Which came first, the fang or the poison?

Van · Sep 29, 2008

One of the common traits found in discussions of evolution is talking past one another.
Is there a controversy that the life forms today have changed from the life forms found in the fossil record? No. But is there a controversy concerning the tempo and mode of evolution? Yes.

Jester4kicks · Sep 29, 2008

Van said:
Yes, I can describe the difference between neo-Darwinism and Darwinism. Are you suggesting the changes are not radical?

My thinking runs along the line presented here: http://www.answers.com/topic/modern-evolutionary-synthesis

I guess I'm still not seeing any "radical" changes from Darwin's original hypothesis. Fundamentally, you still have mutation and variation leading to slight differences in characteristics, which may or may not improve and organisms chances of survival and propagation.

Over the years, the primary "changes" have only been in regard to how genetic material is passed on, and what sorts of external conditions might advance, or prohibit, natural selection.

Sorry... but those really aren't "radical" changes.

Van said:
One of the common traits found in discussions of evolution is talking past one another.
Is there a controversy that the life forms today have changed from the life forms found in the fossil record? No. But is there a controversy concerning the tempo and mode of evolution? Yes.

Tempo and mode? You'll need to expand on this.

Van · Sep 29, 2008

Hi Jester4kicks, not sure what your point is? I have made several very sound statements and you keep asking questions. Now you seek to debate whether radical change aptly describes the addition of genetics to the theory? What is your point?

Next you ask about mode and tempo. These were Mallon's words and I simply agreed. Seemed clear to me. Perhaps you might google "Evolution mode and tempo" and read several articles.

artybloke · Sep 30, 2008

Are you suggesting the changes are not radical?

Perfectly understandable, and a perfect example of evolution. The theory has adapted to new information as it arises. What do you expect it to do, try to stay the same despite this new information, like a bunch of fundamentalists vainly trying to bolster their walls against the real world? Therein lies extinction...

Jester4kicks · Sep 30, 2008

Van said:
Hi Jester4kicks, not sure what your point is? I have made several very sound statements and you keep asking questions. Now you seek to debate whether radical change aptly describes the addition of genetics to the theory? What is your point?

You stated: "Certainly some scientists believe the current understanding contains error. The theory of evolution has radically changed over the last 100 years, and it is reasonable to assume it will continue to, uh ... evolve, in the future."

I believe this statement is incorrect. It seems like you used the "radical change" portion as a support to the idea that the Theory of Evolution contains errors. Perhaps I am just being picky... but mischaracterizations, such as "radical change," do not properly represent the truth. If someone were reading this who knew far less about the Theory of Evolution, they would probably get the wrong idea.

Van said:
Next you ask about mode and tempo. These were Mallon's words and I simply agreed. Seemed clear to me. Perhaps you might google "Evolution mode and tempo" and read several articles.

Fair enough. I guess I read these posts as if I were someone who didn't take the time to lookup the terms (as I suspect many people on this board do). Personally, I've never been happy with the term "mode" when applied to the Theory of Evolution. It seems to me that the term "method" would be more appropriate.

Again... probably just me being picky.

Mallon · Sep 30, 2008

Jester4kicks said:
Personally, I've never been happy with the term "mode" when applied to the Theory of Evolution. It seems to me that the term "method" would be more appropriate.

Interesting thought. What do you see as the difference?

Jester4kicks · Sep 30, 2008

Mallon said:
Interesting thought. What do you see as the difference?

"Mode" seems to suggest different "stages" of evolution. While such stages technically exist, they are not what "mode" actually refers to. Based on what I've read, "mode" is intended to refer to how genetic material is passed on, at what point mutation and variation may occur, and how that mutation or variation might be passed on. Each of these categories seem to be closer to "methods" by which genetic differences spread... not "modes".

Maybe it's me, but when I think of "modes"... I don't think of specific methods, but rather general statuses (sp?) that something can be in.

Van · Sep 30, 2008

Note to put too fine a point on it, but I used radical change to assert the theory of evolution had contained errors in the past, to support the contention it no doubt contains errors now which will be revealed in the future.

So to sum up, teaching the limits of our understanding and the conflicting ideas about what is not well understood is fundamental to education. To be dogmatic about scientific understanding is at its core unscientific.

Van · Sep 30, 2008

Darwin's theory of evolution has been discarded and a new theory adopted, neo-Darwinism. The question we must ask ourselves is will some new insight come along and radically alter our understanding in the future. I believe the answer to that question is yes.

Let me ask a simple question. Why are some poisonous animals brightly colored? How do predators know the brightly colored animals are poisonous? You would think natural selection would eliminate genes that produce easy targets. And if the predators know to avoid the bright colored animals, how did this instinct evolve? Why didn't the genes that produce the bright colors get weeded out of the pool before the genes evolved that say avoid the bright colors. Sounds like a mode and tempo controversy? But interesting, and useful to train critical thinking.

gluadys · Sep 30, 2008

Van said:
Darwin's theory of evolution has been discarded and a new theory adopted, neo-Darwinism.

