Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2015, 04:04 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(02-10-2015 02:10 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Following certain enlightened opinions, I presume that, in the world of sex, the proper evolution begins with speciation.

Yup, sounds about right to myself. Thumbsup

(02-10-2015 02:10 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  As against microevolution, speciation is an irreversible process. Irreversible! While microevolution is predominantly quite reversible process.

Wait? What?

If there becomes such a change between two groups of critters that, should they try and do the naughty, they do not produce off-spring with their union then obviously the gene shift is one way.

(02-10-2015 02:10 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Let me quote the professor of integrative biology, University of California, Berkeley: "...An allele with a frequency of 0.75 in one generation can change to 0.73 in the next, and this is evolution. Well, sort of. In the next generation, the frequency can change back to 0.75. So what has evolved?" (Kevin Padian. Correcting Some Common Misrepresentations of Evolution in Textbooks and the Media. Evolution: Education and Outreach 2013, 6:11. See at
evolution-outreach.com/content/6/1/11).
Once the notorious peppered moth has got darker – then the moth has got lighter. Then what?
There is deep qualitative difference between the two processes. And at that, microevolution is so micro- that it is not evolution at all. Suppose, microevolution is dropped out of the "modern synthesis", and what is left?
My apologies for too many too long words.

If you drop 'Micro-evolution' from your what ever synthesis then, as others have posted, you've simply got evolution.

Ta-DAA!

That you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
06-10-2015, 02:26 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Yes, a gene shift is the irreversible process - as well as mutational events are. Still microevolution is predominantly reversible process. Later I am to come back to the issues of gene shift and mutations. And now a few words about the sheer anecdotic affair.

Consider one of the theory's key notions - this of fitness. The idea of fitness adds up to the reproductive success of an entity. "Organisms that produce more surviving offspring are more fit, those that produce fewer are less fit."
(Evolution: Natural Selection. See at uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm)
So far so good. Yet, the trouble is that, in the world of sex, no individual produces any offspring... Unlike archea and bacteria, in the world of sex, the reproductive unit is a heterosexual pair. Only heterosexual pairs are able to produce offspring, and only pairs are endowed with such an attribute as fitness. We merely can't reason upon the individual fitness, in the world of sex, this is just illegal, in science... As the Beatles sang in 1964, You can't do that!
But no individual fitness, - no natural selection among individuals. In other words, there is no Darwinian NS in the world of sex. (Though non-Darwinian NS varieties happily operate there). This sad circumstance is well known, - for instance, see George C.Williams. Adaptation and Natural Selection, 1966; Richard Dawkins. The Selfish Gene, 1976, and so on.
Once the idea of individual fitness is abolished, the theory of microevolution collapses like a house of cards. A shame.
Are STE theorists aware of these plain things? And if not, what are they aware of?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2015, 02:48 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
I... think you're reading the words a tad too literally....

Just because an individual does not breed... does not mean that said individual cannot assist in helping a close family member breed.

There are other ideas which I think you have skewed.. but am currently at a loss as to how best to explain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2015, 07:21 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Quite understandably, such an affront is not easy to accept... Yet here we are: there is qualitative difference between the mode of reproduction in the asexual world - and this in the world of sex. Thus, a bacterium is a full-fledged unit of reproduction, and it is endowed endowed with the attribute of fitness. While in the world of sex, an individual by no means represents a unit of reproduction, and there is no such thing as individual fitness. If you like, populations with sexual reproduction have emerged just for the sake of abolishing the individual fitness. Anyway, only heterosexual pairs are endowed with the attribute of fitness.
The point here is that a zygote is not the sum of two gametes. Being the system result of two parents' interaction, a zygote is a new living entity. The system result... And we can't break a system result by subsystems; in science, this is illegal. The fundamental principle.
No doubt, the STE theorists are fully aware of these things; they are not that ignorant. Most probably, the founder of Darwinism had no idea of such wisdoms, yet we live in the XXI century. It is far worse: they know only too well, and they pretend... A sort of "white lie".
What about "modern synthesis" as a scientific theory?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2015, 07:56 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Um... you do understand that evolution happens over/with/through populations, (As well as over time) right?

Not at 'Individuals'?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
06-10-2015, 10:49 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(06-10-2015 02:26 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Yes, a gene shift is the irreversible process - as well as mutational events are. Still microevolution is predominantly reversible process.

So is what you insist on referring to as "macroevolution". There is no mechanism in place that would prevent mutations occurring to make two species genetically compatible. It is simply astronomically unlikely.

There is no difference between micro- and macro-evolution except scale.

(06-10-2015 02:26 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Consider one of the theory's key notions - this of fitness. The idea of fitness adds up to the reproductive success of an entity. "Organisms that produce more surviving offspring are more fit, those that produce fewer are less fit."
(Evolution: Natural Selection. See at uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm)
So far so good. Yet, the trouble is that, in the world of sex, no individual produces any offspring... Unlike archea and bacteria, in the world of sex, the reproductive unit is a heterosexual pair. Only heterosexual pairs are able to produce offspring, and only pairs are endowed with such an attribute as fitness. We merely can't reason upon the individual fitness, in the world of sex, this is just illegal, in science... As the Beatles sang in 1964, You can't do that!

"Individual players don't win basketball games, so how can we say that Michael Jordan was any good?"

(06-10-2015 02:26 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Are STE theorists aware of these plain things? And if not, what are they aware of?

No.

Because we actually understand evolution.

You do not.

(06-10-2015 07:21 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  The point here is that a zygote is not the sum of two gametes. Being the system result of two parents' interaction, a zygote is a new living entity. The system result... And we can't break a system result by subsystems; in science, this is illegal. The fundamental principle.

