Is There Even One Point Upon Which There is Universal Agreement?

_{Barry Arrington

April 27, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have a question for non-ID proponents only and it is very simple: Is there even one tenet of modern evolutionary theory that is universally agreed upon by the proponents of modern evolutionary theory?

Comments

SA @113 - fair enough. The point on common descent just needs a little more belabouring - evolutionists certain aren't saying anything so simplistic as that modern species have a series of ancestors which are the same species. I guess I laid myself open to that one, but equally, I think you probably knew exactly what I was driving at. There is no simple nomenclature dividing Universal Common Descent from the doctrine "I have a mum and a dad". If one could imagine tracing all modern lineages back in time, the following broad possibilities suggest themselves: 1) All lineages from an individual stop dead at an individual or pair very like themselves, with no prior ancestors. 2) Lineages converge up to a point at a particular taxonomic level of relatedness. This convergence point may or may not have ancestors, but we are interested in the point of convergence, since that is all we can locate with comparative genomics. 3) Lineages converge up to a point, then there is an intertwining of lines of descent on something other than single individuals - the Woesian (and IMO hopelessly vague) 'progenote' theory. No evolutionist proposes 1). Only Carl Woese proposes 3) - and even he would accept 2) up to (but not including) the taxonomic rank of Domain. Baraminologists accept 2 up to approximately the level of Family. Evolutionary theorists (as far as I can tell) all accept 2) up to the rank of Kingdom. Even with HGT.Hangonasec_{May 1, 2015
May
05
May
1
01
2015
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Woese has no idea, so why ask him?Joe_{May 1, 2015
May
05
May
1
01
2015
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Giraffe’s give birth to giraffes, oak trees to oak trees … thus ancestry. Giraffes and oaks share a common eukaryote ancestor. Just ask Woese. Silver Asiatic: Junk DNA was a surprise, but then it morphed into a prediction which supported evolutionary theory, but that’s debatable also. Rather, the theory morphed (was modified in the light of new evidence). While some junk was always part of evolutionary theory, the amount of junk observed required a downward revision on the importance of selection to molecular evolution.Zachriel_{May 1, 2015
May
05
May
1
01
2015
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Hangonasec Thanks for your detailed reply. We disagree on a number of points which are difficult to argue beyond what we've said so far. Yes, I believe there is a cover-up, or conspiracy if you will, to present evolution in the best possible terms in its public, popularized view and dismiss or ignore dissenting views. I think science journals are for the specialists, especially when they're pay-walled. Of course, we live in a free society (assuming that for you) so it's virtually impossible to 'cover-up' any kind of information. That said, I wouldn't call Carl Woese's views "well-known" within the general topic of 'evolution' as understood by the public and non-specialists. But that's difficult to prove either way. Regarding 'common descent' meaning 'all organisms have ancestors' - in contrast to the YEC view, I'm really not experienced enough with that form of creationism. In several years here on UD, for example, I've never met anyone who thought that organisms living today do not have some ancestry. Giraffe's give birth to giraffes, oak trees to oak trees ... thus ancestry. But in any case, it's a vague concept and I don't see agreement on it -- which is a big problem if it is a core idea of evolutionary theory, in my view. Yes, Junk DNA was a surprise, but then it morphed into a prediction which supported evolutionary theory, but that's debatable also. With all of this, I can't really go much further. I conceded that the OP could be answered in the positive, and Barry's rhetorical question was a thought-starter. Of course, there would have to be several areas of agreement among evolutionists, but the main point here (as I saw it) was the extent of the disagreement.Silver Asiatic_{May 1, 2015
May
05
May
1
01
2015
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

SA@107
Hangonasec: Textbooks are not really the place to extensively pursue disputes – although areas of uncertainty and future work are pointed to [...]. SA: I agree that uncertainty should be pointed out, but I don’t agree that evolutionary textbooks do that. Areas of disagreement are almost always ignored and the attitude of complete certainty is the general tone given.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I have before me an evolutionary textbook running to 750 pages. I don’t know how many areas of disagreement I would have to pull out before I could get below your ‘almost always’ threshold, and then we would have to compare to a textbook on say physics or chemistry (which, I would submit, would also be expected to incline the material towards the more settled parts of the field).
Beyond that, I don’t think disagreements are minor. There are biologists who reject Darwinism entirely (Non-Darwinian evolution, Self-organizationalists) and there is dispute about basic concepts. (How important is selection?).
I referenced the latter. It is an argument about the distributions of s values in real populations, although people may not be aware that this is what they are arguing about. On the former, we’d have to be careful about regarding all biologists as experts on evolution. It is a specialism. More on that later.
Me: But the bones of theory are settled and undisputed by theorists, and that must constitute the bulk of educational materials in any field. SA: How would you describe the bones of the theory?
See my 83.
Me: Still; junk DNA for example is not a central tenet of evolutionary theory, SA: I think we’d have to define what the central tenets are, but I think Junk DNA is an important prediction of the theory.
Junk DNA is virtually absent from prokaryotes, exists at a minimal level in many eukaryotes, and was unsuspected until the latter part of the 20th Century. It isn’t a prediction of the theory per se, but a discovery - all this DNA with no apparent function, which surprised the hell out of many evolutionary biologists! Ohno proposed that it really doesn't have a function, based upon an evolutionary argument. This argument remains to be dealt with by any theory of function.
If it was ever shown that there is no Junk – that it all has a function, that should (but for other reasons wouldn’t) have a major impact on evolutionary theory.
A bit of a hypothetical, an argument on something that may never happen, but yes, if all junk has a function, the c-value paradox returns to the status of a paradox – the status it occupied prior to 1980. And Ohno was wrong - but why?
I already conceded that the idea: “everybody who agrees with my view on evolution is a true evolutionist” is perfectly valid. The answer to the OP is then, “Yes, we all agree 100%”. Because you could say that anyone who disagrees with your view, “doesn’t understand evolution” and therefore shouldn’t be counted.
One has to circumscribe the set somehow. Evolutionary theory is a specialism, and surprisingly involved. Anyone whose opinion is to be ‘counted’ should, I think, have a good grounding in it – all of it. The material in that 750-page textbook, for a start. That needs more than mere ‘biology’. Many biologists, even some pretty prominent ones, seem genuinely ignorant of evolutionary theory beyond a high-school level. It’s not quite the ‘no true Scotsman’ you seem to be implying.
Me: Common descent (not Universal) and a dominant role for descent with modification over vast leaps or individuals having no parent, are, however. SA: This has been argued elsewhere on UD but even the term “common descent” doesn’t have universal agreement. You describe it in a very trivial and vague way. “All organisms have ancestors”. That’s not saying much.
Try telling that to a YEC!
Let’s just start with the first one: - All of modern life shares common ancestry, HGT and orphan genes notwithstanding. “Carl Woese, one of the fathers of molecular phylogenetics, argues that the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms.” No, I don’t see agreement on the issue of common descent. As mentioned above, there’s not agreement on what the term means. The Darwinist Conspiracy has covered that up.
You’re not using the term ironically, then? You really think there’s a conspiracy, when the views of Woese are well known, published and cited?
The term “Universal Common Descent” was invented in order to mean what “Common Descent” actually meant at one time.
Darwin acknowledged either possibility: one form or a few. UCD is the better supported by the data IMO, but there are people who think it incorrect, as I have already acknowledged. Which is why I hedged: there is not universal agreement on universal common descent. But a phylogeneticist is hardly in the business of denying common descent. He is making a phylogenetic argument on why it is not universal.Hangonasec_{May 1, 2015
May
05
May
1
01
2015
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

SA @108 - this cover-up is so complete that the debate referenced was published in one of the most prominent scientific journals of the day! Fiendish.Hangonasec_{May 1, 2015
May
05
May
1
01
2015
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

vel "You ... challenge ... the concept that ..." As agreement on tenet.Silver Asiatic_{April 30, 2015
April
04
Apr
30
30
2015
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

SA: “Carl Woese, one of the fathers of molecular phylogenetics, argues that the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms.” "The universal ancestor is not a discrete entity. It is, rather, a diverse community of cells that survives and evolves as a biological unit. This communal ancestor has a physical history but not a genealogical one. Over time, this ancestor refined into a smaller number of increasingly complex cell types with the ancestors of the three primary groupings of organisms arising as a result." Cw "[P]robably all of the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form .… Carl Woese in “On the evolution of cells” "The three domains of life originated, somewhat independently, from the same pre-cellular pool which was undergoing massive lateral transfer of genetic information. You do not challenge common ancestry per se but rather the concept that there was a single common ancestor cell or organism that gave rise to the three cellular domains of life? " Woese affirmed this was his viewvelikovskys_{April 30, 2015
April
04
Apr
30
30
2015
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Regarding the Darwinian conspiracy to cover-up disputes -- I was looking for something else and this came up ... one of many:
The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day. Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders -- such as physiologists or developmental biologists -- flood into their field. (Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently," Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014) (emphasis added).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/nature_admits_s090321.html
Silver Asiatic_{April 30, 2015
April
04
Apr
30
30
2015
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Hangonasec
SA @105 Textbooks are not really the place to extensively pursue disputes – although areas of uncertainty and future work are pointed to – after all, one is educating the next generation, and they need something to work on. A science without unknowns is a bit dull.
I agree that uncertainty should be pointed out, but I don't agree that evolutionary textbooks do that. Areas of disagreement are almost always ignored and the attitude of complete certainty is the general tone given. Beyond that, I don't think disagreements are minor. There are biologists who reject Darwinism entirely (Non-Darwinian evolution, Self-organizationalists) and there is dispute about basic concepts. (How important is selection?).
But the bones of theory are settled and undisputed by theorists, and that must constitute the bulk of educational materials in any field.
How would you describe the bones of the theory?
Contra the spirit of the rhetorical title, points of agreement are many and substantial.
Many, yes, as I agreed. Certainly, more than "even one" so the answer to the OP is yes. But substantial ... ? I think we have to start with the idea that "evolution" claims to be able to explain the development of (and every aspect of) every living organism in the entire history of the entire biosphere on earth. When we look for some substantial agreement on the basics of that theory, it has to be pretty significant, in my opinion. I just don't think it's there.
Still; junk DNA for example is not a central tenet of evolutionary theory,
I think we'd have to define what the central tenets are, but I think Junk DNA is an important prediction of the theory. If it was ever shown that there is no Junk - that it all has a function, that should (but for other reasons wouldn't) have a major impact on evolutionary theory.
nor are such matters as RNA World vs Proteins First, or the relative importance of different evolutionary rates (punctuated equilibrium/stasis) or, indeed, the distribution of s values (which is all the selection/drift dispute hinges upon).
I have to trust your judgement on this. I would think that those who favor drift as an explanation would consider the distribution of values a central aspect -- but the key point is, nobody owns the theory of evolution. There is no official spokesman (many, like Dawkins or Coyne think they are) authorized to speak on its behalf. Nobody has an official definition of it. Your opinion is as good as any. I already conceded that the idea: "everybody who agrees with my view on evolution is a true evolutionist" is perfectly valid. The answer to the OP is then, "Yes, we all agree 100%". Because you could say that anyone who disagrees with your view, "doesn't understand evolution" and therefore shouldn't be counted.
Common descent (not Universal) and a dominant role for descent with modification over vast leaps or individuals having no parent, are, however.
This has been argued elsewhere on UD but even the term "common descent" doesn't have universal agreement. You describe it in a very trivial and vague way. "All organisms have ancestors". That's not saying much.
You have the floor: what is the Great Darwinist Consipiracy suppressing that should be better known? This is not an invitation to a spamfest;
This task is more than I can handle - not because it's difficult, but because there is too much to choose from. I don't consider BA77's linked material to be spam and I think he could show dozens of references to scientific findings that directly conflict with what the Darwinist conspirators work to cover-up.
just brief headlines would do, along the lines of my 83. And is my 83 incorrect (apart from the error already pointed out and accepted)?
Let's just start with the first one:
- All of modern life shares common ancestry, HGT and orphan genes notwithstanding.
"Carl Woese, one of the fathers of molecular phylogenetics, argues that the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms." No, I don't see agreement on the issue of common descent. As mentioned above, there's not agreement on what the term means. The Darwinist Conspiracy has covered that up. The term "Universal Common Descent" was invented in order to mean what "Common Descent" actually meant at one time.Silver Asiatic_{April 30, 2015
April
04
Apr
30
30
2015
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