That is not quite right. Darwin's theory has not been discarded. It has been incorporated into a more comprehensive theory that includes elements of genetics, mutations and paleontology which were unavailable to him in 1859.

Neo-Darwinism is pretty much the same in its basic outline, but much more specific on mechanism than Darwin's original proposal.

artybloke · Oct 1, 2008

Darwin's theory of evolution has been discarded and a new theory adopted, neo-Darwinism.

See what gluadys says. I like to think of it as having "evolved." It's the same, in fact, with pretty much all science: the Einsteinien model of gravity doesn't throw out the Newtonian, it incorporates it and explains what wasn't explained by Newton.

To be dogmatic about scientific understanding is at its core unscientific.

True - but would you therefore expect science classes to teach phlogiston theory, or medical schools to teach Galen's form of medical science? I doubt you would, because it would be going backwards to science that has long ago been discarded, superseded by new information. Going back to creationism would be the biological equivalent of teaching Galen's medicine. It's interesting historically, but as science it has been roundly disproved.

Van · Oct 1, 2008

Nobody believes in Darwin's theory anymore. Why quibble about the obvious. What ax are you grinding? Genetics rather than "disuse" explains the mode of evolution.

Van · Oct 1, 2008

Would I expect schools to teach what they know (or believe they know) is false? Of course not. Schools taught by atheists should not teach about God, but they can teach that there is no God. I believe I have a right to send those of my family to schools taught by theists, rather than atheists. So I am for vouchers.

If you want to teach your children that embryos have slits like fish, fine. Have at it. I want my loved ones to understand Darwin was right about many things, but also wrong about many things and that we have moved on.

Assyrian · Oct 1, 2008

Anyone here taught Newton's laws of motion in school or university?

What about atomic structure?

If you want to teach your children that embryos have slits like fish, fine.

Technically, embryos have slits like fish embryos.

Jester4kicks · Oct 1, 2008

Van said:
Note to put too fine a point on it, but I used radical change to assert the theory of evolution had contained errors in the past, to support the contention it no doubt contains errors now which will be revealed in the future.

First... what errors? Second, making small refinements to an existing theory is not necessarily indicative of major changes down the road. As someone else pointed out, the theory of gravity did not "radically change" when Einstein refined it. Additionally, future discoveries regarding the nature of gravity in a black hole would not necessarily change the fundamental principles of the theory of gravity.

Oh... and you have yet to tell me what "radical changes" have been made to the theory of evolution.

Van said:
So to sum up, teaching the limits of our understanding and the conflicting ideas about what is not well understood is fundamental to education. To be dogmatic about scientific understanding is at its core unscientific.

It almost seems like you want teachers to lecture kids on flaws with one particular theory that may not even exist. The theory of evolution is taught as a theory which has been thoroughly researched and is generally accepted as fact. Same thing with the theory of gravity.

Van said:
Darwin's theory of evolution has been discarded and a new theory adopted, neo-Darwinism. The question we must ask ourselves is will some new insight come along and radically alter our understanding in the future. I believe the answer to that question is yes.

I would LOVE to see you show me how Darwin's theory has been "discarded".

Neo-Darwinism is not a "new theory". It is a new way of approaching Darwin's theory by examining evolution on the molecular and genetic levels.

Van said:
Let me ask a simple question. Why are some poisonous animals brightly colored? How do predators know the brightly colored animals are poisonous? You would think natural selection would eliminate genes that produce easy targets.

Yeah! Or you would at least think that natural selection would give those brightly-colored animals a means of defending themselves... oh... wait...

Van said:
And if the predators know to avoid the bright colored animals, how did this instinct evolve? Why didn't the genes that produce the bright colors get weeded out of the pool before the genes evolved that say avoid the bright colors. Sounds like a mode and tempo controversy? But interesting, and useful to train critical thinking.

Wow... so many issues here.

1) Bright coloring is not necessarily a bad thing. It's obviously worse for camoflage, but it's the equivalent of walking around with a sign that says "I have a gun and I will shoot you".... nobody is going to want to go near you. Think of it this way, if you're skin is toxic, but you look like every other piece of prey out there, you're skin probably won't do you much good until it's too late. (But hey, at least you get the last laugh) If your skin is toxic AND brightly colored, predators will learn to associate the bright coloring with danger or discomfort.

2) Genetic memory is still a bit uncertain... especially when it comes to animal instincts. Does a bear automatically know how to catch fish? Or do they learn the skill from their parent?

Van said:
If you want to teach your children that embryos have slits like fish, fine. Have at it. I want my loved ones to understand Darwin was right about many things, but also wrong about many things and that we have moved on.

What was he specifically wrong about?

Chesterton · Oct 1, 2008

Van said:
Nobody believes in Darwin's theory anymore. Why quibble about the obvious. What ax are you grinding? Genetics rather than "disuse" explains the mode of evolution.

Van must have a point. I visited an evolutionist website which advised that Darwin's ideas were so out of date that they should not be referred to by his name anymore, and that creationists should be made to sound stupid if they use the terms "Darwinian evolution" or "Darwinism".

