwin's ideas from the modern synthesis. The article at wikipedia is accurate on this question.

 

[randman]

Probably to distinguish Darwin's ideas from the modern synthesis. The article at wikipedia is accurate on this question.

No. NeoDarwinism is the Modern Synthesis. Another term you should know is selectionism.

Note this paper doesn't even bother with the Neo part but just shortens it to Darwinian. My language of Neo Darwinism or Darwinian here is just the normal language used in peer-reviewed papers.

Charles Darwin proposed that evolution occurs primarily by natural selection, but this view has been controversial from the beginning. Two of the major opposing views have been mutationism and neutralism. Early molecular studies suggested that most amino acid substitutions in proteins are neutral or nearly neutral and the functional change of proteins occurs by a few key amino acid substitutions. This suggestion generated an intense controversy over selectionism and neutralism. This controversy is partially caused by Kimura's definition of neutrality, which was too strict If we define neutral mutations as the mutations that do not change the function of gene products appreciably, many controversies disappear because slightly deleterious and slightly advantageous mutations are engulfed by neutral mutations. The ratio of the rate of nonsynonymous nucleotide substitution to that of synonymous substitution is a useful quantity to study positive Darwinian selection operating at highly variable genetic loci, but it does not necessarily detect adaptively important codons. P

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/12/2318.short

Neutralism here has a specific meaning which contrasts with Darwinian mechanisms. The journal and author know Darwin did not know about genes. But they still use Darwinian referring to the standard or used to be standard way of conceiving evolution taking place with it's heavy emphasis on natural selection.

 

[randman]

worth noting

The modern evolutionary synthesis is a union of ideas from several biological specialties which provides a widely accepted account of evolution. It is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, millennium synthesis and the neo-darwinian synthesis.

The synthesis reflects the current overwhelming consensus.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

 

[Cavemonster]

worth noting

It is also referred to as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, millennium synthesis and the neo-darwinian synthesis.

Citation for this claim?

 

[randman]

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

nope. it does

 

[randman]

Citation for this claim?

already showed peer-reviewed papers using this terminology....Gould and Dawkins do....it's a common term.....what more do you want

 

[Reality Check]

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.

You are still mistaken.
Sequential speciation has an existing definition. This definition is a specific type of speciation. It cannot be applied to all speciation. That is whay is is wrong to use it in the definition of neo-Darwinism.

The proper term to use is "speciation".

In addition the word sequential has a specific meaning, i.e. a series of things that happen one after another. There is no reason why multiple species cannot split off "at the same time", e.g. if there are multiple environments providing the selection.

 

[Reality Check]

worth noting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

Worth noting why?
It seems trivial to me - different people call it different things.

 

[Reality Check]

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

nope. it does

You saying "nope" does not meant anything other than you are ignorant of (or ignoring) the evidence.
The evidence was listed in Wowbanger's post.

I am not a biologist but I would say ring species are strong evidence of micro summing into macro.

 

[PixyMisa]

nope. it does

[citation needed]

Seriously, randman. You have one mutation. Then you get another. Then you get another. At what point is this supposed to stop, and what, and what is your evidence for this?

Do mutations happen? Yes, this is indisputable.

Does speciation happen? Yes, while there are varying scientific definitions for the term species, we have observed multiple speciation events for whichever of those definitions you prefer.

So, where's the problem? Where exactly does DNA say "Stop, no more!"? What is the mechanism for this? And how do you know this? What's the evidence?

 

[sphenisc]

...If someone wants to start a new one specifically about proper use of terminology in the field of biology, they are certainly welcome to.

Perhaps. But, even then, there are still better ways to address the situation than "you are using that word wrong!"...

That was the originally purpose of this thread. I think it's unlikely a new one would be any more constructive than this one.