The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[stevevw]

No I dont agree with your conclusions as they are wrong. The papers say that natural selection is the overwhelming strongest force in the ToE but that there are other, minor forces, that may complement natural selection in some cases. This is marginal but nonetheless important of course, but not in the way you seem to think.

Again, write the authors if you dont believe me.

THe conclusion is not mine, all I am doing is repeating what the author says in plain English. I do not need to write to the authors to get them to spell out for me their own words written in plain English. That would be ridiculous. In fact you are the one who is contradicting the author so maybe you should be asking him if what he means is really the opposite of what he writes. You say that the author is not questioning natural selection when the author says this in plain English without even going into the paper to determine what it is about.

The papers say
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.

It is really becoming silly as we are debating sematics now.

He is not questioning natural selections ability for some minor part of evolution but is questioning an important part of evolution which is the genomic and cellular features central to building complex organisms. It does not matter if he is referring to a particular part of evolution. The important thing is he is talking about an important part as it is central to building complex oorganisms.

 

[VirOptimus]

THe conclusion is not mine, all I am doing is repeating what the author says in plain English. I do not need to write to the authors to get them to spell out for me their own words written in plain English. That would be ridiculous. In fact you are the one who is contradicting the author so maybe you should be asking him if what he means is really the opposite of what he writes. You say that the author is not questioning natural selection when the author says this in plain English without even going into the paper to determine what it is about.

The papers say
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.

It is really becoming silly as we are debating sematics now.

He is not questioning natural selections ability for some minor part of evolution but is questioning an important part of evolution which is the genomic and cellular features central to building complex organisms. It does not matter if he is referring to a particular part of evolution. The important thing is he is talking about an important part as it is central to building complex oorganisms.

No, its not semantics. You are quite frankly, just wrong.

Its obvious you cant read science, so again, write to the authors and ask.

 

[stevevw]

No, its not semantics. You are quite frankly, just wrong.

Its obvious you cant read science, so again, write to the authors and ask.

Rather than go over the same debate, I would like to know your opinion of how you think these patterns on the moth wings got there.

 

[VirOptimus]

Rather than go over the same debate, I would like to know your opinion of how you think these patterns on the moth wings got there.

I dont have ”opinions” on science and I see no case to doubt the scientific consensus.

 

[Brightmoon]

Rather than go over the same debate, I would like to know your opinion of how you think these patterns on the moth wings got there.

Well the genetics of how patterns like these appear on moths and other animals was worked out about 15 years ago. What was your point?

 

[Brightmoon]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to point out , Steve , as even Darwin understood that pure natural selection wasn’t the only process going on. Sexual selection can select for maladaptive traits that affect the survival of an individual but cause that individual to be selected as a better mate . The peacock’s tail is a good example of that .

 

[Kylie]

Rather than go over the same debate, I would like to know your opinion of how you think these patterns on the moth wings got there.

I expect you'll find the best explanation is evolution.

 

[stevevw]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to point out , Steve , as even Darwin understood that pure natural selection wasn’t the only process going on. Sexual selection can select for maladaptive traits that affect the survival of an individual but cause that individual to be selected as a better mate . The peacock’s tail is a good example of that .

Darwin did not know about these other influences that allow living things to change which are covered in what is known as the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). His theory did not even know about the influence of genetics until the modern synthesis was developed. Supporters of Neo-Darwinism or (SET) Standard Evolutionary Theory say that these additional influences are only minor but evidence has shown they are also causes of change and can also replace or bypass natural selection. Now many are saying that the theory needs to be either extended or even replaced.

Biological devlopmental, for example, can allow the right sort of changes for living things to adapt to their environments through developmental processes. These changes are self-organising and biased towards producing certain outcomes like specific segmentation of body plans rather than being open to the unlimited range of random mutational variations and natural selection. Natural selection can then act as a refiner in consolidating the developmental changes. Plasticity can cause living things to change to fit their enviorments being influenced by other living things around them. This is more associated with HGT or symbiosis. Other changes can come from epigenetics which is more Lamarckian.