This is gibberish.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
06-10-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Variation.
Selection.
Heredity.

Deny any of those three and you're denying reality. Accept all three and evolution is the unavoidable conclusion. End of story.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
06-10-2015, 12:05 PM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(02-10-2015 02:10 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Following certain enlightened opinions, I presume that, in the world of sex, the proper evolution begins with speciation. As against microevolution, speciation is an irreversible process. Irreversible! While microevolution is predominantly quite reversible process.
Let me quote the professor of integrative biology, University of California, Berkeley: "...An allele with a frequency of 0.75 in one generation can change to 0.73 in the next, and this is evolution. Well, sort of. In the next generation, the frequency can change back to 0.75. So what has evolved?" (Kevin Padian. Correcting Some Common Misrepresentations of Evolution in Textbooks and the Media. Evolution: Education and Outreach 2013, 6:11. See at
evolution-outreach.com/content/6/1/11).
Once the notorious peppered moth has got darker – then the moth has got lighter. Then what?
There is deep qualitative difference between the two processes. And at that, microevolution is so micro- that it is not evolution at all. Suppose, microevolution is dropped out of the "modern synthesis", and what is left?
My apologies for too many too long words.

Define "the proper evolution".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 03:00 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Well, judging by fervent comments, the affront is not accepted easily. I feel satisfied though the class of discussion is rather slight. The standards would hardly be very complimentary for a housewife...
Almost everything is banal and predictable. Of course Unbeliever judges ex professo who understands evolution - and who does not. And he/she knows better what is gibberish - and what is not. Accolades! So why does not he/she exclaim, To the cross! To the cross! Too odd...
Yes, a basketball team is a true system (while a team of swimmers is not), and there is no way to break the win down to individual players. A shame. Just like there is no way to build a perpetual motion machine able to work. Elementary, my dear Watson! Surely, sports journalists estimate personal contributions with ease, and this is the abysmal difference between journalism and science.
At that, I have told nothing new: all this is known at least for 4 decades. For instance, see classic publications of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Russell Ackoff and the ilk. Good reading is so amplifying while ignorance ... is no excuse.
The trouble is that the venerable commentators still stay there - in the good old 1930th - 1940th. "Modern synthesis" has long ago passed into the stinking corpse, yet they go on ardently embracing it. Why, everyone makes his/her own choice.
As against "modern synthesis", consider the views of late Lynn Margulis who by no means was the last person in evolutionary theoretical pastime. The prominent biologist never lost sight of the constituent circumstance: “Let’s take a human example. The highest biotic potential described was 22 children per a single couple. This is the measure of ‘human biotic potential’: 22 children per couple per generation...” (Suzan Mazur. Lynn Margulis: Intimacy Of Strangers & Natural Selection. See at
scoop.co.nz/stories/HL200903/S00194.htm)
Keen thinker, Lynn Margulis has in view not an individual - a father or mother, - yet a parental pair. A pair!
Besides, Lynn Margulis was of utterly low opinion of "modern synthesis". Thus, she has quite scornfully described neo-darwinism as "minor XX century religious sect". (Charles Mann. Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother. Science 1991, 252 (5004)).
As for definition... Well, I should warely say that the proper evolution is the irreversible process. If you like, it is the irreversible process of "descent with modification". Irreversible. Sapienti sat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 03:22 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(07-10-2015 03:00 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Well, judging by fervent comments, the affront is not accepted easily. I feel satisfied though the class of discussion is rather slight. The standards would hardly be very complimentary for a housewife...
Almost everything is banal and predictable. Of course Unbeliever judges ex professo who understands evolution - and who does not. And he/she knows better what is gibberish - and what is not. Accolades! So why does not he/she exclaim, To the cross! To the cross! Too odd...
Yes, a basketball team is a true system (while a team of swimmers is not), and there is no way to break the win down to individual players. A shame. Just like there is no way to build a perpetual motion machine able to work. Elementary, my dear Watson! Surely, sports journalists estimate personal contributions with ease, and this is the abysmal difference between journalism and science.
At that, I have told nothing new: all this is known at least for 4 decades. For instance, see classic publications of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Russell Ackoff and the ilk. Good reading is so amplifying while ignorance ... is no excuse.
The trouble is that the venerable commentators still stay there - in the good old 1930th - 1940th. "Modern synthesis" has long ago passed into the stinking corpse, yet they go on ardently embracing it. Why, everyone makes his/her own choice.
As against "modern synthesis", consider the views of late Lynn Margulis who by no means was the last person in evolutionary theoretical pastime. The prominent biologist never lost sight of the constituent circumstance: “Let’s take a human example. The highest biotic potential described was 22 children per a single couple. This is the measure of ‘human biotic potential’: 22 children per couple per generation...” (Suzan Mazur. Lynn Margulis: Intimacy Of Strangers & Natural Selection. See at
scoop.co.nz/stories/HL200903/S00194.htm)
Keen thinker, Lynn Margulis has in view not an individual - a father or mother, - yet a parental pair. A pair!
Besides, Lynn Margulis was of utterly low opinion of "modern synthesis". Thus, she has quite scornfully described neo-darwinism as "minor XX century religious sect". (Charles Mann. Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother. Science 1991, 252 (5004)).
As for definition... Well, I should warely say that the proper evolution is the irreversible process. If you like, it is the irreversible process of "descent with modification". Irreversible. Sapienti sat.

Fuck dude, learn how to format. Paragraphs, line breaks, complete sentences. Make your gibberish at least look readable and not just a copy-paste word salad.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: