The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[stevevw]

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.

I am not a creationsist to start with and I support natural selection as a force in evolution. I have read the entire articles I post and have been referring to them for years. I could find some more updated papers but have not got time at present. Besides these papers are still referenced in modern papers. I think the point is anyway that some do not see in non-adaptive terms becuase they are too busy thinking in adaptive terms. From what I have seen on this forum many still think in purely adaptive terms and will cite natural selection for just about everything from why we may be nice to each other to how the universe was made. It easy to come up with some adaptive reason why people do what they do.

I rarely hear people question adpative evolution and if this is an example then they must be getting their info from somewhere unless as has been pointed out in the articles it is assumed. Yes they are opinions but these scientists are experts in their fields and so it is qualified opinions. They represent a number of scientists from different fields that have expanded our understanding of how life is influenced and can change such as developmental biology, genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science which is my field of study. These areas are coming up and persisting because adpative evolution has found it hard to explain and account for how life works and changes. The more time that goes by the more support for this is coming to light.

Heres a more recent paper
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

It was here and you mistepresented the same articles.

You clearly dont understand basic science. Sociology and pdychology has very little to do with physical sciences.

You are just arguing your points because they align with your religion. Its dishonest.

 

[VirOptimus]

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

No, you dont.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not a creationsist to start with ... -snip-

Sure you arent. And ID isnt religion either.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Two points to be made here:

1. You appear to contradict yourself with these two statements:
"They are not going to question their existing theories because there is too much at stake."
""Yet some say that perhaps the assumptions about gravity is(sic) wrong in the first place."

When existing theories have met many tests and been repeatedly validated then rejecting them will, quite properly, only be done releuctantly and when a superior alternative is available. Equally, as you correctly say, some scientists are questioning the existing theories. That's how science works. You seem to have a problem with that. Why?

2. Scientist have not "assumed dark matter". They have made a series of observations that run counter to expectations. Either our theories are incorrect, or there is a substantial amount of matter present, detectable only by its gravitational effects. For convenience this phenomenon has been labelled "dark matter". It is a place holder, not an a priori assumption that matter definitely accounts for the observations.

 

[stevevw]

Two points to be made here:

1. You appear to contradict yourself with these two statements:
"They are not going to question their existing theories because there is too much at stake."
""Yet some say that perhaps the assumptions about gravity is(sic) wrong in the first place."
When existing theories have met many tests and been repeatedly validated then rejecting them will, quite properly, only be done releuctantly and when a superior alternative is available. Equally, as you correctly say, some scientists are questioning the existing theories. That's how science works. You seem to have a problem with that. Why?

Perhaps this can be discussed in another thread as it was pointed out it is not the right place to discuss these things.

 

[stevevw]

Sure you arent. And ID isnt religion either.

Here you are claiming to know how I think. I thought you said psychology was irrelevant to this thread

 

[stevevw]

No, you dont.

elaborate how the peer review papers do not state that it is non-adaptive forces that are responsible for the genetic material that builds complexity in life and not adaptive forces ie natural selection.

 

[stevevw]

It was here and you mistepresented the same articles.

You clearly dont understand basic science. Sociology and pdychology has very little to do with physical sciences.

You are just arguing your points because they align with your religion. It's dishonest.

Your arguments are based on a logical fallacy. You are saying that only certain scientists can know about evolution and therefore are the only ones who can comment. That if someone is religious and challenges evolution they are dishonest. I have never seen you stop anyone who supports evolution based on this criteria from commenting about evolution. So if anything your position is also biased based on your personal views. It rules out anyone who believes in God from challenging evolution because you say it is only their beliefs that are causing them to challenge evolution. Another logical fallacy.

This is the very problem I am speaking about. You are making the rules for who can comment and cannot comments and who know about evolution. This is the narrow stance the papers are pointing out that only "adaptive views" are relevant in how evolution works and other areas like developmental biology, genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science don't have anything relevant to say.

