Darwin's Theory Challenged

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Except that the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection can both stand alone, or co-exist, without issue. The truthfulness of the one does nothing to discredit the other. There can be many mechanisms by which the character of life is altered.

The piece started by presenting a non sequitur in order to support its argument. They seem to be saying that the sudden appearance of a physical characteristic invalidates other beliefs. It doesn't, quite simply because the trait that they point to is readily repeatable, from generation to generation. It is not a genetic divergence, it is a fixed genetic trait/ability. it's like saying that my kid having blonde hair, when mine is brown, is evidence of evolution.

People who have an over abundance of food in their formative years display a tendency toward certain physical traits later in life. DUH! Smoking fathers have a higher tendency toward having obese children. What about the effects of nicotine on the brain, smokers' social tendencies, and the like? Completely discounted. Causation is not shown.

All of this has the ring of junk science, to my ears.

This article seems to know the difference between darwin and evolution in the beginning, but slowly combines them both at the end, especially the last sentence. Some of the info is pretty decent, some of it I could do without. It's interesting and at least people are out there testing.

[smileyman]

And it is cool we can discuss theory like this without anyone quoting scripture

[SteveP]

I find it hard to have logical conversations about evolution because most people are just so misinformed. That being said, it seems like this conversation is pretty spot on.

I just got done with a ecological/evolutionary bio class with a heavy emphasis on genetics. What a great class. I'm not sure how the author can use gene expression to disprove anything? Even humans have environmentally affected gene expression. Children who sit closer to TV and read books are more likely to express the genes that target Myopia.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

This article seems to know the difference between darwin and evolution in the beginning, but slowly combines them both at the end, especially the last sentence. Some of the info is pretty decent, some of it I could do without. It's interesting and at least people are out there testing.

Yes, but they are considering the evidence that they choose to, in complete isolation from outside influences and other evidence, then drawing conclusions that don't appear to be supported by even the stated evidence. They aren't talking about differentiation between species, they're talking about variation WITHIN a species. All of the things that they mention are within the current genetic code of those species.

I start with a cat. The cat becomes obese. The cat's offspring end up being obese. Is this genetic drift from the norm, or am I being a fucktard and just over-feeding my cats? It isn't about inheriting acquired traits, so much as it is simply triggering recessive, preexisting ones. Cats already possess the genetic capability for being fat.

I would hardly call this "new science", as they do in the article. It's merely a ham-fisted attempt at repackaging of old theories, that have since been merged into the whole of Evolution.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by SteveP

I'm not sure how the author can use gene expression to disprove anything?

Great point, as Papa said, multiple forms of progression can exist in evolution. Proving one shouldn't disprove another.

[SteveP]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I start with a cat. The cat becomes obese. The cat's offspring end up being obese. Is this genetic drift from the norm, or am I being a fucktard and just over-feeding my cats? It isn't about inheriting acquired traits, so much as it is simply triggering recessive, preexisting ones. Cats already possess the genetic capability for being fat.

One problem with this is genetic drift and it's ability to effect speciation is reliant on isolation. Drift in a population that interbreeds won't have any effect on evolution, only the gene pool.

EDIT: I think the word genetic drift is in the wrong context. Genetic drift is a change in allele frequency between a population and it's parent source. The whole Hardy-Weinburg funnes

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by SteveP

One problem with this is genetic drift and it's ability to effect speciation is reliant on isolation. Drift in a population that interbreeds won't have any effect on evolution, only the gene pool.

I suppose that depends upon how far that drift goes. If the drift becomes tantamount to mutation, and that mutation is stable and varied enough that breeding back into the original species is impossible, then do you have a new phylum? If the mice that they talk about in the article ended up only being able to genetically express a tendency for cancer and yellow fur, rather than health and brown fur, what then?

*EDIT* I understood what you intended by using the term 'genetic drift.' Your edit went beyond my own studies

[SteveP]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

If the drift becomes tantamount to mutation, and that mutation is stable and varied enough that breeding back into the original species is impossible, then do you have a new phylum?

*EDIT* I understood what you intended by using the term 'genetic drift.' Your edit went beyond my own studies

Cool, just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

What you described up there is hybrid speciation. If the hybrid CAN breed with the parent population then it will be absorbed into the gene pool. If it cannot, it will become a new species. Neanderthal / Homosapian type deal (this is really controversial, just using it as an example)

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by SteveP

Cool, just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

What you described up there is hybrid speciation. If the hybrid CAN breed with the parent population then it will be absorbed into the gene pool. If it cannot, it will become a new species. Neanderthal / Homosapian type deal (this is really controversial, just using it as an example)

Thanks. That's what I was trying to illustrate

[SteveP]

I like talking about this stuff. Maybe that's why it's my major