Here's how I see it

[Shiner]

It's nice to find this forum.

I believe that God created each kind of organism with intelligent design and inherent wisdom. He also instilled each creature with an adaptive phenotype so that all created animals could multiply and fill the earth by spreading out into many different environments and habitats. The advantage of this is obvious: Rather than having to wait thousands or millions of years for the correct mutation to provide the necessary genes, God made it so animals can adjust themselves on-the-fly to changing environments.....and then if these environments continue, the biological adjustments will be passed on to future generations.

It's a brilliantly simple idea that science simply refuses to test. In fact, this concept petrifies evolutionists to the core. Have you ever noticed how neo-darwinists never even discuss adaptive phenotypes or the ability of new traits to arise during development via the environment? Never. Oh, occasionally you might hear the word "saltationism" or "Lamarckism" thrown about in a negative tone, but evolutionists rarely have the guts to face reality to dive into these subjects deeply. In fact, I have never read an in-debth discussion about plasticity or environmentally induced biological changes in a neo-darwinist's book. And it's not that these people are dumb.....They're just simply too afraid to go there, in fear of planting seeds in people's minds. Their whole world-view depends on people's faith in their thoery -- and that there are no reasonable alternatives. So they just play like the alternative isn't there.

But if it can shown that animals' evolve/change in a different way than what evolutionists say, then their theory must be overthrown. They say the evolution of new traits happens gradually through the population over thouands/millions of years through random mutation via selection...I say it happens instantly, within the lifetime of the individual animal...no selection needed.

I also say new traits emerge in offspring nonrandomly in response to environmental cues. These traits form during development or even afterwards during the lifetime of the animal. New traits can be a result of plasticity or in the form of mutation during development. If the mutation occurs in somatic cells, only the individual (parent) organism is affected. If the mutation occurs in the germ cell, the mutation may pass on to the next generation -- though not necessarily expressed in the parent in which it arose.

It's as simple as that.

Both of these mechanisms I present are not new...I did not dream them up. It's just that evolutionists choose to ignore them.

So here's my proof:

new traits (fur color) formed instantly in offspring via diet of mother:

http://www.biotech-info.net/moms_diet.html

new traits form (moth wing pattern) during development based on external conditions, including background colors. (see bottom picture.) By the way, this disproves the peppered moth as an example of "proof" of Natural Selection.

http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/moths/ ... nism1.html

Can evolutionists lead me to a link where a controlled experiment on animals was done?....where they tested to see what traits formed upon an environemental change??

I'd also like to see a controlled test done on animals that shows Natural Selection in action.

[Goat]

Shiner = Supersport

All of your quote mining has been exposed

What's wrong with quote mining?

<SNIP FOR BREVITY>

Hey...if someone says something a good quote or a logical piece of information, I have no shame in quote-mining! What's wrong with that?

Maybe you do not understand the term 'quote mining'. "Quote mining" is the technique where you partially take a line or two from someone out of context, and make it look like they were saying something they were not. When you look at the context in which the sentance was made, it was either making another point, or it was saying the exact opposite of the point you are making. This is at the very least misrepresenting someone. At the worst, it is a deliberate fabrication, also known as a lie.

oh..ok...I didn't realize there was a sinister connotation to it. I woulnd't generally try to misrepresent someone. I see nothing wrong with dishing out quotes though.

Evolutionists evidently think that every quote is taken out of context. S

Some people do use everything out of context. I will accept ignorance for doing that to some degree, but if it is continutally repeated, one has to wonder about either the motivation or the technical knowledge of the person doing that.

[Grumpy]

ss

What's wrong with quote mining?

It is dishonest to take snippets of what someone said in order to leave a false impression of their view. You are guilty of it to the point that it is obvious it is in a deliberate attempt to bear false witness, to lie. Your religion says thay is a sin, is there an exception for lying in defense of lies(creationism)???

Rob

Grumpy, let me be perfectly clear. There are many souls out there that will never be able to grasp the complexities of the facts regarding evolution.

And you are not helping one bit, are you. You could make plain that evo-devo is still evolution, but you are so eager to score points against your fellow scientists that you align yourself with the ignorant. Nice going.

