Originally posted by Ordo
Well I can play this game. I have degrees in both molecular biology and in the history of science. I've taken entire classes on evolution, both as a biological theory and as a historical concept. I've read most of Darwin's pertinent original works and written papers on everything from Natural Selection, the Modern Synthesis, creationism and the creationist movement, and the relationship between evolution, religion, and democratic society. I've examined both the scientific and popular aspects of evolution and how they have changed through time. I've even spent time teaching natural selection to middle and high-school students. This isn't to say I'm always right or you should listen to me without question, but if you want to use "passing exams" as a rebuffing of total incompetency, I'm much less "totally incompetent" than you.If you look back, I want to make clear I never said you didn't know the concept at all. I said you have some misconceptions about evolution. I've also said that you have brought up concepts that show you have a greater knowledge.
[b]However, even disregarding misconceptions you have about the theory, popularizing science and explaining it to others is a WHOLE different ball game. (especially to creationists) I think you have definitely failed there.
A few changes. "Microevolution" and "macroevolution" used to be scientific terms, broken down by scientists to explain what they thought were different phenomena (and to dodge religious criticism). The difference is these terms were dropped by the scientific community decades ago with the Modern synthesis (and modern genetics). The creationist movement, however, never updated their arguments or their use of these terms. They are not scientifically relevant today and using them both unhelpful and unscientific.
As far as speciation...the chromosomal change argument is just wrong. The three METHODS of speciation are allopatric, sympatric, or parapatric. If you take a population and split it, exposing each population to different pressures over time they will diverge, no chromosomal change necessary.
I've already pointed the holes in your chromosome argument. In order to be a new species...it has to reproduce. A chromosomal mutation is a one time thing. if it happens in ONE individual, there is still no partner for that individual to mate with. If it IS a new species (no fertile offspring form mating with the original species) it needs to 1. FIND an individual of the opposite sex in its lifetime, 2. that individual has to have the exact SAME chromosomal mutation (what are the odds), 3. MATE with it, and 4. PRODUCE fertile offspring that aren't going to inbreed themselves into extinction.
I've never heard of an example where a species founder are TWO individuals, let alone 2 with the same freak...survivable....CHROMOSOMAL...mutation. Its always populations that evolve...and you really don't get populations of 2. On this aspect you are dead wrong. Your ideas are not corroborated in any papers or textbooks I have ever read. They're not even sensical and practically flatly deny natural selection itself.
As further evidence, you use these definitions of species (which you and I both know are severely flawed)..but your other mechanisms are "intra-species mating." This is just nuts. Look up these terms. ALLOPATRIC SPECIATION, SYMPATRIC SPECIATION, and PARAPATRIC SPECIATION....see if you fine any reference to "chromosomal mutation" as a source of speciation. You wont. These things are not trends...species are not created in one karking generation. Responding to changes in the environment is called natural selection and is the driving process behind both evolution and speciation.
Both have been observed.
Actually, its a complete waste of my time...Mutation, viral infection and, meiosis are the only ways! This isn't the problem. The problem is you are claiming that MUTATION = SPECIATION. This is categorically false.
This is borderline Lamarckian and deterministic...hardly evolutionary. Its not people who "live" in an area. Its descendants of various races. And since there is no difference in species here...I think this is irrelevant. Quit thinking in terms of flower colors and start thinking in terms of protein sequences. It'll help your arguments.
No. Evolution is not just about new mechanisms...its about changing mechanisms weather to new ones, less common ones, more common ones, or none at all.
Medelian genetics is over. The days of studying fur color and expecting a di- or trichotomous phenotype are gone. Genes are the basis and it is becoming practical to study each genotype as its one phenotype. Thats the goal because its the only accurate way to study natural selection ad any decent resolution.
As to chaos theory...its a principle and not a law like natural selection. We will never know most initial conditions for evolution, thus complaining that they are not included is well..redundant. Everyone knows we dont have initial conditions. The point is you dont have them with phenotypic models either. Phenotypes were crucial in anthropology. In modern biology, the line between phenotype and genotype is blurred because we "can" determine every changed base pair, amino acid, and change in protein structure and study its effects. [/B]
i wasnt playing a game, and i wasnt calling YOU stupid{unlike u were doing with me}. i was merely stating that you are treating me as sum1 who has no understanding of modern evolution theory and genetics and that was just plain wrong.
sympatric/allopatric etc are TRENDS which show the selective PRESSURES at work which bring about the divergence between species. they are NOT BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS, in the same way that lack of sunlight is not a BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM. i understand these terms well and dont need to RESEARCH them.
and ur wrong, t doesnt need to find a mate with the perfectly matched chromosomal arrangement, it just needs to find a mate with which it cud produce fertile offspring. its rare but the phenomenon exists.
and you keep referring to POPULATIONS evolving, well, HOW can they evolve without individuals evolving and genetically changing and then breeding. it is the mechanics of SUCH cases that im referring to and ur consistantly brushing away.
i never claimed that mutation=speciation. i said mutation was ONE of the MECHANISMS by which speciation CAN occur. stop beating strawmen.
i am thinking in terms of protien sequences, but im merely describing phenotypic changes which can be accounted for by alleale mutations. capice.
so two things come to mind here, you are pretty fundamentally devoted to a certain point of view of evolution and dont want to accept any other prevelant mode of thinking on the subject considering it false {even if many other QUALIFIED people in the field still believe that due to chaos, looking at the phenotype is still vastly important in practically finding patterns of traits which are picked by selective pressures etc. reminds me of gould-dawkins punctuated vs non punctuated equilibrium}, its like a nietczhien professor of philosophy destroying a russelian student's mode of thinking/argument based on his self perceived superiority in outlook and qualifications,
secondly. you STILL HAVE NOT GIVEN ME ANY "BIOLOGICAL" MECHANISMS WHICH BRING ABOUT THE DIVERSITY IN ORGANISMS WHICH CAN ADD TO THE GENEPOOL outside of my provided mechanicsm which u r so fond of critisicing. again, criticism without alternatives.
you also have not shown how macro evolution =/= speciation and u also have not stated WHAT macro evolution IS if it isnt what i mentioned. the fact that its OLD doesnt excuse your lack of reply here.