Modern synthesis on Wikipedia - what is it ?
backspace
What are these ideas ?
"....Almost all aspects of the synthesis have been challenged at
times, with varying degrees of success. ..."
Where is the formal definition of what the modern synthesis or neo-
darwinian theory is ? What has been challenged and who challeged it.
"...The modern evolutionary synthesis continued to be developed and
refined after the initial establishment in the 1930s and 1940s ..."
If only Wikipedia would define for us what is teh synthesis so that we
know what is being refined.
"There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly
few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out
precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially
curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one
might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute
over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable
definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does,
as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders
& M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?",
Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179.
r norman
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"..The modern evolutionary synthesis refers to a set of ideas.."
>
>What are these ideas ?
>
>"....Almost all aspects of the synthesis have been challenged at
>times, with varying degrees of success. ..."
>
>Where is the formal definition of what the modern synthesis or neo-
>darwinian theory is ? What has been challenged and who challeged it.
>
>"...The modern evolutionary synthesis continued to be developed and
>refined after the initial establishment in the 1930s and 1940s ..."
>
>If only Wikipedia would define for us what is teh synthesis so that we
>know what is being refined.
<snip>
Funny, I went to Wikipedia and search "modern synthesis" and found the
page titled "Modern evolutionary synthesis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis
There I found a section boldly titled "Tenets of the modern synthesis"
that states: "The modern synthesis bridged the gap between
experimental geneticists and naturalists; and between both and
palaeontologists, stating that:" followed by four itemized points
explained in some detail.
So much for Wikipedia failing to identify just what it is.
Is there any other trivial fact you want to overlook that I can
clarify?
backspace
"...According to the modern synthesis as established in the 1930s and
1940s, genetic variation in populations arises by chance through
mutation (this is now known to be due to mistakes in DNA replication)
and recombination (crossing over of homologous chromosomes during
meiosis). Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies
of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic
drift, gene flow and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually
when populations are reproductively isolated by geographic
barriers..."
If it was established then who established it ? In 1953 Watson
established the helical structure of DNA in a paper, where is the
paper that established what the Neo-Darwinism or modern-synthesis is.
Inez
Maybe you should try reading the whole article, or even going to the
library.
backspace
> Is there any other trivial fact you want to overlook that I can
>
> - Show quoted text -
1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent
with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of
naturalists.
What is an evolutionary phenomena - define it for me.
2. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination ordered
by natural selection. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa)
are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation
and extinction (not saltation).
How small is small ? If natural selection "ordered" something , is
the term used in the pattern or design sense.
"...3. Selection is overwhelmingly the main mechanism of change; even
slight advantages are important when continued...."
Selection isn't a mechanism but a word we used to encode/decode our
intents.
"...The role of genetic drift is equivocal; though strongly supported
initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from
ecological genetics were obtained. ...."
Define for me what is "drift" and who defined it.
"...4. The primacy of population thinking: the genetic diversity
carried in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. ...."
natural populations as opposed to what - supernatural ?
"..5. The strength of natural selection in the wild was greater than
expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation
and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important. ..."
Who has defined what is a "niche occupation" ?
"..6...In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical
observations by extrapolation from micro to macro-evolution is
proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different
levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.
Gradualism is just a word - what is the intent with it ?
coaster
> "..The modern evolutionary synthesis refers to a set of ideas.."
>
> What are these ideas ?
The ideas you're asking for are on the very same page.
> "....Almost all aspects of the synthesis have been challenged at
> times, with varying degrees of success. ..."
>
> Where is the formal definition of what the modern synthesis or neo-
> darwinian theory is ? What has been challenged and who challeged it.
The formal definition of "modern evolutionary synthesis" is on the
VERY SAME PAGE.
> "...The modern evolutionary synthesis continued to be developed and
> refined after the initial establishment in the 1930s and 1940s ..."
>
> If only Wikipedia would define for us what is teh synthesis so that we
> know what is being refined.
IT'S ON THE VERY SAME PAGE!!!!
Wow you didn't even read the Wiki article did you?
> "There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly
> few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out
> precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially
> curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one
> might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute
> over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable
> definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does,
> as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders
> & M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?",
> Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179.
OK, but what has that got to do with the reconciliation between
genetics and evolution? Here's a nice little quote that's actually
relevant to your complaint...
"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that
populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not
adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations
evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic
drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive
genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that
phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete
effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that
diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the
gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and
that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to
changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of
higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.
12
Inez
> On May 23, 7:56 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Is there any other trivial fact you want to overlook that I can
> > clarify?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> 1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent
> with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of
> naturalists.