I neither disdain them nor spend my time spewing hate filled nasty invective at them as you have regularly done on this site.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, your diatribes about obscure mechanisms of evolution are the epitomy of spew. Your point could be made in a paragraph, but you throw tantrums if your view is not immediately accepted. I stopped reading your drivel long ago. Even those you quote(endlessly) still recognize the role NS plays, they just argue it is not the only mechanism, a point I agree with. Whether it is the most important mechanism is cause for discussion, but it is not justification for your abuses, that you alone are responsible for.

Especially when they have had to be subjected to the narrow minded dogmatism and stereotypes which often passes as so-called science education in our lower level educational system.

I taught what was known at the time, not speculation. But to call me dogmatic shows more about your ignorance of me than it does anything else. I wrote you a PM stating it was more important in these forums to keep endless squabbles about obscure and unproven mechanisms from encouraging creationist boobs from saying, "Look, they can't agree even among themselves, so they must not know what they are talking about!!!"

Well, congratulations, you have a creationist as an ally now, precisely fulfilling my prediction. You should be proud of yourself.

The truth is, it those who claim to be educated themselves and proclaim themselves educators, yet who pervert science by replacing its spirit of inquiry with narrow minded dogmatism such as the mechanistic materialism and Panselectionism some so-called scientists claim is the only scientific answer

Noone has claimed this(that NS is the ONLY mechanism), it is a vicious mischaracterization on your part, a piece of the confrontational attempts at discrediting others you have adopted from the ID/creationist crowd, simply to advance your views. You either argue from authority or try to caricature your opponents as being stupid, dogmatic or illinformed about your latest intellectual toy(evo-devo). You are a fanatic every bit as wrong in your behavior as the most ardent creationist(though your facts are usually correct), civil debate is not possible with your supercilious attitude.

Frankly, I no longer care what you have to say on the topic, it's not worth wading through the piles of manure you spread to get to any nuggets of truth that may be there. I do care about evo-devo and what it can tell us about the evolutionary process, but there are better, more pleasant ways of getting that information that to have to deal with your bratty behavior and rabid creationist tone. There are also more appropriate forums for these things to be discussed than those where the disagreements will be seen as proof that evolution is untrue. Enjoy your new friends of the ID persuasion, your basically useless to those of us that use our brains.

Grumpy

[Cathar1950]

Rob:

Especially when they have had to be subjected to the narrow minded dogmatism and stereotypes which often passes as so-called science education in our lower level educational system.

The truth is, it those who claim to be educated themselves and proclaim themselves educators, yet who pervert science by replacing its spirit of inquiry with narrow minded dogmatism such as the mechanistic materialism and Panselectionism some so-called scientists claim is the only scientific answer

Grumpy:

Noone has claimed this(that NS is the ONLY mechanism), it is a vicious mischaracterization on your part, a piece of the confrontational attempts at discrediting others you have adopted from the ID/creationist crowd, simply to advance your views. You either argue from authority or try to caricature your opponents as being stupid, dogmatic or illinformed about your latest intellectual toy(evo-devo). You are a fanatic every bit as wrong in your behavior as the most ardent creationist(though your facts are usually correct), civil debate is not possible with your supercilious attitude.

Frankly, I no longer care what you have to say on the topic, it's not worth wading through the piles of manure you spread to get to any nuggets of truth that may be there. I do care about evo-devo and what it can tell us about the evolutionary process, but there are better, more pleasant ways of getting that information that to have to deal with your bratty behavior and rabid creationist tone. There are also more appropriate forums for these things to be discussed than those where the disagreements will be seen as proof that evolution is untrue.

