Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Dancing David]

You are making my point as well. We do not seem to have another mechanism. But simply because we do not, doesn't mean we should employ this bogus one, the conventionally proffered one. It is as though a terrible answer, a terrible explanation, a terrible mechanism, is viewed as better than no answer/explanation/mechanism at all. I do not agree. Let's toss that nonsense when it does not seem to apply, and simply admit that this is way way way way more complicated and difficult to understand than had previously been imagined. Indeed, it may be beyond the ken of human understanding to know how it is that we came to be, and by that, I most definitely am not referring to some religious mystery.

I posted this over in one of the religion/philosophy threads Foster Zygote. You may be well aware already of the cytochrome c issue and other similar "problems". Regardless, even if you have seen this before, and know what I am after, or not after as the case may be, tell us how neo-Darwinism makes heads or tales of this evolutionary curve ball. Thanks for your post by the way.


Riddle me this then?????????????

The mitochondrial membrane protein, Cytochrome C, has been studied intensively across a wide range of species; insects, mammals, birds, Republicans, monkeys, plants, bacterium and so forth. The Cytochrome C sequence divergence across the range of organisms studied is astonishingly limited. From bacterium to sunflower the divergence is 69 %, bacterium to man 66%. Cytochrome C wise, a sunflower is as "distant" from a bacterium, molecularly speaking, as is a man/woman.

If changing the DNA means "changing the organism", why are rabbits, fish, penguins, sunflowers and people all equally divergent from a bacterium as the person is, Cytochrome C wise anyway(64%-69%)?????? AND!, if Cytochrome C has diverged that much in these higher forms, 66% say on average, why should it "work" at all???????????? 66% divergence and it still functions as Cytochrome C in the mitochondrial membrane? I thought changing the DNA would change the function??????? AND boy!, this is a big change, more than half the molecule, 66%!!!!!!!

So what gives here?

Keep in mind, there are absolutely NO INTERMEDIATES FOUND THAT FILL IN THE GAPS. All higher forms are roughly 66% distant Cytochrome C divergence wise from ANY ARBITRARILY SELECTED BACTERIUM SPECIES

So, why should there be intermediates in the current population?

Hmmm?

Change topics much?

So you still have yet to address the facts that the theory of natural selection through reproductive success is not what you have set it up to be.

 

[Dancing David]

So unlike the conventional view, unlike the case of conventional mechanism, here with cytochrome c, the phenotype is not affected by selection pressures, not affected by natural selection. AND, the phenotype in some broad sense, does not appear to be affected by a change in the underlying genotype/DNA information.

So once again you set up a strawman from 'conventional' sources that you don't cite, about something that you want to attack and then call your victory over a strawman.

So who said that all parts of an organism would change at a constant rate?

Are you going to shout out your lack of an answer again?

 

[Dancing David]

It most certainly is relevant. And cut the straw man stuff, that line is so tired. Back to the point.

I wonder why.

You have not established that this 'all parts of an organism gradually change over time' as part of the theory of natural selection through reproductive success. So why is it relevant to your argument.

That is exactly what a strawman argument is, a mis-attribution of a stance and then refuting it.

Sow where is the recent research of the theory of evolution has the statement been made that there should be this gradual change in the organism.

And here it is again, almost exactly teh same form

"This here is a counter example. "Evolution" occurring very much not according to the conventionally presented neo-Darwinian mechanism. "

conventionally presented neo-Darwinian mechanism

You have yet to show that this is in fact a conventional mechanism in the theory of evolution, and so you have set up a false premise and then refuted your own false premise, that is exactly the Straw man^WP.

 

[Acleron]

Cytochrome C is a protein complex used in the ETC. It's varied because it's function is VERY highly conserved (if the variation were to cause the organism with it to perform poorly in the ETC chances are it won't be prevalent; this is predicted by evolutionary theory) and changes only at the mutation rate and OBSERVED; it's also predicted in evolutionary theory.

and then

...
I did give one counter example above, cytochrome c, showing that the mechanism for evolution as conventionally presented is not explanatory in all cases. That does not mean I suggested, nor obviously did I in fact suggest, that natural selection does not play a significant role in the change in a biologic system's compliment of information/code over time.

What I did suggest by and large was that the genotypes/phenotypes being selected for by way of environmental pressure, when such pressure is a factor in selection(not so with cytochrome c above), do not owe their being what they are to unintentional, more or less random, more or less purposeless, unrelated mutations occurring in series and/or by way of such mutations occurring in batches over time.

I challenged those members of the forum subscribing to the gospel of conventional neo-Darwinism to provide concrete examples, empiric evidence of some sort to support the case for genomes changing to any appreciable degree by way of unintentional mutations occurring in series and/or batches as discussed above. I have yet to see such evidence, and remain confident it cannot be produced for it simply does not exist.

And when you do see such evidence and explanation, you ignore it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You are making my point as well.

If everyone is unintentionally making your point for you, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are not communicating your point very well.

 

[Mojo]

Change topics much?