>
> What is an evolutionary phenomena - define it for me.
Which of those words do you not understand?
> 2. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination ordered
> by natural selection. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa)
> are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation
> and extinction (not saltation).
>
> How small is small?
Pretty small.
> If natural selection "ordered" something , is
> the term used in the pattern or design sense.
>
Probably.
> "...3. Selection is overwhelmingly the main mechanism of change; even
> slight advantages are important when continued...."
>
> Selection isn't a mechanism but a word we used to encode/decode our
> intents.
Selection is a word we use to denote a mechanism.
> "...The role of genetic drift is equivocal; though strongly supported
> initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from
> ecological genetics were obtained. ...."
>
> Define for me what is "drift" and who defined it.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
Clearly you know how to search wikipedia, why don't you participate in
your own education?
> "...4. The primacy of population thinking: the genetic diversity
> carried in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. ...."
>
> natural populations as opposed to what - supernatural ?
Why are you asking that question? What does it have to do with
anything?
> "..5. The strength of natural selection in the wild was greater than
> expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation
> and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important. ..."
>
> Who has defined what is a "niche occupation" ?
>
Why does it matter?
> "..6...In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical
> observations by extrapolation from micro to macro-evolution is
> proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different
> levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.
>
> Gradualism is just a word - what is the intent with it ?
Words don't have intent.
backspace
> > "There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly
> > few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out
> > precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially
> > curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one
> > might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute
> > over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable
> > definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does,
> > as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders
> > & M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?",
> > Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179.
> OK, but what has that got to do with the reconciliation between
> genetics and evolution? Here's a nice little quote that's actually
> relevant to your complaint...
Who reconciled it ? Who is this person in what journal paper did he
reconcile it.
> "The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that
> populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not
> adaptively directed) mutation and recombination;
Define for me formally what a "genetic variation" is.
> that populations
> evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic
> drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection;
What is a gene frequency and who says so ?
> that most adaptive
> genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that
> phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete
> effects may be advantageous,
Give me the formal definition of what is a phenotype and what is an
allele. Take a gene and show mere on this gene exactly is the "allele"
thingy. Take a human and point to me where is the "phenotype".
Will in New Haven
John Harshman
But certainly Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky,
and Ernst Mayr were major contributors. You might want to consult their
works of the appropriate dates. Try these books especially: Dobzhansky's
Genetics and the Origin of Species; Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of
Species; Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.
Of course you have to be able to read and comprehend what you read, so
this probably won't help.
backspace
wrote:
> This is a large field, established by many workers in many publications.
> But certainly Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky,
> and Ernst Mayr were major contributors. You might want to consult their
> works of the appropriate dates. Try these books especially: Dobzhansky's
> Genetics and the Origin of Species; Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of
> Species; Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.
> Of course you have to be able to read and comprehend what you read, so
> this probably won't help.- Hide quoted text -
JH presumably you have read the books and therefore in your own words
would you formulate for us the formally defined Neo-Darwinian or
Modern synthesis theory ?
er...@swva.net
>
> > > "There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly
> > > few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out
> > > precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially
> > > curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one
> > > might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute
> > > over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable
> > > definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does,
> > > as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders
> > > & M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?",
> > > Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179.
> > OK, but what has that got to do with the reconciliation between
> > genetics and evolution? Here's a nice little quote that's actually
> > relevant to your complaint...
>
> Who reconciled it ? Who is this person in what journal paper did he
> reconcile it.
Can you explain why you keep obsessing about "who?" Why on earth
would "who" be of any importance whatsoever?
>
> > "The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that
> > populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not
> > adaptively directed) mutation and recombination;
>
> Define for me formally what a "genetic variation" is.
How is that different than "tell you what it is?"
>
> > that populations
> > evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic
> > drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection;
>
> What is a gene frequency and who says so ?
It is how much a particular gene appears in the population, and who
says so is so totally irrelevant that your asking it makes you look,
in all due respect, like an ineducable, pig-headed moron.
>
> > that most adaptive
> > genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that
> > phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete
> > effects may be advantageous,
>
> Give me the formal definition of what is a phenotype and what is an
> allele?
What is wrong with you that you don't look it up for yourself? If I
were to do a newsgroup search, would I find that you've already been
told, maybe many times?
> Take a gene and show mere on this gene exactly is the "allele"
> thingy. Take a human and point to me where is the "phenotype".
For Pete's sake, an allele is a version of a gene, like an allophone
is a version of a phoneme, and an allotrope is (IIRC?) a version of a
molecule. It's not on a gene, it's a version of a gene.
