Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

CON Forum
» back to
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution of Evolution
       Should Evolutionary Theory

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin


|     |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:

The Scientist: Should Evolutionary Theory Evolve?

Doesn't it always?

Looks like a tempest in a teapot to me.

Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:55 PM on January 12, 2010 | IP

|      |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:

Cool subjectS, poor approach, in my opinion.

It adds an unnecessary and distracting touch of drama.
In most of the topics cited in the article we're talking about nothing more than a conceptual realization.

Yeah, the more we know, the more subtle complexities we're able to appreciate in the interactions of genes and environment.

Yeah, evolvability is a cool concept for something we already know.

I can conceive of evolved mechanisms that get selected because of their specific ability to produce variation, which promotes adaptation. What's the fuzz?

Facilitated variation
It turns out that in many experimental and natural setups, you find discordance between genotype and phenotype".

Is "
discordance" the right word for it?

For instance, crocodile embryos do not have sex chromosomes. Sex is not determined genetically. Sex is determined by temperature, with males produced at around 31.6 °C, and females produced at slightly lower and higher temperatures. But since this is an ordinary knowledge (or because they don't feel like calling it "variation") perhaps they won't give this phenomenon such a dramatic description.

Perhaps they choose to call it "
Facilitated variation" when it has other characteristics (glands probably have this effect, some more than others), but that's conventional, not factual.

Concepts are cool, but facts are cooler.

Besides, making worlds out of concepts facilitates creationist attacks. =P

As for facilitated variation, i don't think hormones have a fixed effect. They're signaling chemicals. I'm sure populations can evolve different responses to the same chemicals, as if chemicals were part of their environment.
That's because they ARE a part of their environment.
A gene, to a gene, is also environment.
Everything is environment.

If that's possible for hormones, i don't see why it wouldn't be possible for food, light levels, temperature, pressure, or whatever environmental factor you can think of.

I think it's even possible for mechanisms that produce shifts in mutation rates in response to environmental factors (although i wouldn't bet for that).

Multilevel inheritance
They seem to pay too much attention to physical traits.

You want "multilevel inheritance"? Well, you have culture. You want something physical? Well, some cultural mandates haircuts, or tattoos, or even boob implants in some circles (that could hypothetically become reproductively isolated, like celebrities).

Scientists getting together as in a round table, "deciding" things like these, remind me of legislators. Creationists would attack their arrogance, and i would take their side.

There’s no need to formally revisit the Modern Synthesis, argues Douglas Futuyma, an evolutionary biologist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, because evolutionary theory is flexible enough to incorporate well-substantiated new ideas as they arise.
Well, yeah! Exactly!
Douglas Futuyma
I’m not saying that there’s nothing interesting [in the Extended Synthesis]. I just think the self-conscious labeling of it as a new point of view or a challenge to the old, most people don’t buy.
Pretty clear.

The push for a radical re-think of evolutionary theory is far from reaching a critical mass, agrees Michael Lynch from Indiana University.
Michael Lynch
There’s no general clamoring in the community for a new synthesis. There are more things to explain, but I think a lot of us are happy with the fundamental framework to do that explaining in.
Good conclusion.

Thanks, Apoapsis. I enjoyed the article beyond it's approach.

Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at

Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:40 PM on January 12, 2010 | IP
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread


Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.