The wheels attached to the goalposts are a bit of a giveaway.

 

[Patrick1000]

My "question" opening the thread was/is simple enough

The wheels attached to the goalposts are a bit of a giveaway.

My "question"/point(s) opening the thread were simple and straightforward enough. Despite good evidence for common ancestry, it would appear we are lacking in the mechanism department, agreed or not and why?

Wouldn't look to the average Joe or Charles there is any effort to move the goalposts on my part.

So what say you Mojo, got an opinion on that? Do you buy in? Do you believe that the neo-Darwinian mechanism accounts for who and what you are? Or are you like me, skeptical? Do you find the neo-Darwinian mechanism as proposed in the main wanting, and if so why?

Simple enough. First and ten on the twenty. Move the ball. I am not moving, nor have I moved, a thing.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Evolution is the best idea that we have in terms of explanatory power. Have you got a better one? I doubt you would dare put it up to scrutiny even if you have.

 

[AdMan]

Or are you like me, skeptical? Do you find the neo-Darwinian mechanism as proposed in the main wanting, and if so why?

I would pose the same question to you. Why do you find it wanting, aside from the fact that you don't believe it could account for the changes--i.e., simply an argument from incredulity?

 

[Mojo]

My "question"/point(s) opening the thread were simple and straightforward enough. Despite good evidence for common ancestry, it would appear we are lacking in the mechanism department, agreed or not and why?

This was what you were originally arguing, but then you started on about missing links.

 

[Mojo]

Do you find the neo-Darwinian mechanism as proposed in the main wanting, and if so why?

I find the "neo-Darwinian mechanism", as proposed by you, wanting. Specifically, it is wanting the "selection" bit.

The mechanism for evolution that is proposed by actual evolutionary biologists is well supported.

 

[Dancing David]

My "question"/point(s) opening the thread were simple and straightforward enough. Despite good evidence for common ancestry, it would appear we are lacking in the mechanism department, agreed or not and why?

Wouldn't look to the average Joe or Charles there is any effort to move the goalposts on my part.

Because the theory of natural selection is a theory about how evolution might work. So it is like the periodic table.

How a species actually diverged from another line is more like biochemistry.

You have made a false equivalence.

The theory of natural selection says that individuals which have more reproducing offspring in successive generations.

That is the theory.

You are asking for a detailed map of how something happened millions of years ago.

The two are not equivalent.

So what say you Mojo, got an opinion on that? Do you buy in? Do you believe that the neo-Darwinian mechanism accounts for who and what you are? Or are you like me, skeptical? Do you find the neo-Darwinian mechanism as proposed in the main wanting, and if so why?

Except you have in error , focused solely on random mutation as the sole mechanism of genetic variation involved in natural selection.

So you are deliberately ignorant and wrong.

Simple enough. First and ten on the twenty. Move the ball. I am not moving, nor have I moved, a thing.

Yes you have, you have created false dichotomies and never provided evidence for your assertions about the theory of evolution, so your argument remains a strawman.

 

[Dinwar]

I did not say natural selection was not a feature of how it came to be that biological systems changed over time . Nor did I say "evolution" did not occur. I actually emphasized that I thought there was excellent evidence for common ancestry, and so excellent evidence for evolution.

Of course natural selection is a mechanism operating on a daily basis upon living systems. I gave the example of penicillin sensitive bacteria becoming penicillin resistant when exposed to an environment containing the antibiotic. I gave the example of sickle cell genes being found in populations of men/women despite its deleterious effects, given the gene's ability to confer protection against malaria.

Yes, yes, you can SAY "natural selection"--no one has argued otherwise. But your failure is in UNDERSTANDING the process. You only seem able to understand a limited spectrum of natural selection, and your definition of evolution completely lacks any discussion of the topic.

I did give one counter example above, cytochrome c, showing that the mechanism for evolution as conventionally presented is not explanatory in all cases.

No. You gave an example of where an average person's understanding of evolution is not explanatory. You have not dealt with the actual theory, as understood by those who study it. THAT is why your arguments are against straw men, and THAT is why you're falling victim to Creationist garbage--you do not know what the theory of evolution actually states.

What I did suggest by and large was that the genotypes/phenotypes being selected for by way of environmental pressure, when such pressure is a factor in selection(not so with cytochrome c above), do not owe their being what they are to unintentional, more or less random, more or less purposeless, unrelated mutations occurring in series and/or by way of such mutations occurring in batches over time.

I wan tto thank you for this--if you hadn't presented your misunderstanding so clearly I'd have had to look through the rest of your posts to find another version of it. This is your view of evolution, stated in your own words. It entirely lacks natural selection.

I have yet to see such evidence, and remain confident it cannot be produced for it simply does not exist.

This is a lie. I'm sorry, but that's the only word for it. On the first page--THE FIRST PAGE--I presented two books which, had you bothered to read them, would provide all the information you require. You are not merely ignrant, you are willfully so, in that you are refusing to educate yourself when the opportunity arises.