Eric Root
backspace
> For Pete's sake, an allele is a version of a gene, like an allophone
> is a version of a phoneme, and an allotrope is (IIRC?) a version of a
> molecule. It's not on a gene, it's a version of a gene.
Version of what particular gene ? Name the gene , give me an example.
Garamond Lethe
Are you unable to type in "example of an allele" into google?
Guido
golly, it does!
er...@swva.net
First, you make a case for wanting to know _who_ defined, discovered,
established, etc. this, that, or the other thing. You snipped it away
from my post. I'll worry about telling you something you've already
been told or could look up for yourself, after you've settled this
preoccupation you have with "who."
Eric Root
John Harshman
> On May 23, 8:51 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> This is a large field, established by many workers in many publications.
>> But certainly Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky,
>> and Ernst Mayr were major contributors. You might want to consult their
>> works of the appropriate dates. Try these books especially: Dobzhansky's
>> Genetics and the Origin of Species; Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of
>> Species; Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection.
>
>> Of course you have to be able to read and comprehend what you read, so
>> this probably won't help.
>
> would you formulate for us the formally defined Neo-Darwinian or
> Modern synthesis theory ?
No. You asked a question. I answered it. And I don't know what "formally
defined" means, except perhaps in mathematics. I choose not to go around
in meaningless circles with you.
Frank J
You will find the answers you want (as opposed to the correct answers)
in Conservapedia, not Wikipedia.
r norman
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 23, 7:56 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>> Is there any other trivial fact you want to overlook that I can
>> clarify?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent
>with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of
>naturalists.
>
>What is an evolutionary phenomena - define it for me.
What is "what" -- define it for me.
What is "is" -- define it for me.
What is "an" -- define it for me.
What is "define" -- define it for me.
What is ..... perhaps you get the picture.
<snip remainder of drivel>
(Inez already beat me to this in a different way, but it is so much
fun I had to take a whack at it)
Will in New Haven
You are a lazy cunt. And no explanation given you would survive your
backspacing efforts.
Scooter the Mighty
> "...4. The primacy of population thinking: the genetic diversity
> carried in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. ...."
>
> natural populations as opposed to what - supernatural ?
Artificial.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
>"..The modern evolutionary synthesis refers to a set of ideas.."
>
>What are these ideas ?
Perhaps if you'd use something besides Wiki as a primary
source you'd be able to answer your own moronic questions.
But on second thought, that would require at least an
8th-grade education, so probably not.
<snip>
>If only Wikipedia would define for us what is teh synthesis so that we
>know what is being refined.
If only you had a brain, Scarecrow, you could read and
understand the article. So I guess you're out of luck.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
The Enigmatic One
<198babfa-ffad-4010...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
sawirel...@yahoo.com says...
>If only Wikipedia would define for us what is teh synthesis so that we
>know what is being refined.
>"There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly
>few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out
>precisely what it is that they are discussing.
Wow.
You're really fucking stupid.
Too dumb, of course, to, say, compare to Germ Theory or the current basic
theory of gravity.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
<b6ee7bc4-10d5-42fd...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
sawirel...@yahoo.com says...
>
- Show quoted text -
>
>1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent
>with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of
>naturalists.
>
>What is an evolutionary phenomena - define it for me.
Impossible. You're too stupid.
-Tim
David Hare-Scott
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52eec164-b6ec-4044...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
{translation} "JH why don't you give me some words that I can play games
with."
David
noshellswill
BigD:
Physical theories play games with arithmetic, not words. So BSpace is
actually cutting-you-slack. Lots of it. He's not requiring you to
UNDERSTAND bio-evol, that is demonstrate quantitative bio-evol predictions
from fundamental genome/proteome chemistry.
I do, of-course require that connection, but BSpace is an patient gent. So
if-you-please present a few, well-spoken and well chosen paragraphs
WITHOUT CIRCULARITY demonstrating a "reasonable mans" expression of
bio-evol.
The original bullet-ed points were so full of weaseling no critical reader
could accept the description.
nss
*******
John Harshman
I think you should have a discussion with backspace. Why not argue with
him about the meaning of "evolution"? You would have much to discuss.
Guido
one who thinks nss and bs are the same person?
Guido
circular? Don't hesitate to use maths yourself. I know there's some
readers of TO who have PhD's in maths, so understanding you won't be a
problem.
John Harshman
himself anyway?
Greg Guarino
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Guido wrote:
>> John Harshman schreef:
>> I think we should not encourage bs to talk to himself. Or am I the only
>> one who thinks nss and bs are the same person?
>>
>Yes, I believe you are. And why shouldn't we encourage him to talk to
>himself anyway?
I think it is much more likely that NoShells and Treus are the same
person.
