The Smoking Guns of Evo Devo

[JohnR7]

We know what they do, how they do it,

So far you have failed to show us that you know anything. Why don't you share with us what you know?

 

[AngryWomble]

We are learning that most organisms have not changed in their basic form in over 650 million years.

That was the beginning of DNA. Are you suggesting that something new and better than DNA has come along to make all of that obsolute?

.......

An organism is VERY different from DNA!!!! Never mind the goal posts this time you've dragged the pitch and half the stadium with you.....

DNA is the code for life, it is coded differently for fishes and tree's, for people and potatoes. The thing that is 'built' from this code is the organism.

Does that clear it up or am i going to have to use smaller words?

 

[supersport]

Evo devo is mainly a movement by structuralists. This is in direct opposistion to "selectionists" -- who are neodarwinists. Many in the neo-darwin camp are trying to say that this is a marriage -- but it's more like a marriage between water and oil.

Structuralists generally do not believe in selection as a creative force...instead they believe creative changes in organisms emerge from within the organism cued from external forces.

So the reason I said that evo devo will bring down neodarwinism is because it will eventually phase out Selection -- which is the lifeline of darwinists.

Mark my words, brother....neodarwinism it toast.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evo devo is mainly a movement by structuralists. This is in direct opposistion to "selectionists" -- who are neodarwinists. Many in the neo-darwin camp are trying to say that this is a marriage -- but it's more like a marriage between water and oil.

Evolutionary Development Biology (Evo-Devo) is the concept that changes in the pathways that govern development can be a source for evolutionary changes.

Structuralists generally do not believe in selection as a creative force...instead they believe creative changes in organisms emerge from within the organism cued from external forces.

All biologists accept that environment can influence phenotype. This is hardly a stunner. Evo-Devo deals with the emergence of new phenotypes due to genetic changes that govern development.

So the reason I said that evo devo will bring down neodarwinism is because it will eventually phase out Selection -- which is the lifeline of darwinists.

Mark my words, brother....neodarwinism it toast.

Evo-Devo is dependent on selection to transmit genetic changes in the developmental cascades to each subsequent generation. Evo-Devo does not do away with selection.

 

[Loudmouth]

It has been said that Evolution is slight changes over time. Any change is considered evoluion, so to show that evolution is not true, you have to show that no change has taken place.

If you see no differences in the kingdom Animalia then you need your eyes checked.

 

[supersport]

Evolutionary Development Biology (Evo-Devo) is the concept that changes in the pathways that govern development can be a source for evolutionary changes.



All biologists accept that environment can influence phenotype. This is hardly a stunner. Evo-Devo deals with the emergence of new phenotypes due to genetic changes that govern development.



Evo-Devo is dependent on selection to transmit genetic changes in the developmental cascades to each subsequent generation. Evo-Devo does not do away with selection.

Yes, this is a stunner....selections do NOT admit this....they beleive that biological change over time comes from one source -- selection. Anything else dismantles the theory.

 

[supersport]

Gould....

In a sense, the specter of directed variability threatens Darwinism even more seriously than any putative failure of the other two postulates. Insufficient variation stalls natural selection; saltation deprives selection of a creative role but still calls upon Darwin’s mechanism as a negative force. With directed variation, however, natural selection can be bypassed entirely. If adaptive pressures automatically trigger heritable variation in favored directions, then trends can proceed under regimes of random mortality; natural selection, acting as a negative force, can, at most, accelerate the change. (Gould 2002: 145)

 

[supersport]

Maybe you'll take Gould's words...

Selection becomes creative only if it can impart direction to evolution by superintending the slow and steady accumulation of favored subsets from an isotropic pool of variation. If gradualism does not accompany this process of change, selection must relinquish this creative role and Darwinism then fails as a creative source of evolutionary novelty. If important new features, or entire new taxa, arise as large and discontinuous variations, then creativity lies in the production of the variation itself. Natural selection no longer causes evolution

 

[supersport]

Check this out.....

Michael Ruse

"The most dramatic discoveries in evo-devo have been quite unexpected DNA homologies. It turns out that organisms as different as fruit flies and humans share considerable amounts of practically unaltered DNA, especially those stretches that are involved in development itself--ordering the rates and ways in which the parts of the body are formed (heads before legs and so forth). The jury is still out on the precise significance of all of this. Some seem to think that selection will now have to take a back seat in evolution: "The homologies of process within morphogenetic fields provide some of the best evidence for evolution just as skeletal and organ homologies did earlier. Thus, the evidence for evolution is better than ever. The role of natural selection in evolution, however, is seen to play less an important role. It is merely a filter for unsuccessful morphologies generated by development. Population genetics is destined to change if it is not to become as irrelevant to evolution as Newtonian mechanics is to contemporary physics."[4]

Remember when I said "mark my words?"

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes, this is a stunner....selections do NOT admit this....they beleive that biological change over time comes from one source -- selection. Anything else dismantles the theory.

this is simply not true.

the obvious and common route to change not governed by natural selection is random or neutral genetic drift.

just a simple google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=natural+selection+genetic+drift&btnG=Search
would inform anyone of this fact.

there are a number of others as well:
non random mating.
population inflows and outflows.


sexual selection as well but that is a subtopic within selection.
i'm sure i could google a few more, these are just off the top of my head. perhaps someone would post the complete list.

as an aside.
i really wish there was a rule to clearly mark quote mining from genuinely reading and understanding a book and quoting from it. just a simple: i read this book. or i quote mined this from:website reference would be a good start. the enormous disproportionality to read and actually understand the science vs the ease of cut and paste quote mining seems to require a bit of balancing the system with wise rules like this.

 

[supersport]

Please, will someone tell me how a monkey can change into a man without selection?

