The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[stevevw]

I'm a materialist in the sense that I view the only relevant things which exist are those which are capable of interacting with the world around us in a measurable way. Certainly, it is possible there are plenty of things which are not currently measurable but have enough of an impact that they could hypothetically be measured at a future date, but I am not going to assume said things exist, let alone have specific properties, until we can actually measure it.

I also view the inherently immeasurable as unimportant, due to the fact that this means said item doesn't interact with us or anything relevant to us whatsoever. It has no measurable impact on the universe, so such a thing would function indistinguishably from something which doesn't exist at all.

yet scientists are quite willing to believe and rely on invisible stuff to explain anomalies in their theories that they cant see, detect or measure despite vigorous efforts.
Dark matter: The mystery substance physics still can’t identify that makes up the majority of our universe
Dark matter: The mystery substance physics still can't identify that makes up the majority of our universe

 

[Speedwell]

yet scientists are quite willing to believe and rely on invisible stuff to explain anomalies in their theories that they cant see, detect or measure despite vigorous efforts.
Dark matter: The mystery substance physics still can’t identify that makes up the majority of our universe
Dark matter: The mystery substance physics still can't identify that makes up the majority of our universe

"Believe and rely" is not an accurate description of the scientific position on dark matter.

 

[PsychoSarah]

yet scientists are quite willing to believe and rely on invisible stuff to explain anomalies in their theories that they cant see, detect or measure despite vigorous efforts.
Dark matter: The mystery substance physics still can’t identify that makes up the majority of our universe
Dark matter: The mystery substance physics still can't identify that makes up the majority of our universe

-_- I'm not a physicist, but from my understanding, dark matter and dark energy are more or less stand-ins for phenomena observed in the universe which typical matter and energy shouldn't be capable of doing on its own. There's plenty of debate as to whether or not those items are real. The theory of evolution hasn't experienced anything analogous to that situation, so this is a non-sequitur.

 

[stevevw]

"Believe and rely" is not an accurate description of the scientific position on dark matter.

I though scientists need to evoke something like dark matter to uphold theories like the big bang and to to explain why galaxies for example are not behaving according to the laws of general relativity.

 

[stevevw]

-_- I'm not a physicist, but from my understanding, dark matter and dark energy are more or less stand-ins for phenomena observed in the universe which typical matter and energy shouldn't be capable of doing on its own. There's plenty of debate as to whether or not those items are real. The theory of evolution hasn't experienced anything analogous to that situation, so this is a non-sequitur.

According to some the theory of evolution has experienced something similar. For me, scientists assume dark matter because they have to come up with something like that which will account for contradictory behaviours in other assumed ideas ie relativity and gravity. They are not going to question their existing theories because there is too much at stake so they need to find some reason why something is acting counter to what is expected. Yet some say that perhaps the assumptions about gravity is wrong in the first place.

The same with evolution. It is assumed that all changes in life have evolved through natural selection and when there are anomalies another idea is devised to explain things ie Darwin said there should be gradual and continuous transitions but we find there are many gaps so the idea of Punctuated equilibrium was devised. Or when distantly related creatures are similar the idea of convergent evolution explained this. Yet some scientists say that natural selection is not a dominant force in how life changes and there are other non-adaptive forces more responsible that can explain better why there are gaps in the fossil records and why distantly related creatures have similarities. Maybe the assumptions for some of the long-standing ideas are wrong and need revising.

 

[VirOptimus]

According to some the theory of evolution has experienced something similar. For me, scientists assume dark matter because they have to come up with something like that which will account for contradictory behaviours in other assumed ideas ie relativity and gravity. They are not going to question their existing theories because there is too much at stake so they need to find some reason why something is acting counter to what is expected. Yet some say that perhaps the assumptions about gravity is wrong in the first place.

The same with evolution. It is assumed that all changes in life have evolved through natural selection and when there are anomalies another idea is devised to explain things ie Darwin said there should be gradual and continuous transitions but we find there are many gaps so the idea of Punctuated equilibrium was devised. Or when distantly related creatures are similar the idea of convergent evolution explained this. Yet some scientists say that natural selection is not a dominant force in how life changes and there are other non-adaptive forces more responsible that can explain better why there are gaps in the fossil records and why distantly related creatures have similarities. Maybe the assumptions for some of the long-standing ideas are wrong and need revising.