Greg Guarino
David Hare-Scott
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rzXZj.1720> >>>
> >>>
> >> {translation} "JH why don't you give me some words that I can play games
> >> with."
> >>
> >> David
> >
> > BigD:
> >
> > Physical theories play games with arithmetic, not words. So BSpace is
> > actually cutting-you-slack. Lots of it. He's not requiring you to
> > UNDERSTAND bio-evol, that is demonstrate quantitative bio-evol predictions
> > from fundamental genome/proteome chemistry.
> >
> > I do, of-course require that connection, but BSpace is an patient gent. So
> > if-you-please present a few, well-spoken and well chosen paragraphs
> > WITHOUT CIRCULARITY demonstrating a "reasonable mans" expression of
> > bio-evol.
> > The original bullet-ed points were so full of weaseling no critical reader
> > could accept the description.
>
> I think you should have a discussion with backspace. Why not argue with
> him about the meaning of "evolution"? You would have much to discuss.
>
Yes please! BS in the blue corner and NSW in the red. Bring it on.
David
John Harshman
I agree, though I don't think either is very likely. Monomaniac nuts
tend to have a single obsession; that's what "monomaniac" means.
NoShells and Treus have quite different obsessions, though I agree
they're more similar to each other than to backspace's obsession.
Frank J
wrote:
> noshellswill wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 May 2008 15:03:13 +1000, David Hare-Scott wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're asking them to break the "pseudoscience code of silence." You'd
have a better chance if they were one and the same, argued with
themselves and lost those arguments:
Woland
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 15:03:13 +1000, David Hare-Scott wrote:
>
You're so dumb.
Cj
> Define for me formally what a "genetic variation" is.
>
>
> What is a gene frequency and who says so ?
>
>
> Give me the formal definition of what is a phenotype and what is an
> allele. Take a gene and show mere on this gene exactly is the "allele"
> thingy. Take a human and point to me where is the "phenotype".
>
>What is an evolutionary phenomena - define it for me.
>How small is small ? If natural selection "ordered" something , is
>the term used in the pattern or design sense.
>Selection isn't a mechanism but a word we used to encode/decode our
>intents.
>Define for me what is "drift" and who defined it.
>natural populations as opposed to what - supernatural ?
>Who has defined what is a "niche occupation" ?
>Gradualism is just a word - what is the intent with it ?
Whenever a religious apologist is confronted with knowledge that is well
beyond his comprehension level he eventually turns to haggling the
definitions of words. We've all observed this retreat into the cocoon of
ignorance on the part of creationist/IDiots before and it is unsurprising.
Nobody on this list is going to serve as a biological dictionary in an
attempt to respond to Backspace's ignorant and pointless questions. It is
quite odd that faith can drive logic and reason from a mind and render it
completely immune to any form of learning. Backspace is to be pitied for
his shocking ignorance, a state he shares with Ray Martinez and a few
others. These people are a waste of opposable thumbs. Willful ignorance is
apparently a matter of pride with creationists.
Cj
Ken Denny
It is obviously his intent to frustrate those trying to educate him to
such an extent that they give up. He will then use this to claim
victory.
Kermit
<snip>
> 2. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination ordered
> by natural selection. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa)
> are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation
> and extinction (not saltation).
>
> How small is small ? If natural selection "ordered" something , is
> the term used in the pattern or design sense.
>
<snip>
Most of us are pessimistic about explaining anything to someone who
does not understand the word "small".
I for one am also confused by your continual misuse of "formal
definition". Perhaps you could offer the formal definition of the
term, and explain who first presented it, and when.
Kermit,
who knows codswallop when he sees it.
Ben Standeven
[...]
> If only Wikipedia would define for us what is teh synthesis so that we
> know what is being refined.
You wanna know what Wikipedia has to say about synthesis? Here ya go:
"Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original
research even if its individual elements have been published by
reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to
demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing
sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position.
If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or
if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the
article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing
source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is
good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking
claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting
those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim
attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly."
chosp
> Gradualism is just a word - what is the intent with it ?
Intent is just a word.
Tiny Bulcher
Is it better to have backspace intent or outtent?
Vernon Balbert
and produced this interesting bit of text:
Whenever I go camping, when I'm intent I'm usually sleeping. Otherwise
I'm outtent because what's the point in camping if you're not outside?
Hard to have a campfire intent.
--
" God made the cat in order that humankind might have the pleasure of
caressing the tiger." - Fernand Mery
John Wilkins
"Word" is just a word.
Incidentally, dont they teach use-mention quotation these days?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
DuhIdiot
news:RfmdnZRxI-M6IMPV...@bt.com:
That's a trick question and you know it.
Am I intent or outtent? What about the grizzly?
--
No SPAM in my email.
.