The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Social science is a relevant part of understanding evolution and the point is because you dismiss it shows you have a blinkered position which is the point I am trying to make. That to understand the complete picture we need to include these other areas not just as minor players but as major players in how evolution works. The following sums things up, it shows how additional influences guide how life can change and adapt to environments rather than just adaptive evolution. This places natural selection in among a number of other forces and relegates it to a smaller influence where more guided influences, epigenetic, behavioural and biological development play a greater role.

The novelty of the EES and the differences with the MS theory become most apparent in the predictions that derive from the EES framework, both with regard to short-term and long-term effects of organismal evolution. The most important predictions concern the following: (i) the generation of heritable phenotypic variation (variation will be systematically biased and facilitated by the generative features of development); (ii) the origin of phenotypic novelty (novelties are due to emergent and self-organizing properties of developmental systems); (iii) the sequence of genetic and phenotypic change (emergent phenotypic structures can be captured and stabilized by evolving gene regulatory circuitry and assume fitness subsequently); (iv) inheritance (in addition to genetic inheritance, adaptive variants are propagated by non-genetic inheritance, learning and cultural transmission, as well as by repeated environmental induction); (My area of study you say is irrelevant to understanding evolution)

(v) tempo of evolution (periods of rapid phenotypic evolution can alternate with periods of slow and continuous change); (vi) environmental induction (phenotypic variation can be environmentally induced in multiple individuals simultaneously); (vii) organismal activity (niche construction effectuates environmental changes that enhance the fitness of the constructors and their descendants; (viii) natural selection (the primary evolutionary effect of natural selection is not to eliminate the unfit but to release generative potential).

Overall, the EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection effects are less directional than hitherto argued. The EES addresses organizing principles instead of statistical correlations or evolving instruction programs. It represents a pluralistic, process-based framework of dynamical interactions between a multitude of evolutionarily effective factors and generates its own set of evolutionary predictions that make it clearly distinct from the MS account. These genuine predictions of the EES give rise to new research programmes, which have already generated validating empirical results. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the range of predictions and their consequences in greater detail, but more extensive treatments can be found in Laland et al. [15].
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

 

[VirOptimus]

Your arguments are based on a logical fallacy. You are saying that only certain scientists can know about evolution and therefore are the only ones who can comment. That if someone is religious and challenges evolution they are dishonest. I have never seen you stop anyone who supports evolution based on this criteria from commenting about evolution. So if anything your position is also biased based on your personal views. It rules out anyone who believes in God from challenging evolution because you say it is only their beliefs that are causing them to challenge evolution. Another logical fallacy.

This is the very problem I am speaking about. You are making the rules for who can comment and cannot comments and who know about evolution. This is the narrow stance the papers are pointing out that only "adaptive views" are relevant in how evolution works and other areas like developmental biology, genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science don't have anything relevant to say.

The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Social science is a relevant part of understanding evolution and the point is because you dismiss it shows you have a blinkered position which is the point I am trying to make. That to understand the complete picture we need to include these other areas not just as minor players but as major players in how evolution works. The following sums things up, it shows how additional influences guide how life can change and adapt to environments rather than just adaptive evolution. This places natural selection in among a number of other forces and relegates it to a smaller influence where more guided influences, epigenetic, behavioural and biological development play a greater role.

The novelty of the EES and the differences with the MS theory become most apparent in the predictions that derive from the EES framework, both with regard to short-term and long-term effects of organismal evolution. The most important predictions concern the following: (i) the generation of heritable phenotypic variation (variation will be systematically biased and facilitated by the generative features of development); (ii) the origin of phenotypic novelty (novelties are due to emergent and self-organizing properties of developmental systems); (iii) the sequence of genetic and phenotypic change (emergent phenotypic structures can be captured and stabilized by evolving gene regulatory circuitry and assume fitness subsequently); (iv) inheritance (in addition to genetic inheritance, adaptive variants are propagated by non-genetic inheritance, learning and cultural transmission, as well as by repeated environmental induction); (My area of study you say is irrelevant to understanding evolution)

(v) tempo of evolution (periods of rapid phenotypic evolution can alternate with periods of slow and continuous change); (vi) environmental induction (phenotypic variation can be environmentally induced in multiple individuals simultaneously); (vii) organismal activity (niche construction effectuates environmental changes that enhance the fitness of the constructors and their descendants; (viii) natural selection (the primary evolutionary effect of natural selection is not to eliminate the unfit but to release generative potential).