The above comments from Rob do seem to have an anti-science bias disguised as scientific inquiry. Grumpy is right when he says; “No one has claimed this(that NS is the ONLY mechanism), it is a vicious mischaracterization on your part, a piece of the confrontational attempts at discrediting others you have adopted from the ID/creationist crowd, simply to advance your views.” IDers get the impression that evolution is wrong because there are questions and disagreement about mechanism involved in evolution. Unlike the ID people Rob is pushing for a Creator god as described by the UB.
“Discrediting others” seems to be the favorite sport and often is displayed with quotes with disagreements used as some kind of evidence of incorrectness followed by some UB idea.
The comments above do not describe all science endeavors and teachers even though it seems to be the Creationist forte but certainly it does not describe Grumpy or most of the scientist I have encountered in this forum. As near as I can figure you are saying creatures adapt to the environment so God is doing it and evolution is wrong. I don’t see how that follows. Evolutionary theory and NS allow for what you seem to think is some big discovery (which it is) or point that amounts to organisms respond to the environment. This hardly bothers evolutionists as some where in our past biological history creatures and plants have limited abilities to respond to the environment. If the first organisms had this trait it was obviously passed on to the descendents. It obviously works or they would be dead as well as their offspring. There are many forces for change.
Even thought they randomly occur once they occur and are passed they are now part of the blind experiment. We can look back and see what and why some made it and others didn’t but we cannot look forward with certainty. This is what it means to be goalless except to survive. A perfectly adapted creature is useless if the environment changes drastically and there is no time for organisms or their descendents to adjust.
So far I have not seen an argument that has a point against the theory of evolution rather it seems to support the main theory. Because creature can adapt does not mean that space beings or God did it and evolution is wrong. The whole think stinks of an anti-science agenda masquerading as discovery.

[Rob]

Shiner (Supersport) states on another site:

I would like evolutionists tell me how you can rationalize in your heads that phyletic neo-darwinism is true when the only real evidence that we have (the fossil record) shows that it didn't happen?

(....)

"(The neo-Darwinian synthesis of evolution) is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy." Stephen Jay Gould

Gould et. al., when quoted in context, never argued that the fossil record "shows that it [evolution] didn't happen." All the quotes pulled from reputable scientists are taken out of context and used to grossly distort what their real arguments were all about. The fact is organic evolution is simply indisputable, and the fossil record clearly shows that organic evolution occurred, and Gould has never disputed this fact. And it is a gross misrepresentation to display his quotes as if he did. You can find the same quote being quoted in context by Gregory, which makes clear Gould never said what Shiner above attempts to make it look like he is saying.

Shiner (Supersport), the very fact that you use two alias is dishonest and deceptive. Why? The page linked by Grumpy shows gross negligence in the usage of quotations. The manner in which you abuse those quotations out of context answers implicitly the why question, it appears to me. In my view, one cannot be honestly searching for truth if one refuses to treat the words of those whom one might disagree with carelessly such that you make it appear they are saying something they never intended. One of the cardinal rules of honest and fair discussion is to treat your opponents words honestly and fairly. You can be as critical as you want; but you have to be critical of a fair characterization of what they are saying (implicitly or explicitly), otherwise you are being less than accurate, or even dishonest.

It is a hallow self-justification to say:

Evolutionists evidently think that every quote is taken out of context.

This is a blanket stereotype, and hardly true. And it is plain for all to see that you have taken the quotes out of context on the other site. It may be you version of fun, but it is hardly ethical, fair, true, or just. It is manipulative and deceptive. It is certainly NOT the tactics of one searching for the truth, for the truth can never be found when one is willing to distort the truth for the sake of winning an argument. Goat is quite right:

"Quote mining" is the technique where you partially take a line or two from someone out of context, and make it look like they were saying something they were not. When you look at the context in which the sentance was made, it was either making another point, or it was saying the exact opposite of the point you are making. This is at the very least misrepresenting someone. At the worst, it is a deliberate fabrication, also known as a lie.

Thou shall not bear false witness.

In the end, those who distort the truth for the sake of some polemical argument will lose, for I have confidence the truth will win out in the end. That is why creationists keep losing in the court room; because it is obvious when they take things out of context and distort the truth. And if so-called scientists resort to the same tactic, they too will lose in the end.

But I am confident there are enough honest scientists, philosophers, and religionists that will come forth to testify that the truth in all its various ways of being expressed will win out in the end.