Your post is woefully ignorant.

 

[stevevw]

Your post is woefully ignorant.

elaborate

 

[VirOptimus]

elaborate

You are in error both regarding what you write about dark matter and the ToE.

You simply dont understand the basics.

 

[stevevw]

You are in error both regarding what you write about dark matter and the ToE.

You simply dont understand the basics.

Lets take ToE how am I in error.

 

[Speedwell]

Lets take ToE how am I in error.

The last paragraph of your post #785 does not seem to be about the theory of evolution at all, but about some other theory that we have never heard of. It's like asking a guy what he thought about the new Avengers movie and he starts giving you his opinion about the new Star Wars movie. How is he in error?

 

[stevevw]

The last paragraph of your post #785 does not seem to be about the theory of evolution at all, but about some other theory that we have never heard of. It's like asking a guy what he thought about the new Avengers movie and he starts giving you his opinion about the new Star Wars movie. How is he in error?

maybe thats becuase you are not aware of such things. Non adpative forces are well known as being responsible for influencing change in living things. These produce changes that some often interpret as being evolution through natural selection mainly becuase they assume that selection is all powerful and is responsible for just about every feature and behaviour we see. When you ask someone who supports evolution how did humans develop a certain behavior or how did they aquire a certain trait or feature or what is responsible for the complexity in living things natural selection is quickly put forward as the reason which this is not quite often the case. It is assumed that selection with random mutations is responsible for complex life but if anything it is a hinderance for it as it can undermine an already perfectly working and intricate setup.

It makes more sense that life is able to control what happens to it and there are mechanisms that are more guided that life can tap into an enormous amount of pre-existing genetic material. Living things change through development and can control their enviroments. They work with other living things and the enviromentso that they can gain the right sort of genetic info needed to fit into new enviroments. Its not all about survival of the fittest and adaptations. Living things coexists and work together.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
The goal here is to dispel a number of myths regarding the evolution of organismal complexity (Table 1). Given that life originated from inorganic matter, it is clear that there has been an increase in phenotypic complexity over the past 3.5 billion years, although long-term stasis has been the predominant pattern in most lineages. What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics | Nucleic Acids Research | Oxford Academic

 

[Speedwell]

maybe thats becuase you are not aware of such things. Non adpative forces are well known as being responsible for influencing change in living things. These produce changes that some often interpret as being evolution through natural selection mainly becuase they assume that selection is all powerful and is responsible for just about every feature and behaviour we see. When you ask someone who supports evolution how did humans develop a certain behavior or how did they aquire a certain trait or feature or what is responsible for the complexity in living things natural selection is quickly put forward as the reason which this is not quite often the case. It is assumed that selection with random mutations is responsible for complex life but if anything it is a hinderance for it as it can undermine an already perfectly working and intricate setup.

It makes more sense that life is able to control what happens to it and there are mechanisms that are more guided that life can tap into an enormous amount of pre-existing genetic material. Living things change through development and can control their enviroments. They work with other living things and the enviromentso that they can gain the right sort of genetic info needed to fit into new enviroments. Its not all about survival of the fittest and adaptations. Living things coexists and work together.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
The goal here is to dispel a number of myths regarding the evolution of organismal complexity (Table 1). Given that life originated from inorganic matter, it is clear that there has been an increase in phenotypic complexity over the past 3.5 billion years, although long-term stasis has been the predominant pattern in most lineages. What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics | Nucleic Acids Research | Oxford Academic

And it is your misunderstanding of the theory of evolution which allows you to believe that those two links somehow undermine it.

 

[stevevw]

And it is your misunderstanding of the theory of evolution which allows you to believe that those two links somehow undermine it.