Overall, the EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection effects are less directional than hitherto argued. The EES addresses organizing principles instead of statistical correlations or evolving instruction programs. It represents a pluralistic, process-based framework of dynamical interactions between a multitude of evolutionarily effective factors and generates its own set of evolutionary predictions that make it clearly distinct from the MS account. These genuine predictions of the EES give rise to new research programmes, which have already generated validating empirical results. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the range of predictions and their consequences in greater detail, but more extensive treatments can be found in Laland et al. [15].
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

Tl, dr.

Write an article for peer-review.

 

[VirOptimus]

elaborate how the peer review papers do not state that it is non-adaptive forces that are responsible for the genetic material that builds complexity in life and not adaptive forces ie natural selection.

They dont, they say that there are a small part that may be non-adaptive.

As I said. You misrepresent them.

Write an ask the authors.

Let me ask you, what role, according to you, do god play in evolution?

 

[VirOptimus]

Here you are claiming to know how I think. I thought you said psychology was irrelevant to this thread

I can read your posts, and you have yourself written this on this very board. Where you lying then?

 

[stevevw]

Tl, dr.

Write an article for peer-review.

Why do I need to when there are many peer reviewed articles already supporting my position.

 

[stevevw]

I can read your posts, and you have yourself written this on this very board. Where you lying then?

What I am posting is a 1000 miles away from any religious position taken. They show the forces that influence how life can change. They are based on scientific evidence. God or religion is not mentioned and does not need to be. It doesnt matter if you are religious or not to support these ideas and it is irrelevant. For you to say I cannot support these ideas and if I do it is only because of my religious beliefs is just one big logical fallacy in attempt to try and discredit me or the source. You are doing everything but deal with the content. For me that just shows that you cannot accept any ideas that do not support your narrow views of evolution.

 

[stevevw]

They dont, they say that there are a small part that may be non-adaptive.

As I said. You misrepresent them.

Then why does the last post show several processes responsible for how life can change bypassing natural selection and show that natural selection is just one of many forces. Which one is more prominent, the paper does not say that selection is the most dominant but places it in among these other processes when it comes to the evolution of the complex networks that make life. Those other processes draw on existing genetic material through development or come from behaviour that can influence change as mentioned in the last paper I posted.

Other papers do say that natural selection does play a less prominent role and it cannot be just because I have misinterpreted it. They give their reasons and that is the point of the papers. Rather than asking me to write papers or contact authors of papers that already support what I am saying you need to answer why the papers state these things. For example when the paper states

many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement.

Why do they say only a negligible level of natural selection is required for understanding how genomic and cellular features central to building complex organisms is needed?

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.

Why does it say that natural selection is unnecessary of sufficient for explaining the emergence of genomic and cellular features central to building complex organisms?

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.

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

what does the above mean? What does it mean when it says that when complexity increases it is a consequence or non-adaptive processes under weak purifying selection rather than adaptive evolution (natural selection emphasis added).

The paper I just posted is about introducing a new synthesis for evolution. It is saying that evolution should be expanded into these other areas of genomics, developmental biology, ecology, social science to give a better understanding because these areas influence the way life changes as well. Put together is does relegate natural selection to a lesser role when we compare this to the Neo-Darwinian view of evolution which places natural selection as the main player in how life can change through adaptations and that many say it is the only force for evolution.

When this is applied to the fossil record it can easily be seen how some can assume that evolution by natural selection is responsible. But as shown there are other processes that are at play which can explain the fossil records better as they allow for the sudden appear of new features and what may appear like new creatures because life is able to tap into existing genetic material that can produce sudden variations (the Cambrian explosion comes to mind). This fits what we see better rather than the blind and random process of Darwinian evolution which needs to have extraordinary additional explanations to account for these anomalies.

Write an ask the authors.

I don't need to they have already answered the questions in their papers.

Let me ask you, what role, according to you, do god play in evolution?

God uses evolution to allow life to adapt to their environments.