Textbook Orthodoxy is itself a form of anti-science in that it is a form of dogmatism that masqurades as science, when in reality it is little different than the dogma of creationism: both refuse to examine facts and evidence that undermine the dogmatic position which is defended at all costs -- even the cost of truth. One needs only read Stephen J. Gould's work The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, in the section called From Overstressed Doubt to Overextended Certainty (pp. 566-584) to get a real eye-opener about the nature of dogmatism in science education.

Regarding what Gould was really saying with regards to textbook orthodoxy, I quote (in context) the following:

Professional writing tends to be nuanced and judicious. Even the strongest partisan finesses his commitment and adds at least a footnote or tangential comment, so that any charge of oversimplification or dogmatism may be countered by stating: "but look on page 381 (in the small print); you see, I raised the caveat myself." (Gould 2002: 576)

To learn the unvarnished commitments of an age, one must turn to the textbooks that provide "straight stuff" for introductory students. Yes, textbooks truly oversimplify their subjects, but textbooks also present the central tenents of a field without subtlety or apology -- and we can grasp thereby what each generation of neophytes first imbibes as the essence of a field. Moreover, many textbooks boast authorship by the same professionals who fill their technical writings with exceptions, caveats, and complexities. (Gould 2002: 576)

I have long felt that surveys of textbooks offer our best guide to the central convictions of any era. What single line could be more revealing, more attuned to the core commitment of a profession that bathed in the blessings of Victorian progressivism, and aspired to scientific status in Darwin's century, than the epigram that Alfred Marshall placed on the title page to innumerable editions of his canonical textbook, Principles of Economics: "natura non facit saltum." (Gould 2002: 576)

The changing foci of 20th century textbooks provide direct insight into the history of evolutionary thought and the eventual triumph of Darwinism. In particular, if the Synthesis truly hardened, as I have argued, then texts following the 1959 centennial celebrations -- the apogee of strict selectionism [my emphasis] -- should describe evolution in unambiquously panadaptationist language, and should extol the sufficiency of natural selection to craft the entire range of evolutionary phenomena at all scales, ecological to geological. (Gould 2002: 576)

(....) I have consulted everything I could find, including nearly all major American books for introductory college biology (and several high school textbooks as well). A more complete search, extended back in time to cover the early days of the Synthesis, and the pre-synthetic period as well, would provide a fascinating topic for a dissertation in the history of science .... This field of vernacular expression has been neglected by scholars, though the subject would yield great insight (for such material obviously represents the only formal contact that most students ever receive with any given discipline). (Gould 2002: 576-577)

I appologize for my almost anecdotal approach, but I think that I have identified a robust pattern supporting the hypothesis of hardening. I will focus on the two topics that authors of texts found most congenial in their efforts to explain synthetic evolutionism to introductory audiences: the centrality of adaptation, and the sufficiency of synthetic microevolution to explain events at all scales. (I consider here only the evolution chapters of comprehensive biology texts for introductory courses, not entire textbooks on evolution....) (Gould 2002: 577)

-- Gould, Stephen J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belkamp: Harvard.

We get heavy doses of textbook orthodoxy on this site all the time from the anti-creationist camp. Personally, I don't find much difference from the essential nature of the creationist dogma vs. the textbook orthodoxy dogma. They both want their views of reality wrapped up into nice little absolutist terms and certainties, when in reality such is never the state of human knowledge. They both are quick to minimalize or explain away inconvenient facts and evidence: creationists, for example the age of the earth or truth of the fossil record; so-called scientists minimize the views of other scientists who make inconvenient statements or point out uncomfortable facts that dispute the simplistic textbook orthodoxy they regularly espouse on this site.

For example, it is textbook orthodoxy to cite as fact that which is disputed within the community of scientists themselves who are experts in the field under question: See Those Sneaky Nobel Laureates and The Rule of Three and Birth of Scientism.