I am not trying to undermine evolution. I am saying that there is an assumption that natural selection is the main driving force when its not. That evolution is more directed than what is made out. You said what I posted was about some other theory when clearly I have supported what I said with the links posted, as they state natural selection is not a dominant force and that it is non-adaptive forces that are responsible for complex organism. it is not some other theory but rather it is setting the theory straight, correcting wrong assumptions and myths about evolution which is now becoming common knowledge. That is what the paper is about dispelling the assumption that natural seletion is responsible for evolving greater complexity.

We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

 

[PsychoSarah]

According to some the theory of evolution has experienced something similar.

-_- according to who, and what was experienced? Fossils have been documented for thousands of years by humans, even if people didn't make many connections between them and modern organisms until much, much later. We've born witness to changes in the traits of populations and have even used it to our advantage.

The same with evolution. It is assumed that all changes in life have evolved through natural selection and when there are anomalies another idea is devised to explain things ie Darwin said there should be gradual and continuous transitions but we find there are many gaps so the idea of Punctuated equilibrium was devised.

-_- and when atomic theory was new, the model for the atom was just a tiny sphere. As our understanding of the world expands, theories become more detailed and represent reality better. Of course Darwin's version of the theory of evolution would be different than the modern one, he didn't even know about DNA and mutation! Punctuated equilibrium, by the way, is not a consequence of, say, gaps in the fossil record, as many people seem to think it is. That may have inspired the initial idea, but gaps in the fossil record are not evidence for it and are not the reason it took off. Rather, it is a product of there being notable differences between organisms in the fossil record despite some relatively small time frames between some of them, combined with periods of less change also observed in the fossil record. Trilobites, which have a remarkably complete fossil record, were used to demonstrate punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium actually requires more complete fossil records to properly demonstrate evidence which is distinguishable from gradualism, since gaps can easily be explained by "the intermediates simply haven't been found yet or unfortunately didn't fossilize". Plus, it is not as if punctuated equilibrium means gradual change doesn't occur. Rather, that gradual change isn't the only way.

Or when distantly related creatures are similar the idea of convergent evolution explained this.

-_- the DNA of organisms for which convergent evolution applies is too dissimilar for their lineages to be shared recently enough to explain the superficial similarities, and their physiology is similarly dissimilar when evaluated in detail Marsupial moles and eutherian moles visually look very similar, but their physiology is noticeably different.
marsupial mole skeleton: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyoTJcLUQAIgeCK.jpg
eutherian mole skeleton: https://farm8.static.flickr.com/7298/27057689530_44a00135ff_b.jpg

Look at how much more elongated the eutherian mole skull is compared to the marsupial mole. Look at the difference in the thickness and shape of the bones in the tails. Look at those large front teeth the eutherian mole has but the marsupial mole has no similarly sized front teeth. This is convergent evolution: looks similar and has a similar niche, but structure is more different that outward appearances would cause you to expect.

Yet some scientists say that natural selection is not a dominant force in how life changes and there are other non-adaptive forces more responsible that can explain better why there are gaps in the fossil records and why distantly related creatures have similarities.

Sure, some people think that genetic drift and other factors, which are a part of the theory of evolution, contribute more to how organisms change over time than natural selection does. Not particularly popular stances, but yeah, they exist. It's not as if people claim that the theory of evolution is inerrant and incapable of being improved, so why does it matter? I guess Christians never disagree on scripture OH WAIT THEY DO.

The fossil record is not the best evidence for evolution BECAUSE it is impossible for every species which has ever lived to end up being represented in it. Fossils are rare and the conditions necessary to produce and maintain them are very specific. Certain organisms fossilize better than others, which is why there are more trilobite fossils than, say, jellyfish fossils.

By the way, similar =/= the same. Similar adaptations are easily explained by evolution; for example, it makes sense for aquatic organisms to have body shapes which produce less drag in the water, hence the similar shape of sharks and dolphins. The internal structure of these organisms, however, is very different. Flight has evolved in 4 independent lineages, but it was different each time. The same abilities can evolve independently, but they won't evolve in the same way or originate the same way.

Maybe the assumptions for some of the long-standing ideas are wrong and need revising.