Van · Oct 1, 2008

Jesterforkicks denies Darwinism had errors. Fine.

Next, Genetics is termed a small refinement. LOL

Next he ascribes to me unsavory behavior. LOL

Next he says Darwinism has not been discarded. LOL Neo-Darwinism replaced Darwinism in the 1960's, nearly 50 years ago.

Next snakes learn not to eat poisonous brightly colored frogs from the parents. I kid you not, that was the argument. ROFLO

Embryos do not have branchial slits as Darwin asserted.

Jester4kicks · Oct 1, 2008

Van said:
Jesterforkicks denies Darwinism had errors. Fine.

Next, Genetics is termed a small refinement. LOL

Next he ascribes to me unsavory behavior. LOL

Next he says Darwinism has not been discarded. LOL Neo-Darwinism replaced Darwinism in the 1960's, nearly 50 years ago.

Next snakes learn not to eat poisonous brightly colored frogs from the parents. I kid you not, that was the argument. ROFLO

Embryos do not have branchial slits as Darwin asserted.

1) I asked you what errors you were referring to. I did not deny that Darwin's theory was completely free of errors. (We now know the pangenesis was a bad idea) Nice try dodging the question and putting words in my mouth.

2) The core of Darwin's theory was the effect of natural selection on small variations and mutations resulting in cumulative change to a species. Plenty of developments have come along since that time, but they are not "radical changes" to that core idea. They are simply refinements that contributed to the core of the theory.

3) I don't believe I have "ascribed" any "unsavory behavior" to you... but I will point out that you STILL have not answered the question I asked. I don't have to put words in your mouth or blatantly accuse you of any malice... you seem to be perfectly capable of conveying that all on your own.

4) Neo-Darwinism did not "discard" Darwinism. The idea of a geo-centric universe has been "discarded". The idea that lightning is thrown down from an angry guy on a mountain has been "discarded". All Neo-Darwinism did was to take Darwin's core idea about natural selection, and then applied modern scientific understandings that were not available to Darwin in order to provide a better "how" to Darwin's "why".

5) I never said snakes learn anything about their diet from their parents. Thanks again for putting words in my mouth. What I said was that our understanding of genetic memory is still limited. We know how certain immunities can be passed genetically, but how dietary habit are aquired is still a bit of a mystery.

6) From encyclopedia britanica: "The embryos of humans and other nonaquatic vertebrates exhibit gill slits even though they never breathe through gills. These slits are found in the embryos of all vertebrates because they share as common ancestors the fish in which these structures first evolved. Human embryos also exhibit by the fourth week of development a well-defined tail, which reaches maximum length at six weeks."

Mallon · Oct 1, 2008

I think we're all playing semantics, here. Darwin certainly got the basics right, and the core of his argument -- that evolution is a product of natural selection -- remains intact today. So Jester4Kicks is right in saying that the fundamentals of Darwin's theory have not been overturned.
Van is right, though, in arguing that Darwin's theory, besides being incomplete, was in some ways flawed. Darwin was quite insistent on gradualism, despite the fact that saltation was being kicked around even in his day. Of course, this whole discussion occurred without the knowledge of regulatory and master genes, so he can be forgiven for that.
So was Darwin right? Mostly. The jist of his argument remains intact today. I wouldn't say "Darwinism" still holds true, though, since the caveats to his theory that Darwin espoused have since been falsified.

Van said:
Embryos do not have branchial slits as Darwin asserted.

Yes, they do. They're not fully-developed fish gills, per se, but the structures are undeniably homologous.

Jester4kicks · Oct 1, 2008

Mallon said:
I think we're all playing semantics, here. Darwin certainly got the basics right, and the core of his argument -- that evolution is a product of natural selection -- remains intact today. So Jester4Kicks is right in saying that the fundamentals of Darwin's theory have not been overturned.
Van is right, though, in arguing that Darwin's theory, besides being incomplete, was in some ways flawed. Darwin was quite insistent on gradualism, despite the fact that saltation was being kicked around even in his day. Of course, this whole discussion occurred without the knowledge of regulatory and master genes, so he can be forgiven for that.
So was Darwin right? Mostly. The jist of his argument remains intact today. I wouldn't say "Darwinism" still holds true, though, since the caveats to his theory that Darwin espoused have since been falsified.

Right, and that's pretty much my point. It seems like Van has the impression that the theory of evolution is still taught solely as Darwin envisioned it. While the backbone of Darwin's argument is still intact, his contribution to the theory is only taught as a core element, and his status is still viewed as more of a "founder" than anything.

This is as it should be.

Which came first, the fang or the poison?

Contributor

Warning - The following may cause you to think

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Warning - The following may cause you to think

Senior Veteran

Warning - The following may cause you to think

Contributor

Contributor

Legend

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Warning - The following may cause you to think

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Contributor

Warning - The following may cause you to think

Senior Veteran

Warning - The following may cause you to think

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency