Denial of Evolution VI.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
a layman, what's it to you?
James Hogan
Registered Member
What do you think about Lamarckian evolution. Is it having a revival with epigenetic inheritance?
rpenner solves chaotic equations in his sleep, don't know if he knows as much about evolution.
I'd be more then willing to enforce this upon you. Are you volunteering?
I think the term Lamarckian has too many different definitions to be useful for a meeting of the minds. Lamarckian evolution is a striving towards a goal, rooted in essentialism, and wholly unevidenced or mechanism. Epigenetics is not strongly involved in evolution in that heritable protein switch settings or methylation are analogous to DIP switches on a videogame main board while the self-perpetuating DNA-replication-transcription loop that enables life is analogous to the software on the main board. Epigenetic change can change those switches in one direction (and sometimes back to original settings) but the genetic change is responsible for the protein machinery that ultimately expresses those switches in various manners.
So supporting evidence that epigenetics is real is no endorsement of Lamarck or essentialism or "choice" or "striving to change."
It is hardly having a revival. Rather various minor players extrapolate from various minor biological research to try and claim the crown of Gould's desire to replace the modern synthesis with a more modern synthesis that better explains some historical features of evolution. But these various minor players haven't convincingly met the burden of actually replicating all of the modern synthesis's predictions with better precision and so work goes on. Some people may be trying to hoodwink others into thinking there is a "big tent" called "Lamarckian evolution" that all these newer ideas fit into, but this is using a fuzzy label that means different things to different people to create a false equivalence between different ideas. To the extent some people say epigenetics kills off Darwinian evolution, this is patently false -- epigenetics and horizontal gene transfer are small corrections to the assumption of Mendelian inheritance and don't kill off biological theory so much as enhance it.
Life is ultimately messy and complex in all sorts of ways. Biology has long recognized that in ways that encyclopedia pages and high school textbooks barely touch on.
-- // Added in edit: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...ready-for-an-extended-evolutionary-synthesis/
leopold
It largely depends on what one means by "suddenly". In evolution, suddenly means time frames of tens of thousands of years(man bred chihuahuas from wolves in about 15,000 years). But the operative word is "appearance". Fossilization rarely happens, they are rarely found(those we do find are but a small fraction of those that exist), they are destroyed by natural forces, many are buried too deep. It's like we have small fractions of random scenes from a movie film, we get the general idea, but we do not see the whole picture, it "appears" jerky, even if the process was smooth. MOST of the various species that have ever existed are unknown to us, and are likely to stay that way, getting more than one specimen/site in 10 thousand years of a single line is unusual.
Based on what? Life probably hovered around the fire of the hot smokers for a few million years, at least. It was 3 BILLION years of evolution before anything more developed than a bacteria appeared. Life did not begin with the Cambrian a mere half billion years ago, the "appearance" of an explosion was because that's when hard body parts first showed up to be fossilized.
There is a difference between free thought based on what knowledge you do have and that which occurs within an empty head. If you know nothing you will believe anything and your free thought is unbounded by reality. When you then try to assert that said free thoughts ARE reality you get what we have here, a failure to communicate, as we are discussing reality(as science has revealed it)and you are not. Free thought of that sort has no use, other than to occupy the thoughts of the one doing the thinking.
The deep ocean is the most stable environment on Earth, many primitive forms still survive there, having changed little since millions of years ago. Evolution goes slowly in stable environments.
They experienced several ice ages, interspersed with periods of savannas, hardly a stable environment. Those lines that lived in the colder climates became mammoths, and they died out after the last ice age. The elephants in India and Africa didn't need all that hair so did not develop into mammoths. Evolution goes faster in less stable environments.
In one form or another. Some niches are more stable than others. Deep dirt protects in much the same way as deep water can.
That descent with modification tested by survival to reproduce(IE evolution)explains the diversity of life on Earth.
That nothing you have posted casts the least bit of doubt on that fact.
That you have no idea what you are talking about.
That you are a Creationist, the camouflage isn't fooling anyone, it's plain from the arguments you are making.
Grumpy
It largely depends on what one means by "suddenly". In evolution, suddenly means time frames of tens of thousands of years(man bred chihuahuas from wolves in about 15,000 years). But the operative word is "appearance". Fossilization rarely happens, they are rarely found(those we do find are but a small fraction of those that exist), they are destroyed by natural forces, many are buried too deep. It's like we have small fractions of random scenes from a movie film, we get the general idea, but we do not see the whole picture, it "appears" jerky, even if the process was smooth. MOST of the various species that have ever existed are unknown to us, and are likely to stay that way, getting more than one specimen/site in 10 thousand years of a single line is unusual.
Based on what? Life probably hovered around the fire of the hot smokers for a few million years, at least. It was 3 BILLION years of evolution before anything more developed than a bacteria appeared. Life did not begin with the Cambrian a mere half billion years ago, the "appearance" of an explosion was because that's when hard body parts first showed up to be fossilized.
There is a difference between free thought based on what knowledge you do have and that which occurs within an empty head. If you know nothing you will believe anything and your free thought is unbounded by reality. When you then try to assert that said free thoughts ARE reality you get what we have here, a failure to communicate, as we are discussing reality(as science has revealed it)and you are not. Free thought of that sort has no use, other than to occupy the thoughts of the one doing the thinking.
The deep ocean is the most stable environment on Earth, many primitive forms still survive there, having changed little since millions of years ago. Evolution goes slowly in stable environments.
They experienced several ice ages, interspersed with periods of savannas, hardly a stable environment. Those lines that lived in the colder climates became mammoths, and they died out after the last ice age. The elephants in India and Africa didn't need all that hair so did not develop into mammoths. Evolution goes faster in less stable environments.
In one form or another. Some niches are more stable than others. Deep dirt protects in much the same way as deep water can.
That descent with modification tested by survival to reproduce(IE evolution)explains the diversity of life on Earth.
That nothing you have posted casts the least bit of doubt on that fact.
That you have no idea what you are talking about.
That you are a Creationist, the camouflage isn't fooling anyone, it's plain from the arguments you are making.
Grumpy
James Hogan
Registered Member
rpenner in the Denis Noble paper, there was something very interesting:
See the bold text. There's no possible way to explain this sort of data inside the modern synthesis, the extended synthesis was formulated to explain this sort of thing. You may be interested in the book Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: the Lamarckian Dimension by Eva Jablonka it is free online somewhere.
See the bold text. There's no possible way to explain this sort of data inside the modern synthesis, the extended synthesis was formulated to explain this sort of thing. You may be interested in the book Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: the Lamarckian Dimension by Eva Jablonka it is free online somewhere.
this is why i said to include your interpretation of the word.
you can't possibly be serious.
even the deep ocean has currents, and i doubt they take millions of years to complete a loop.
read the following sentence carefully:That you are a Creationist, the camouflage isn't fooling anyone, it's plain from the arguments you are making.
Grumpy
there is no such thing as an intelligence without substance.
stop with the creationist stuff grumpy.
Hmmm... You're probably right there leopold. The deep ocean does have currents. Problem is, if an organism requires the environment found around vents the current would simply take life to a place where it - dies. Now imagine if some of those organisms that got transported to a less hospitable environment managed to survive - perhaps due to some subtle mutation. Why maybe, after a few million years some of them might even thrive some five hundred feet or so away from their original optimum location. Now extrapolate a few billion years and you might get some drastic divergence, even *gasp* a new species, genus, etc. Now I have a novel idea - let's call this concept macroevolution. Wow.
He's not going to, and neither is anyone else, until you stop with the creationist stuff.
What you're proposing is that one species can evolve into a radically different species in just 2 or 3 generations. If that's not creationism, I don't know what is, because shit like that can't happen naturally.
You made your bed, and now you have to lie in it.
The life around geothermal vents (bacteria, pognophores, amphipods, copepods) stays there. It does not drift with the current.
Perhaps you have experienced this in your own life. I am sure you have experienced wind. Did it blow you away, or did you stay in the same place while the wind blew?
Now you are making an argument from incredulity -- in fact the 2005 paper points at a very clear explanation -- the fertilized carp egg differs from carp body cells in that it has an embryonic segmentation counter set to zero and it is this counter mechanism that controls segmentation. The fertilized carp nucleus is busy ordering the gearing up for the first division when it is removed. The goldfish nucleus takes over the process and the embryonic development continues with an initialization of protein mechanisms that is hybrid between common carp and goldfish.
In 501 attempts, they only got 7 goldfish to develop. Only one of them had a number of vertebrae intermediate between carp and goldfish -- they other 6 had purely goldfish-like numbers so the effect is consistent with a nuclear-originating, cytoplasm-residing segmentation clock. Repeating the experiment in larger numbers with an emphasis on timing how long the cytoplasm kept it's fertilized carp nucleus and that effect on vertebrae is an experiment one would do to try and refute this idea. Breeding the 31-vertebrae individual might or might not tell you something.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223162409.htm
http://www.biolreprod.org/content/72/3/510.abstract (free PDF link on that page)
As Denis Noble is writing a review paper I think he is letting confirmation bias lead him far from what is supportable.
Pognophores etc are not plankton. Pognophores (in particular worms in the family Siboglinidae) are big tube worms that anchor in one place, often near a vent, and spend their whole lives there. Since their environment changes very slowly, we would expect them to change very slowly as well - and this is in fact what we see.
Last edited:
In Leopold's defense he hasn't ascribed any of that to divine intervention.
While he is certainly an evolution denier, I don't think he's a traditional creationist. He's been going on about "molecular evolution" as if that's different from what happens in nature, and I think he just read that phrase somewhere (perhaps an intelligent design wedge paper) misunderstood it and is now using it to buttress his claims. I think that if he has an objective it's likely "hey, look at me, I'm a smart free thinker and I have all these ideas that make me stand out from the pack" rather than trying to push creationism.
(I may be wrong; he may talk about his 'molecular evolution' thing for a month then spring the 'so it can't happen naturally!' conclusion, but I doubt it.)
Sure. But if evolution works the way he says it does, then it's magic, not evolution. So I don't really care if he's technically a creationist or not, because for this reason, and a host of others, he's exactly like one.
You are looking for a particular morphological difference, but there is no reason to expect it, nor any time limits. Evolutionary trends are stochastic at best.
Which is false, so the hypothesis can't be true.
If you change 'negate' to 'natural selection', and rearrange the sentence, it will be clearer.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
But they didn't necessarily have the same DNA. Even in the most primitive organisms, no two individuals have identical DNA unless they're fraternal twins (in vertebrates, with comparable models in the other kingdoms). So despite having the same environmental pressure, they didn't have the capacity to evolve in the same direction.leopold said:
Two organisms must have the same environment AND the same DNA (at least the DNA that controls the trait in question) before they're likely to evolve in the same way.
100K years ago, in the Arctic, there were lots of black bears who still had black fur. There was no way they could have evolved into polar bears, so they stayed in their original habitat. Only the ones that happened to mutate for white fur were able to continue going north and capture prey by hiding in the white environment. These are the ones who evolved into polar bears.
Leopold has latched on to the phrase "molecular evolution". Of course, we already knew that evolution happens on the molecular level.
Then again, the only thing the wedge strategy seeks to do is muddy the waters and spread confusion.
- Status