Pfft, you bring up punctuated equilibrium as if that whole situation didn't take place long before I was born (my mother was 1 year old when the idea began to take off in 1972).

Heck, it's brought up in my text books as a legitimate thing, so what "correction" are you looking for?

 

[stevevw]

-_- according to who, and what was experienced? Fossils have been documented for thousands of years by humans, even if people didn't make many connections between them and modern organisms until much, much later. We've born witness to changes in the traits of populations and have even used it to our advantage.

But if you just base your interpretations on those fossils on an assumption then your bound to be wrong. You need to also use other information which has come to light as time has gone by. Other areas of research such as in developmental evolution, genomics and behavioral sciences add light to how life changes which give a better understanding of what the fossil record may represent. But many base the fossil records on assumptions that evolution by natural selection and random mutations caused all changes which are wrong.

-_- and when atomic theory was new, the model for the atom was just a tiny sphere. As our understanding of the world expands, theories become more detailed and represent reality better. Of course Darwin's version of the theory of evolution would be different than the modern one, he didn't even know about DNA and mutation!

The point is some of the new discoveries relegate Darwin's theory to a minor role and make other non-adaptive processes to more prominent roles which are better at explaining what has and is happening. But many still see all change in the Darwinian evolution of adaptive terms which gives natural selection great creative power but without any support.

Punctuated equilibrium, by the way, is not a consequence of, say, gaps in the fossil record, as many people seem to think it is. That may have inspired the initial idea, but gaps in the fossil record are not evidence for it and are not the reason it took off. Rather, it is a product of there being notable differences between organisms in the fossil record despite some relatively small time frames between some of them, combined with periods of less change also observed in the fossil record.

It doesn't really matter whether it explains the sudden appearance or difference of complex life or gaps in the fossil records. The point is the idea is made to account for something that should not happen according to Darwin’s theory. Darwin stated that the fossil record should be seen as smooth blending and gradual transition from one form to another. Appealing to poor fossil records or an idea that explains that away without any support is just coming up with additional ways of upholding the theory despite evidence to the contrary.

the DNA of organisms for which convergent evolution applies is too dissimilar for their lineages to be shared recently enough to explain the superficial similarities

Look at how much more elongated the eutherian mole skull is compared to the marsupial mole. Look at the difference in the thickness and shape of the bones in the tails. Look at those large front teeth the eutherian mole has but the marsupial mole has no similarly sized front teeth. This is convergent evolution: looks similar and has a similar niche, but structure is more different that outward appearances would cause you to expect.

All that this shows is differences in size and thickness of the same existing features. That can be accounted for if these animals had similar genetic codes that are modified by non-adaptive influences such as in biological development, plasticity or epigenetics etc. Rather than features being the result of a hit and miss process of finding the right feature to help a creature survive in an environment there are other mechanisms which may switch on a gene that provides the needed change for a creature to adapt to their environment.

It is not all adapt adaptations but living things working with each other and the environment. This shows that there is pre-existing genetic material that can be tapped into and varied which can produce the needed changes rather than having to create new functional proteins from a multitude of possible non-functional ones.

The evidence actually does show that convergent evolution goes down to the DNA level. The tree of life is full of genetic anomalies that link distantly related creatures and organisms.

As posted above
Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics | Nucleic Acids Research | Oxford Academic
developmental bias — helps to explain how organisms adapt to their environments and diversify into many different species. For example, cichlid fishes in Lake Malawi are more closely related to other cichlids in Lake Malawi than to those in Lake Tanganyika, but species in both lakes have strikingly similar body shapes4. In each case, some fish have large fleshy lips, others protruding foreheads, and still others short, robust lower jaws.

SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Convergent phenotypes provide extremely valuable systems for studying the genetics of new adaptations. Accumulating studies on this topic have reported surprising cases of convergent evolution at the molecular level, ranging from gene families being recurrently recruited to identical amino acid replacements in distant lineages.
Causes and evolutionary significance of genetic convergence - ScienceDirect

Sure, some people think that genetic drift and other factors, which are a part of the theory of evolution, contribute more to how organisms change over time than natural selection does. Not particularly popular stances, but yeah, they exist. It's not as if people claim that the theory of evolution is inerrant and incapable of being improved, so why does it matter? I guess Christians never disagree on scripture OH WAIT THEY DO.