It has been argued on this site by Jose (a geneticist) that it is a matter of fact that Macroevolution is simply Microevolution writ large (this is done implicitly by not noting the caveats, and dismissing them when they are raised, such as his dismissal of Gregory), but a close examination of the scientific literature proves this is an issue that is vigoursly contested within the scientific community. It was once textbook orthodoxy that Macroevolution is simply Microevolution writ large, but now introductory textbooks are starting to add the caveats, as there is a rising tide of significant evidence that challenges this dogmatic view. The same can be said for the textbook orthodoxy of claims that the origin of life is known, with no caveats, which when presented on this site have been dismissed or ignored repeatedly by Jose while he recites the textbook orthodoxy as though it is fact.

My hunch is that for each textbook written the author relies on textbook orthodoxy for the fields that are not his specialization, and is a bit more careful (nowdays anyway) with regards to his own field of specialization. For example the introductory text book on Genetics by John Ringo states regarding abiogenesis:

The implications are remarkable: life emerged from non-life ...

-- Ringo, John. Fundamental Genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004; p. 5.

Yet, when speaking on his own area of expertise, he is a bit more circumspect and frank with the nature of the facts:

Dear reader, I have bad news for you: geneticists cannot agree on what a gene is, even though we do agree that genes are fundamental biological objects. Worse still, gene can change its meaning with context. Though this situation wants a strong remedy, none is available. The best I can offer you is a simple, natural concept of gene, contrasted with widely used, alternative concepts. (Ringo 2004: 43)

-- Ringo, John. Fundamental Genetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004; p. 43.

That is an accurate and honest statement.

Perhaps in the interest of full-disclosure, Ringo aught to have said, "Dear reader, I have bad news for you ..." there are some rather large caveats to the "remarkable implications" about ideas regarding Autopoietic Systems and the Order of Life.

[Grumpy]

Rob

Great post, this we can work with.

As to quote mining, I think that topic well explained, those who continue in this practice are guilty of wilfull mendacity(lying), enough said.

As to "textbook orthedoxy" I think Gould said it well

To learn the unvarnished commitments of an age, one must turn to the textbooks that provide "straight stuff" for introductory students. Yes, textbooks truly oversimplify their subjects, but textbooks also present the central tenents of a field without subtlety or apology -- and we can grasp thereby what each generation of neophytes first imbibes as the essence of a field. Moreover, many textbooks boast authorship by the same professionals who fill their technical writings with exceptions, caveats, and complexities. (Gould 2002: 576)

The above highlighted section was my point exactly. When trying to educate the uneducated it is best to stick to basics, not get involved with esoteric arguements on the minutia of the field.


rob wrote

We get heavy doses of textbook orthodoxy on this site all the time from the anti-creationist camp. Personally, I don't find much difference from the essential nature of the creationist dogma vs. the textbook orthodoxy dogma.

As we should!!! The difference is that the so called "dogma" of science IS BASED IN FACTUAL EVIDENCE. It will not be changed by arguements on the relative importance of various mechanisms in evolution. Descent with modification is true whether that modification is caused by random mutations or by HOX genes, it is still descent with modifications. And whatever the source of the change it will still be tested by Natural Selection, weeding out the unsuitable, survival of the organisms most able to adapt.

They both want their views of reality wrapped up into nice little absolutist terms and certainties, when in reality such is never the state of human knowledge.

We can have no certainty that the sun will appear to rise in the east tommorrow morning. Such is science. But we have great confidence that it will, given the evidence(it has done so for all of recorded history). Evolution is a fact that we can have equal certainty in(given the evidence) and Descent with modification+NS is a theory that has never been falsified, that explains the facts and stands until these things are no longer true. That is as absolute as the real world gets, why would we not teach this in our schools?

They both are quick to minimalize or explain away inconvenient facts and evidence: creationists, for example the age of the earth or truth of the fossil record; so-called scientists minimize the views of other scientists who make inconvenient statements or point out uncomfortable facts that dispute the simplistic textbook orthodoxy they regularly espouse on this site.