 

[supersport]

this is simply not true.

the obvious and common route to change not governed by natural selection is random or neutral genetic drift.

just a simple google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=natural+selection+genetic+drift&btnG=Search
would inform anyone of this fact.

there are a number of others as well:
non random mating.
population inflows and outflows.


sexual selection as well but that is a subtopic within selection.
i'm sure i could google a few more, these are just off the top of my head. perhaps someone would post the complete list.

as an aside.
i really wish there was a rule to clearly mark quote mining from genuinely reading and understanding a book and quoting from it. just a simple: i read this book. or i quote mined this from:website reference would be a good start. the enormous disproportionality to read and actually understand the science vs the ease of cut and paste quote mining seems to require a bit of balancing the system with wise rules like this.

You are so wrong. Selection is REQUIRED under the neodarwin umbrella. Drift is inconsequential and does not relate to the need or benefit of the organism.

You need selection -- or your theory crumbles.

 

[supersport]

I'm waiting for someone to tell me how a monkey can change into a man without selection......

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You are so wrong. Selection is REQUIRED under the neodarwin umbrella. Drift is inconsequential and does not relate to the need or benefit of the organism.

You need selection -- or your theory crumbles.

1.you simply do not understand what you are talking about.
2.natural selection is a method of filtering mutations, it is not the only one. i presented a few others, there are more.
3.why do i need selection? i have a wife and kids, own my own home and have enough money in the bank that i don't have to work at a job and haven't for more than 6 years. attend an excellent church and have lots of time to read.
what do i need selection for?
4.the TofE is not my theory. it belongs to the whole world.


Drift is inconsequential and does not relate to the need or benefit of the organism. but you did get this right(not the inconsequential part), which is why populations have a changing percentage of alleles between the generations as a result of genetic drift which is not governed by NS. the very point that not all evolution is governed or filtered by NS.

 

[supersport]

1.you simply do not understand what you are talking about.
2.natural selection is a method of filtering mutations, it is not the only one. i presented a few others, there are more.
3.why do i need selection? i have a wife and kids, own my own home and have enough money in the bank that i don't have to work at a job and haven't for more than 6 years. attend an excellent church and have lots of time to read.
what do i need selection for?
4.the TofE is not my theory. it belongs to the whole world.


Drift is inconsequential and does not relate to the need or benefit of the organism. but you did get this right(not the inconsequential part), which is why populations have a changing percentage of alleles between the generations as a result of genetic drift which is not governed by NS. the very point that not all evolution is governed or filtered by NS.

williams.....you don't have to define it for me....I know what selection is...and no matter you say -- neodarwinists REQUIRE it. You can fasttalk all you want, but you cannot get around it. I dare you to point me to a neodarwin site that says otherwise.

The rest of you post is pointless and has nothing to do with the science of turning a monkey into a man.

 

[supersport]

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c09.htm

According to Darwinian evolutionists, this ‘evolving’ was accomplished by "natural selection." *Charles Darwin said that natural selection was the primary way that everything changed itself from lower life-forms, and new species were produced.

In the years that have passed since Charles Darwin, this theory of "natural selection" has continued as a mainstay of evolutionary theory

Gould...
Selection becomes creative only if it can impart direction to evolution by superintending the slow and steady accumulation of favored subsets from an isotropic pool of variation. If gradualism does not accompany this process of change, selection must relinquish this creative role and Darwinism then fails as a creative source of evolutionary novelty. If important new features, or entire new taxa, arise as large and discontinuous variations, then creativity lies in the production of the variation itself. Natural selection no longer causes evolution

Checkmate

 

[supersport]

So....since evo devo is taking over science -- and selection is being done away with...

how does a monkey get formed from a man with no selection?????? If you cannot answer this then the whole concept of evolution needs to be thrown into the trashcan. S

 

[rmwilliamsll]

well let's see if i can summarize this exchange.

it starts with
Yes, this is a stunner....selections do NOT admit this....they beleive that biological change over time comes from one source -- selection. Anything else dismantles the theory.

i supply evidence that the TofE does not have but one source of a filter for mutations ie selection but list a few more.

and the discussion transmogrifies into:
you don't have to define it for me....I know what selection is...and no matter you say -- neodarwinists REQUIRE it. You can fasttalk all you want, but you cannot get around it. I dare you to point me to a neodarwin site that says otherwise.

so under the pressure of the evidence, the one source for biological change becomes a requirement for the TofE.
well, i'll accept that as an admission that the original they beleive that biological change over time comes from one source -- selection. is not defendable since it is obviously false.
onward to the next battle. boy, correcting errors is so much fun.....

 

[Dannager]

We are learning that all the individual species have a basic "ground plan" that they do not depart from. We are learning that most organisms have not changed in their basic form in over 650 million years.

No, we're not.

You know, every now and then I wish there were a pop-up box that said "You must spread some evidence around before..." There are some out here who would benefit from it.

 

[supersport]

well let's see if i can summarize this exchange.

it starts with
Yes, this is a stunner....selections do NOT admit this....they beleive that biological change over time comes from one source -- selection. Anything else dismantles the theory.

i supply evidence that the TofE does not have but one source of a filter for mutations ie selection but list a few more.

and the discussion transmogrifies into:
you don't have to define it for me....I know what selection is...and no matter you say -- neodarwinists REQUIRE it. You can fasttalk all you want, but you cannot get around it. I dare you to point me to a neodarwin site that says otherwise.

so under the pressure of the evidence, the one source for biological change becomes a requirement for the TofE.
well, i'll accept that as an admission that the original they beleive that biological change over time comes from one source -- selection. is not defendable since it is obviously false.
onward to the next battle. boy, correcting errors is so much fun.....

show me a link that tells me how neodarwinism can survive without natural selection. I double DARE you.