Actually from what I understand it is the other way around. The idea that natural selection is all powerful and can account for just about everything is a common position by supporters and has been promoted for years despite there being strong evidence that it is actually less dominant than other non-adaptive forces for the development genetic material central to producing complex life.

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics | Nucleic Acids Research | Oxford Academic

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. (IE Natural selection emphasis added). This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization.

Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements. But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it.

If complexity, modularity, evolvability, and/or robustness are entirely products of adaptive processes, then where is the evidence? What are the expected patterns of evolution of such properties in the absence of selection, and what types of observations would be acceptable as a falsification of a null, nonadaptive hypothesis?

This tone of dissent is not meant to be disrespectful. The development of a mature field of evolutionary biology requires the participation of not just population geneticists, but molecular, cell, and developmental biologists. However, the integration of these fields needs to be a two-way street. Because the forces of mutation, recombination, and genetic drift are now readily quantifiable in multiple species, there is no longer any justification for blindly launching suppositions about adaptive scenarios without an evaluation of the likelihood of nonadaptive alternatives. Moreover, if the conclusion that nonadaptive processes have played a central role in driving evolutionary patterns is correct, the origins of biological complexity should no longer be viewed as extraordinarily low-probability outcomes of unobservable adaptive challenges, but expected derivatives of the special population-genetic features of DNA-based genomes.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

 

[VirOptimus]

But if you just base your interpretations on those fossils on an assumption then your bound to be wrong. You need to also use other information which has come to light as time has gone by. Other areas of research such as in developmental evolution, genomics and behavioral sciences add light to how life changes which give a better understanding of what the fossil record may represent. But many base the fossil records on assumptions that evolution by natural selection and random mutations caused all changes which are wrong.

The point is some of the new discoveries relegate Darwin's theory to a minor role and make other non-adaptive processes to more prominent roles which are better at explaining what has and is happening. But many still see all change in the Darwinian evolution of adaptive terms which gives natural selection great creative power but without any support.

It doesn't really matter whether it explains the sudden appearance or difference of complex life or gaps in the fossil records. The point is the idea is made to account for something that should not happen according to Darwin’s theory. Darwin stated that the fossil record should be seen as smooth blending and gradual transition from one form to another. Appealing to poor fossil records or an idea that explains that away without any support is just coming up with additional ways of upholding the theory despite evidence to the contrary.

All that this shows is differences in size and thickness of the same existing features. That can be accounted for if these animals had similar genetic codes that are modified by non-adaptive influences such as in biological development, plasticity or epigenetics etc. Rather than features being the result of a hit and miss process of finding the right feature to help a creature survive in an environment there are other mechanisms which may switch on a gene that provides the needed change for a creature to adapt to their environment.

It is not all adapt adaptations but living things working with each other and the environment. This shows that there is pre-existing genetic material that can be tapped into and varied which can produce the needed changes rather than having to create new functional proteins from a multitude of possible non-functional ones.

The evidence actually does show that convergent evolution goes down to the DNA level. The tree of life is full of genetic anomalies that link distantly related creatures and organisms.

As posted above
Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics | Nucleic Acids Research | Oxford Academic
developmental bias — helps to explain how organisms adapt to their environments and diversify into many different species. For example, cichlid fishes in Lake Malawi are more closely related to other cichlids in Lake Malawi than to those in Lake Tanganyika, but species in both lakes have strikingly similar body shapes4. In each case, some fish have large fleshy lips, others protruding foreheads, and still others short, robust lower jaws.

SET explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Convergent phenotypes provide extremely valuable systems for studying the genetics of new adaptations. Accumulating studies on this topic have reported surprising cases of convergent evolution at the molecular level, ranging from gene families being recurrently recruited to identical amino acid replacements in distant lineages.
Causes and evolutionary significance of genetic convergence - ScienceDirect

Actually from what I understand it is the other way around. The idea that natural selection is all powerful and can account for just about everything is a common position by supporters and has been promoted for years despite there being strong evidence that it is actually less dominant than other non-adaptive forces for the development genetic material central to producing complex life.