The point is unlike Neo-Darwinism that takes a narrow view the EES views living things and their environments more holistically where ecosystems change and are subject to many influences. This relegates Natural selection to a lesser role. As time has gone by the standard theory has had difficulty in accounting for what we are finding and the EES is said to be a better model at explaining what we see.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
We believe that the EES will shed new light on how evolution works. 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.


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.

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

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?

The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual
The impetus for the Extended Synthesis, a graft onto, or a major departure from, the Modern Synthesis (depending on who is describing it), was the overwhelming data generated in recent years that just didn't fit the old formula. Phenomena like self-organization, epigenetics and plasticity intruded in ways that were complementary to, and sometimes contradictory to, natural selection. Then there was niche construction to consider--where organisms invent their habitats (burrows, bird nests, bee hives, etc.) rather than being selected by their fitness to pre-existing ones. And also punctuated evolution, abrupt transitions in the fossil record, and the even more puzzling episodes of stasis.


While much of the evolutionary biology community resists the notion of an evolutionary framework that begins to consider the role of determinants beyond the gene, as the Extended Synthesis does, the momentum of the new synthesis is undeniable (see Google for "the Altenberg 16"). And there are other scientists and philosophers of science--avowed non-creationists--who say the Extended Synthesis does not go far enough in relegating natural selection to a reduced role.
The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual - Archaeology Magazine Archive

 

[Brightmoon]

I’m still not sure what point you’re trying to make. Evolution involves a lot of different processes not just random mutations and biologists know that. Creationists seem not to know that but they tend to be ignorant about science anyway.

 

[stevevw]

I expect you'll find the best explanation is evolution.

This is what I am talking about how most people think that evolution (natural selection) has great creative power and is responsible for just about everything we see. So all the patterns on moths wings are the result of blind selection sifting through thousands of possibilities to produce all these colours and shapes. In some cases painting specific pictures on their wings. This becomes hard to believe and there is no evidence apart from people assuming that Neo-Darwinism can do this.

A more logical and supported explanation that fits in with what scientists are seeing is there are other influences with development processes that can produce certain biased outcomes that may be useful for those moths. The moth's ability to develop these patterns is more plastic which allows a certain scope of patterns to be produced. In other words, the eye patterns are produced as eyes and don't have to go through a hit and miss process of trying to evolve a useless blotch into a specific eye pattern. Natural selection may then refine this as to the best eye patterns that will be more useful.

Natural selection is good at the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. Evolution theory cannot account or explain how features go there in the first place.

Evolutionary developmental biology

Some work on developmental bias suggests that phenotypic variation can be channelled and directed towards functional types by the processes of development [27,28]. The rationale is that development relies on highly robust ‘core processes’, from microtubule formation and signal transduction pathways to organogenesis, which at the same time exhibit ‘exploratory behaviour’ [28], allowing them to stabilize and select certain states over others. Exploratory behaviour followed by somatic selection enables core processes to be responsive to changes in genetic and environmental input, while their robustness and conservation maintain their ability to generate functional (i.e. well integrated) outcomes in the face of perturbations. This phenomenon, known as facilitated variation [28,34], provides a mechanistic explanation for how small, genetic changes can sometimes elicit substantial, non-random, well-integrated and apparently adaptive innovations in the phenotype.
The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions

 

[VirOptimus]

This is what I am talking about how most people think that evolution (natural selection) has great creative power and is responsible for just about everything we see. So all the patterns on moths wings are the result of blind selection sifting through thousands of possibilities to produce all these colours and shapes. In some cases painting specific pictures on their wings. This becomes hard to believe and there is no evidence apart from people assuming that Neo-Darwinism can do this.

A more logical and supported explanation that fits in with what scientists are seeing is there are other influences with development processes that can produce certain biased outcomes that may be useful for those moths. The moth's ability to develop these patterns is more plastic which allows a certain scope of patterns to be produced. In other words, the eye patterns are produced as eyes and don't have to go through a hit and miss process of trying to evolve a useless blotch into a specific eye pattern. Natural selection may then refine this as to the best eye patterns that will be more useful.

Natural selection is good at the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. Evolution theory cannot account or explain how features go there in the first place.

Evolutionary developmental biology

Some work on developmental bias suggests that phenotypic variation can be channelled and directed towards functional types by the processes of development [27,28]. The rationale is that development relies on highly robust ‘core processes’, from microtubule formation and signal transduction pathways to organogenesis, which at the same time exhibit ‘exploratory behaviour’ [28], allowing them to stabilize and select certain states over others. Exploratory behaviour followed by somatic selection enables core processes to be responsive to changes in genetic and environmental input, while their robustness and conservation maintain their ability to generate functional (i.e. well integrated) outcomes in the face of perturbations. This phenomenon, known as facilitated variation [28,34], provides a mechanistic explanation for how small, genetic changes can sometimes elicit substantial, non-random, well-integrated and apparently adaptive innovations in the phenotype.
The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions

Again; you dont understanding the science does not invalidate the ToE.

Let go of your religious pre-suppostitions and open your mind.

 

[stevevw]

I’m still not sure what point you’re trying to make. Evolution involves a lot of different processes not just random mutations and biologists know that. Creationists seem not to know that but they tend to be ignorant about science anyway.

The point is natural selection has been given more creative power than what it really has because some want to attribute the complexity and variety we see to naturalistic processes. But rather there are other processes that are more guided and biased which produce certain outcomes quickly that are well suited for creatures to adapt to their environments. This points to living things being made with inbuilt mechanisms to change. It takes a more holistic view where all living things and their environments coopt with each other in changing ecosystems.

All this diminishes Neo-Darwinism and supports design in life. Natural selection has been attributed too much creative power because that is what is needed to account for what we see because Scientists are finding life is far to complex and varied. Except the explanations used to attribute selection as the cause are unsupported and inadequate to account for what is being found.

 

[Brightmoon]

The point is that nature is a little messy ; is not just black and white and we’re still learning about it. You have a problem with that. I don’t, because I’ve got a bio degree

 

[stevevw]

Again; you dont understanding the science does not invalidate the ToE.

Let go of your religious pre-suppostitions and open your mind.

Only the science of yesterday supports the Neo-Darwinian theory. The science of today is disputing that so I guess it depends on what science you use.

My understanding comes from my academic background and the science that supports this. The EES fits in well with what I have studied becuase it emphasizes the developmental, social and behavioural aspects of life and that is why I support this approach. It is a logical fallacy to discount everything I have learned as irrelevant becuase I happen to have faith. Taking this approach would discount Gregor Mendels laws of inheritance becuase he was a priest.

You still you have not expained how the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis does not challenge the Standard theory and natural selection.

 

[Brightmoon]

You seem to think it does cause a problem for science that something is more nuanced than you originally thought it would be. Frankly it looks like you’re throwing a hissy fit because something is more complex than you want it to be.

 

[VirOptimus]

Only the science of yesterday supports the Neo-Darwinian theory. The science of today is disputing that so I guess it depends on what science you use.

My understanding comes from my academic background and the science that supports this. The EES fits in well with what I have studied becuase it emphasizes the developmental, social and behavioural aspects of life and that is why I support this approach. It is a logical fallacy to discount everything I have learned as irrelevant becuase I happen to have faith. Taking this approach would discount Gregor Mendels laws of inheritance becuase he was a priest.

You still you have not expained how the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis does not challenge the Standard theory and natural selection.

No, I’m not saying you cant have religious beliefs, but when (like you do) you let them affect science you arent doing science any more. You are doing religion.

Secondly, by your own admission you have no relevant academic background in biology.

 

[stevevw]

The point is that nature is a little messy and is not just black and white and we’re still learning about it. You have a problem with that. I don’t, because I’ve got a bio degree

So what do you think about what is being said with the EES. What do you mean by nature is a bit messy. From what I understand with the Neo-Darwinian view is that it is quite clear, there is only one force that causes all change and that is natural selection. All other influences are minor and just noise. This has been mentioned by several scientists and this is the divide that is beginning to unfold between the standard theory and the new evolutionary synthesis. So there is a clear difference in each position.

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution, with mutation creating variation but never controlling the ultimate direction of evolutionary change (for a review, see ref. 17).
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

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.

In the decades since, evolutionary biology has incorporated developments consistent with the tenets of the modern synthesis. One such is ‘neutral theory’, which emphasizes random events in evolution. However, standard evolutionary theory (SET) largely retains the same assumptions as the original modern synthesis, which continues to channel how people think about evolution.

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.


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?

 

[stevevw]

No, I’m not saying you cant have religious beliefs, but when (like you do) you let them affect science you arent doing science any more. You are doing religion.

Secondly, by your own admission you have no relevant academic background in biology.

First this is another logical fallacy that only people with an academic background in biology can know about evolution. That would discount probably most people who comment on these forums about evolution and many prominant people who have contributed to evolution such as Mendel himself who was not a biologists but studied theoretical philosophy and physics.

It also shows that the papers I posted are correct in saying that there is a narrow view with evolution in making it all about biology, changes in genes and adaptations. As mentioned the modern take on evolution with the EES as posted above to Brightmoon is also about the social sciences, behaviour, epigentics, development, influences other than gene change. These are mostly the very subjects I have studied and have knowledge on but you discount this because of my religious faith and your narrow view of evolution. This appears to be a one-sided view and once again is a logical fallacy and perhaps also influenced by your beliefs about people who have religious beliefs.

 

[Speedwell]

First this is another logical fallacy that only people with an academic background in biology can know about evolution. That would discount probably most people who comment on these forums about evolution and many prominant people who have contributed to evolution such as Mendel himself who was not a biologists but studied theoretical philosophy and physics.

It also shows that the papers I posted are correct in saying that there is a narrow view with evolution in making it all about biology, changes in genes and adaptations. As mentioned the modern take on evolution with the EES as posted above to Brightmoon is also about the social sciences, behaviour, epigentics, development, influences other than gene change. These are mostly the very subjects I have studied and have knowledge on but you discount this because of my religious faith and your narrow view of evolution. This appears to be a one-sided view and once again is a logical fallacy and perhaps also influenced by your beliefs about people who have religious beliefs.

Nobody here is denying EES as such. What we are trying to point out is that EES is an attempt to extend our understanding of the complex natural forces which drive evolution. It is not a "gap" for your God.

 

[VirOptimus]

First this is another logical fallacy that only people with an academic background in biology can know about evolution. That would discount probably most people who comment on these forums about evolution and many prominant people who have contributed to evolution such as Mendel himself who was not a biologists but studied theoretical philosophy and physics.

It also shows that the papers I posted are correct in saying that there is a narrow view with evolution in making it all about biology, changes in genes and adaptations. As mentioned the modern take on evolution with the EES as posted above to Brightmoon is also about the social sciences, behaviour, epigentics, development, influences other than gene change. These are mostly the very subjects I have studied and have knowledge on but you discount this because of my religious faith and your narrow view of evolution. This appears to be a one-sided view and once again is a logical fallacy and perhaps also influenced by your beliefs about people who have religious beliefs.

Im not saying people without relevant academia cant understand the ToE, but you clearly dont.

You dont understand the papers you quote or why your posts are nonsense. Also, you refuse to learn and brush away all critique, not a good quality in debating.

When you are wrong, you are wrong. Learn from it, dont double down.