This may be true of cretionists(who am I fooling, they practice this contiuosly), it is a gross mischaracterization of the scientists in these fora. You have shown a distinct lack of tolerance for those who don't buy your pet theory, I am not the only one to have to endure your unjustified scorn and name calling because we do not agree with your own dogmatic views. QED, me and others have been mischaracterized because we do not automatically bow down to your obvious(to you) superior mental abilities. Yet you constantly quote from the UB, a dubious source of knowledge at best(just another book of superstitious non-sense in my view). And you try to bolster your arguements with endless reams of quotes from others who may or may not agree with you. So, basically all we see from your posts is dubious quotes from unreliable sources and excouriating comments on our lack of scientific flexibility(and false ones at that). The simple fact is that it is you who most resemble the creationists in your arguments. This is not debate, it is prostelitizing. It is not the give and take of scientific discourse, it is the hammering home of the only opinion that matters to you, your own. And anyone who disagrees is ossified, dogmatic and unworthy of respect. The next time you wish to remove the splinter from our eyes, do something about the plank in your own first.

Grumpy

[Jose]

... they are now arguing this "internal" Regulatory Genome and changes therein are responsible for evolution (change in morphology from one phyla to another), and that this "internal organization" of the Regulatory Genome and these core "evolutionary processess" act to "sort internal variation [to] produce nonrandom morphological variation in evolution." Because of the growing body of scientific knownledge we are gaining new insights into the origin and cause of variation, and how this variation is related to the Regulatory Genome. But much of this new information is short of useless for those who have hardned their views into the Panselectionist views and simply repeat the same old tired dogma without any critical evaluation of the mass of new information being published on an almost monthly basis.

I present the mechanistic issues posed by the hypothesis that the internal architecture of the genome and of developmental processes and their controls constrains the course of evolution. This issue is a central one in the study of development and evolution. If externally applied natural selection is the only force required to produce evolutionary change, then developmental processes don't matter except as features upon which selection can act. If internal organization and processes govern modes of change, then development must be incorporated into any complete theory of evolution. I propose that internal organization and a set of distinct evolutionary processes acting to sort internal variation produce nonrandom morphological variation in evolution.

-- Raff, Rudolf A. The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996; p. xviii.

The fact is, as is noted by numerous biologists past and present, their is growing awareness of the failure of the Panselectionist parroting of the claim the the cause of evolution is "random point mutation" in light of the growing body of evidence of the internal nonrandom morphological variation...<blah blah blah>

I find it interesting that you answer my statement about nonrandom mutation with discussion of nonrandom morophological variation. Of course the variation that appears as a result of mutation depends on what's present beforehand, and of course mutation that screws up development will not be seen, so of course the effects of mutation and selection will be nonrandom. But you speak of the effects of the combination of mutation and selection, not of mutation itself.

It is also amusing that you quote Rudy Raff in support of your odd notion. I asked Rudy what he thought of your comments. Here's what he said:

Interesting issue. Here's what I think is going on (probably over simplistic). Mutations are random. No one has ever convincingly shown otherwise. But they don't occur in a vacuum. That is there is a pre-existing genetic system and a pre-existing ontogenetic system. The consequences of an individual mutation can be neutral in that system, or it can have some effect. My point is that any EFFECT is not random although the mutation underlying it is. The effect is configured by the system. And in fact, what I said that's highlighted in blue is that we get is nonrandom morphological variation, not nonrandom mutation. The variation is then acted upon by selection. Now is selection important. You bet it is. There are an enormous number of random mutations. Second, even non random EFFECTS make up a huge range of variants in a population. Third, selection results in some of those being passed on as advantageous, the rest being either essentially neutral or selected against. The result is the coherent kind of phylogenetic bush that we see with evolution of things like animals and plants.

Obviously this takes some fleshier discussion, but the main point is not hard as long as someone doesn't confuse mutation with variation.

It's pretty clear that Rudy, one of the founders of the Devo-Evo field, understands that mutations are random, but that selection results in nonrandom variation.

And, of course, one must understand that "random" means the distribution of mutations in the genome is statistically random. Obviously, to change the DNA sequence somewhere in a genome, one must start with that genome. This constrains the mutations and their effects to things that can actually be achieved from that starting point. You're not going to mutate an armadillo into a person or vice versa. There are constraints, but they are not the sort of mystical things you would have us believe.