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics | Nucleic Acids Research | Oxford Academic

What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization.

Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements. But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it.

If complexity, modularity, evolvability, and/or robustness are entirely products of adaptive processes, then where is the evidence? What are the expected patterns of evolution of such properties in the absence of selection, and what types of observations would be acceptable as a falsification of a null, nonadaptive hypothesis?

This tone of dissent is not meant to be disrespectful. The development of a mature field of evolutionary biology requires the participation of not just population geneticists, but molecular, cell, and developmental biologists. However, the integration of these fields needs to be a two-way street. Because the forces of mutation, recombination, and genetic drift are now readily quantifiable in multiple species, there is no longer any justification for blindly launching suppositions about adaptive scenarios without an evaluation of the likelihood of nonadaptive alternatives. Moreover, if the conclusion that nonadaptive processes have played a central role in driving evolutionary patterns is correct, the origins of biological complexity should no longer be viewed as extraordinarily low-probability outcomes of unobservable adaptive challenges, but expected derivatives of the special population-genetic features of DNA-based genomes.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Hogwash.

You want to challange the science write an article for peer-review. This post impress noone.

 

[tas8831]

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics | Nucleic Acids Research | Oxford Academic[/SIZE]

Just out of curiosity - and I think I already know the answer - did you read that article, or just copy-paste the abstract?

Added in edit - I see you copy-pasted and bolded parts of it that you thought support your position, but one has to understand that Koonin's is just one opinion. I note that you had bolded this:

"The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. (IE Natural selection emphasis added). "

I note that he provides no citation for that claim. I also note that the article is 9 years old. Of the evolutionary biologists I am familiar with today, I can't name 1 that thinks this way. There certainly is a 'camp' of evolutionary biologists who see adaptation in every feature conceivable, but those views have changed greatly.

Creationists often display a tendency to assert or imply that whomever they are citing is the ultimate authority on whatever point they are trying to make, and this is most often done in cases like this, where a scientist is expressing an opinion, rather than presenting research.

 

[VirOptimus]

Lets take ToE how am I in error.

We have already danced that dance in tha past and I showed then that you misunderstood and mistrepresented the science. As I recall you have no science credentials at all as you study psychology.

You are still using the ssme arguments and still the sames sources that you have been shown to mean other things which is inherently dishonest.

So no, I wont debate with you.

 

[stevevw]

Hogwash.

You want to challange the science write an article for peer-review. This post impress noone.

I don't need to. I already have peer reviewed articles that have done it for me.

 

[stevevw]

We have already danced that dance in the past and I showed then that you misunderstood and misrepresented the science. As I recall you have no science credentials at all as you study psychology.

You are still using the same arguments and still the same sources that you have been shown to mean other things which are inherently dishonest.

So no, I won't debate with you.

My degree covers social sciences as well as Psychology and they cover how psychological and mental traits and behaviour are understood in evolutionary terms so there is an element of linking this back to evolutionary theory. Plus I have studied the subject for over 10 years now with just as much vigour as my academic studies. I do notice a pattern with some when the tenents of evolution are challenged. They claim you must be dumb and do not understand things properly.

But still, you use a logical fallacy to say because I do not have science qualifications in evolution that I do not know about evolution and that whatever I say is wrong. If this was the case we could strike out a lot of people who participate in these threads who have intelligent things to say. But then I have never seen a supporter of evolution question another supporter of evolutions credentials, only those who challenge evolution are discredited.

I cannot remember which forum you are talking about as I have been on many. If it is about the above points I have not found that most people do not disagree with this and the only challenge I have found is someone saying so without any support. If it is wrong then how is this wrong. If they are coming from peer-reviewed papers as you point out then how are they wrong. It is in plain proper English when it states that there are non-adaptive forces that are more responsible for the genetic material that builds complexity and natural selection has been overstated as a force that builds complexity.