 

[Kylie]

God uses evolution to allow life to adapt to their environments.

Can you be more specific here? Does God cause the changes to occur? If so, how? If not, did he just set the system up and then leave it alone?

 

[Inkfingers]

In the fossil record, out of billions of fossils unearthed, is zero transitional fossils. Zero fossils that by morphological change prove evolution - evidence of one lifeform changing into another higher lifeform.

That simply is not true.

Archaeopteryx is a well-known transitional fossil between reptiles and birds.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why does the last post show several processes responsible for how life can change bypassing natural selection and show that natural selection is just one of many forces. Which one is more prominent, the paper does not say that selection is the most dominant but places it in among these other processes when it comes to the evolution of the complex networks that make life. Those other processes draw on existing genetic material through development or come from behaviour that can influence change as mentioned in the last paper I posted.

Other papers do say that natural selection does play a less prominent role and it cannot be just because I have misinterpreted it. They give their reasons and that is the point of the papers. Rather than asking me to write papers or contact authors of papers that already support what I am saying you need to answer why the papers state these things. For example when the paper states

many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement.

Why do they say only a negligible level of natural selection is required for understanding how genomic and cellular features central to building complex organisms is needed?

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.

Why does it say that natural selection is unnecessary of sufficient for explaining the emergence of genomic and cellular features central to building complex organisms?

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.

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

what does the above mean? What does it mean when it says that when complexity increases it is a consequence or non-adaptive processes under weak purifying selection rather than adaptive evolution (natural selection emphasis added).

The paper I just posted is about introducing a new synthesis for evolution. It is saying that evolution should be expanded into these other areas of genomics, developmental biology, ecology, social science to give a better understanding because these areas influence the way life changes as well. Put together is does relegate natural selection to a lesser role when we compare this to the Neo-Darwinian view of evolution which places natural selection as the main player in how life can change through adaptations and that many say it is the only force for evolution.

When this is applied to the fossil record it can easily be seen how some can assume that evolution by natural selection is responsible. But as shown there are other processes that are at play which can explain the fossil records better as they allow for the sudden appear of new features and what may appear like new creatures because life is able to tap into existing genetic material that can produce sudden variations (the Cambrian explosion comes to mind). This fits what we see better rather than the blind and random process of Darwinian evolution which needs to have extraordinary additional explanations to account for these anomalies.

I don't need to they have already answered the questions in their papers.


God uses evolution to allow life to adapt to their environments.

The papers dont support your arguments. Learn the science.

 

[VirOptimus]

Here you are claiming to know how I think. I thought you said psychology was irrelevant to this thread

Cavemen and Dinosaurs

Here you yourself say you are a creationist.

 

[stevevw]

Cavemen and Dinosaurs

Here you yourself say you are a creationist.

No, I don't, you are trying hard to fit me into some box for your own purposes. It's as though if you can show a person is a particular type then you prove yourself. That's all fallacy. You have to go back 5 years to find one post that mentions creation which is a completely different thing to a creationist that holds a specific view of the creation events and a whole lot of other stuff like the flood, 6 day creation with particular events that go with each, literal Eve created from Adams rib etc. Not that I am going to ridicule anyone who has that view and say they do not have the right to believe that.

If anything that posts shows a person 5 years ago questioning things. What you fail to mention is that I also mention evolution as possible. In mentioning creation I am not speaking about creationism but saying I believe that in some way life is created. Whether that is with own kinds or as a single universal organism or a combination of both I do not know. All I know is that life cannot come from non-life and simplicity cannot create complexity. No info cannot create info and simple info cannot create more complex info.

Complexity was around very early, perhaps in the beginning when life first appeared on earth. The evidence seems to support a passing on of existing genetic info which varied into new forms through developmental programs and other processes like symbiosis, HGT, epigenetics, plasticity, etc rather than a random and blind process that has no evidence. Natural selection plays its part but it's a smaller part that has been made out.

If anything it is those who give selection an all-powerful creative ability through adaptivism are the ones who probably act more like the stereotyped creationsist by taking a blind belief and assumption that its the cause of how all life we see ended up on earth.