[Jose]

I've read Sean Carrol's book cover to cover. Quite honestly, although I think it falls a bit short in several areas, at least it's a step in the right direction. Finally, science is coming around to the fact that evolution happens during development. I'm not sure he ever answered whether or not these physiological changes happen on accident or not though. That, I'm still trying to uncover that about evo devo. Maybe Rob can help me out.

Y'know, science has known that "evolution happens during development" for decades. Except, I'd have to qualify it to say that science has known of the interplay between evolution and development for decades. We still don't have individual animals "evolving" during development. Rather, that's when the developmental control genes have their actions. You're not going to change the shape of a skull by turning on genes in an adult; you've got to change the parameters by which the skull is built during embryogenesis.

As the evolutionary biologists put it, macroevolution--the change in morphology that they refer to by that term--occurs by changes in developmental control genes. The effects of such changes are alterations in how embryogenesis proceeds, with resulting changes in morphological characteristics.

Now, Rob may make fun of this by claiming that I say macroevolution is only microevolution writ large, and that evo-devo proves me wrong. However, I get my information from the evo-devo folks who demonstrate that changes in morphology are caused by mutations in regulatory genes. It's kinda hard to escape the fact that, if "microevolution" results from changes in genes that control things like hair color, and "macroevolution" results from changes in genes that control embryonic development, that we're pretty much dealing with changes in genes. It's kinda hard to avoid the fact that changes in genes (called "mutations") occur rather haphazardly, and not to every individual in a population all at the same time. One mutation occurs in one egg or sperm, giving one individual carrying that mutation. (Are you going to find a long quote from someone to argue for panmutationism, Rob?) If a mutation shows up in one individual, and generations later is in the entire population, then you'd think there would be some series of steps in between, wouldn't you?

If a mutant passes on a mutation, and eventually everybody has that mutation, then, you'd think, there'd be some kind of reason that such a thing happened. It could be genetic drift. It could be an accident that wipes out all the males except the male that had the mutation...I dunno, they fell into a sinkhole or something. It could be selection. It could be selection for a different trait, to which the mutation is linked. Whatever it is, though, there's got to be a way to get the mutation that shows up in one individual to become the norm. This has to be true whether it's a mutation affecting some minor trait or one affecting morphology. It has to be true whether it's a mutation in dibibliomuctase or in a gene in Rob's favorite Regulatory Genome. It has to be true if it's a mutation that's not even in a gene, but that affects how/where/when a gene is turned on in development. That process happens to be called "microevolution."

The fun part is that it's now clear how a lot of development works. It's pretty complicated, with lots of genes interacting with each other. Gene control is achieved by combinations of regulatory proteins, acting in combinatorial fashion. That gives a lot of players in which mutations could occur to change morphological characteristics, which are the stuff of macroevolution.

Alas, however, this doesn't make random mutation and natural selection dead. It just gives us more detail about the genes that are involved. It also gives us more of an understanding about how/why many mutations would never be observed--they mess up this network of regulatory interactions too much, and the embryo doesn't survive (which turns out to be natural selection against such mutations). This is one of those things that makes it seem as if there's some kind of weird guide or direction or non-randomness to evolution, but it's a result of looking at mutations that "make it" into living individuals. Mutations that make it into living individuals have already passed through the first round of selection.

The regulatory networks also have some interesting properties of "pattern regulation." We see this all the time in humans, but think nothing of it. A short person isn't just the bottom half of a tall person; they're a complete person with all of the normal "pattern elements" that people have (arms, legs, head, etc). We see the same kind of thing with many of the mutations in regulatory genes. If, for example, a mutation occurs to make a fish jaw much, much shorter than normal, then the rest of the head components regulate their shapes to fit. If the "rules" say that A sticks to B, and B sticks to C, then these bits will stick to each other as they should whether the part we've called B is extra long or extra short. I don't think we know exactly how this works, but it's been documented that it does work.

In any event, you're right that a lot of evolutionary events play out during embryogenesis. We should probably stay tuned, since lots of neat stuff is pouring out of this field.

---

I'll add an interesting note, by the way. Sean Carroll's lab webpage has a bunch of stuff on it, including some reviews of his books. Michael Ruse said, among other things, this little bit that doesn't sound much like what Rob has implied:

Carroll and his fellow workers are committed Darwinians. They think that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is the ultimate force -- the sculptor of form -- but there is not yet a full picture of how selection works to preserve and multiply and order the switch genes.