My "question"/point(s) opening the thread were simple and straightforward enough. Despite good evidence for common ancestry, it would appear we are lacking in the mechanism department, agreed or not and why?

No, I DO NOT agree. Any college-level textbook on evolution, mollecular biology, or the like will provide ample evidence for the mechanism of evolution--which is the generally nonrandom survival of randomly varying traits. Your ignorance of the evidence is not evidence for a lack of evidence, particularly because you refuse to accept or even acknowledge what evidence has been provided.

 

[Philosaur]

Some people aren't familiar with his antics and may believe that "troll" is the wrong description.

Thank you. I'm not sure why it took that restatement for me to read the phrase as he meant it. In any event, it looks like most of us are in agreement on the matter, so anyone still playing must be taking one for the team (i.e., arguing for the sake of educating the lurkers).

FSM definitely blessed some with more patience than I have.

 

[dlorde]

FSM definitely blessed some with more patience than I have.

I suspect it's due to a form of natural selection:

A thread requiring unusual patience will tend keep only those readers who are unusually patient. Over time, such a thread will accumulate a higher proportion of patient people than other threads. So if you find yourself in a thread that has a high proportion of unusually patient people, it is likely that it is a thread that requires unusual patience; so you should not be surprised that it exasperates you - unless you've been in the thread for a significant time, in which case either your patience is exhausted, or the thread has changed

Send my Nobel Prize to the usual address.

 

[abaddon]

I suspect it's due to a form of natural selection:

A thread requiring unusual patience will tend keep only those readers who are unusually patient. Over time, such a thread will accumulate a higher proportion of patient people than other threads. So if you find yourself in a thread that has a high proportion of unusually patient people, it is likely that it is a thread that requires unusual patience; so you should not be surprised that it exasperates you - unless you've been in the thread for a significant time, in which case either your patience is exhausted, or the thread has changed

Send my Nobel Prize to the usual address.

Brilliant!

 

[Philosaur]

I suspect it's due to a form of natural selection:

A thread requiring unusual patience will tend keep only those readers who are unusually patient. Over time, such a thread will accumulate a higher proportion of patient people than other threads. So if you find yourself in a thread that has a high proportion of unusually patient people, it is likely that it is a thread that requires unusual patience; so you should not be surprised that it exasperates you - unless you've been in the thread for a significant time, in which case either your patience is exhausted, or the thread has changed

Send my Nobel Prize to the usual address.

Nicely done!

This brings to mind a question: If a relatively sane, rational agent decides to remove him/herself from the population, is that natural selection? Or is that artificial selection (like animal husbandry)? Or at a large enough scale, is artificial selection just an indirect form of natural selection?

Ok, so that was three questions...

 

[Patrick1000]

Allow me to put the whole thang in perspective.

The question I have raised, the point I have made, regarding the implausibility of the conventionally presented mechanism whereby biologic information changes over time is not at all unlike the related problem of accounting for that information's inexplicable origin. About the later Francis Crick wrote in 1981;

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available now could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

And so, having gotten going, some way, some how, I would suggest, are there also many unrecognized and poorly understood conditions to consider, conditions having to do with the perpetuation of that information and its changing over time, a perpetuation and changing over time that includes a reptile's heart/lung becoming an avian one, a perpetuation and changing over time that we simply do not understand.

Honest biologists know both my point and Crick's to be so very true.

 

[Dancing David]

The question I have raised, the point I have made, regarding the implausibility of the conventionally presented mechanism whereby biologic information changes over time is not at all unlike the related problem of accounting for that information's inexplicable origin. About the later Francis Crick wrote in 1981;

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available now could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

And so, having gotten going, some way, some how, I would suggest, are there also many unrecognized and poorly understood conditions to consider, conditions having to do with the perpetuation of that information and its changing over time, a perpetuation and changing over time that includes a reptile's heart/lung becoming an avian one, a perpetuation and changing over time that we simply do not understand.

Honest biologists know both my point and Crick's to be so very true.

Except your point is so poorly stated, contains false dichotomies and strawmen, as to be incoherent.

So what exactly are you trying to say: you are too vague and idiomatic.

You have confused the theory of natural selection with a forensic analysis of the divergence of therapods from thier ancestral line. You have set up strawmen thata re not common beliefs in evolutionary biology and seem to be unaware of any evolutionary thought from the last 30 years.

 

[Twiler]

The question I have raised, the point I have made, regarding the implausibility of the conventionally presented mechanism whereby biologic information changes over time is not at all unlike the related problem of accounting for that information's inexplicable origin. About the later Francis Crick wrote in 1981;

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available now could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

And so, having gotten going, some way, some how, I would suggest, are there also many unrecognized and poorly understood conditions to consider, conditions having to do with the perpetuation of that information and its changing over time, a perpetuation and changing over time that includes a reptile's heart/lung becoming an avian one, a perpetuation and changing over time that we simply do not understand.

Honest biologists know both my point and Crick's to be so very true.

Are you aware of any biologist in more recent times saying such a thing?