Again, it looks like the evo-devo crowd see no problem with Darwinian theory, mutation, or natural selection. [Dang! The quote mining didn't fool anyone!]

[supersport]

Shiner (Supersport), the very fact that you use two alias is dishonest and deceptive. Why?

It's not a matter of being dishonest. I actually debate on a regular basis at only one site....and it's not the Forum that Grumpy linked. However I do float around and deposit my seed at various forums around the internet. I don't generally stick around for too long at these other sites, I just ususally drop in -- drop down my bomb -- and leave soon after. It's just a hobby I have.

I used to always just go into a new forum as "supersport", however I soon learned that many evolutionists are simply activists and frequent multiple forums across the internet....thus they instantly recognize my name and quickly announce what an idiot I am. Thus, I usually choose a different name upon entering a new forum so I can get some honest dialog. (My real name seems to conjure up a quick war of words more than actual scientific debate.)

So my reason is not to deceive -- it's to distance myself from the rhetoric that generally follows me. (If I wanted to hear a bunch of rhetoric I wouldn't venture out from my debate home -- where there's plenty of that .) But if and when it's figured out who I am, then I usually will switch my name back to what I like to go by. Of course by the time that happens I'm usually about done anyway.

The page linked by Grumpy shows gross negligence in the usage of quotations. The manner in which you abuse those quotations out of context answers implicitly the why question, it appears to me. In my view, one cannot be honestly searching for truth if one refuses to treat the words of those whom one might disagree with carelessly such that you make it appear they are saying something they never intended. One of the cardinal rules of honest and fair discussion is to treat your opponents words honestly and fairly. You can be as critical as you want; but you have to be critical of a fair characterization of what they are saying (implicitly or explicitly), otherwise you are being less than accurate, or even dishonest.

Well if animals did not evolve gradually....and if Gould is right that the fossil record shows that animals indeed did not evolve randomly, then in order for any evolution to occur -- and I'm talking between higher taxa -- you would HAVE to show a mechanism capable of doing this. Without this mechanism you cannot be intellectually honest and claim men came from monkeys.

I've asked you how this transformation is possible without RM + NS but you have failed to answer me.

I would also like your comment on my recent thread. Take care. S

[Grumpy]

ss

Well if animals did not evolve gradually....and if Gould is right that the fossil record shows that animals indeed did not evolve randomly, then in order for any evolution to occur -- and I'm talking between higher taxa -- you would HAVE to show a mechanism capable of doing this. Without this mechanism you cannot be intellectually honest and claim men came from monkeys.

If you had bothered to read more of Gould than just the dishonest quote nuggets you used, he would have answered your question. It's called punctuated equilibrium. It posits that organisms not stressed by their environment have little need to evolve, they already fit that environment fairly well.

But if the environment changes the organism does not fit so well, leading to higher mortality rates, thus more opportunities for mutations to have an effect on those mortalities(and thus opportunities for reproduction). If a mutation which would not make a difference during unstressful times gives a reproductive advantage during those stressful times it will soon spread throughout the species, generating much more rapid change(instant in geological time scales, several hundreds of thousands of years).

It has been explained to you many times now, evolution does not say monkeys can evolve into humans, Why do you continue to use this lie???

It's not a matter of being dishonest. I actually debate on a regular basis at only one site....and it's not the Forum that Grumpy linked. However I do float around and deposit my seed at various forums around the internet. I don't generally stick around for too long at these other sites, I just ususally drop in -- drop down my bomb -- and leave soon after. It's just a hobby I have.

We call people who have this hobby TROLLS. It isn't seeds you're depositing, though it might fertilize a few.

Grumpy

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

I would simply like to remind everyone to keep the debate civil. The fact that a forum member uses aliases at other sites is not really relevant to the debate, even if it is relevant to one's opinion of that forum member. Let's avoid ad hominem comments.

There are some good things happening in the thread, so let's keep things on the high road.