SA @105 Textbooks are not really the place to extensively pursue disputes - although areas of uncertainty and future work are pointed to - after all, one is educating the next generation, and they need something to work on. A science without unknowns is a bit dull. But the bones of theory are settled and undisputed by theorists, and that must constitute the bulk of educational materials in any field. Contra the spirit of the rhetorical title, points of agreement are many and substantial.
This OP is so generous to evolutionists … just show us where you agree. It’s a friendly offer. You could come up with hundreds of trivial, ambiguous points where evolutionsts agree (like ‘selection is important’).
I gave a non-exhaustive list in 83; these are hardly peripheral, trivial or ambiguous points, though they are somewhat general. Still; junk DNA for example is not a central tenet of evolutionary theory, nor are such matters as RNA World vs Proteins First, or the relative importance of different evolutionary rates (punctuated equilibrium/stasis) or, indeed, the distribution of s values (which is all the selection/drift dispute hinges upon). Common descent (not Universal) and a dominant role for descent with modification over vast leaps or individuals having no parent, are, however. You have the floor: what is the Great Darwinist Consipiracy suppressing that should be better known? This is not an invitation to a spamfest; just brief headlines would do, along the lines of my 83. And is my 83 incorrect (apart from the error already pointed out and accepted)?Hangonasec_{April 30, 2015
April
04
Apr
30
30
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Hangonasec @ 100 Darwinists are very defensive about their belief system. "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." -- Former NCSE Director, Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January 2009 This OP is so generous to evolutionists ... just show us where you agree. It's a friendly offer. You could come up with hundreds of trivial, ambiguous points where evolutionsts agree (like 'selection is important'). I prefer this friendly approach - it's better for dialogue. However, a more critical approach which would probably end up with evolutionists flat-out lying about their views would ask if evolutionists agree on key points of the theory. So yes, in public media, in textbooks, in debate with IDers, there is an evolutionary party-line to uphold. But dig into the papers, look at what the 'outcasts' have to say, research the little in-house fights that pop up (and are quickly covered-up) and it's easy to see that there are disagreements but they're hidden from the general public. Or at least no disagreement allowed in textbooks, which apparently in other fields are the very places scientific disputes are conducted.Silver Asiatic_{April 30, 2015
April
04
Apr
30
30
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

To get a bit philosophical with the OP's question, "Is There Even One Point Upon Which There is Universal Agreement?", this question is much tougher for atheists to give a coherent answer to within their materialistic/naturalistic worldview than they may realize at first:
"So you think of physics in search of a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything", Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however multifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.",,, You see, there is a sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,," In Cambridge, Professor Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design - video - quoted at 17:34 minute mark of the video https://uncommondescent.com/news/in-cambridge-professor-steve-fuller-discusses-why-the-hypothesis-of-intelligent-design-is-not-more-popular-among-scientists-and-others/ “Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.” John D. Barrow Stephen Hawking's "God-Haunted" Quest - December 24, 2014 Excerpt: Why in the world would a scientist blithely assume that there is or is even likely to be one unifying rational form to all things, unless he assumed that there is a singular, overarching intelligence that has placed it there? Why shouldn't the world be chaotic, utterly random, meaningless? Why should one presume that something as orderly and rational as an equation would describe the universe's structure? I would argue that the only finally reasonable ground for that assumption is the belief in an intelligent Creator, who has already thought into the world the very mathematics that the patient scientist discovers. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/stephen_hawking092351.html
Around the 13:20 minute mark of the following video Pastor Joe Boot comments on the self-defeating nature of the atheistic worldview in regards to a single overriding absolute truth:
Defending the Christian Faith – Pastor Joe Boot – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqE5_ZOAnKo "If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no preexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It's just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There's no design plan. It's like my kids do 'join the dots' puzzles. It's just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no preestablished pattern (to connect the facts given atheism)." Pastor Joe Boot
Verse
Colossians 1:16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
of related note:
Point of View Livecast - April 7, 2015 - video interview Nancy Pearcey discusses her book, "Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism and Other God Substitutes," in which she explains how all worldviews that try to substitute God with something less than God (i.e. with an 'idol') all end up self imploding since they cannot account for what we intuitively know to be true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRtbkN2tx4I
bornagain77_{April 30, 2015
April
04
Apr
30
30
2015
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

They all agree that evolution happened. However they do not know how or even if evolution can produce the diversity of life.Joe_{April 30, 2015
April
04
Apr
30
30
2015
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

Yes, there is one point on which they agree: There ain’t no God.
Except for those who do think there's a God, of course.Bob O'H_{April 30, 2015
April
04
Apr
30
30
2015
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

Yes, there is one point on which they agree: There ain't no God.EvilSnack_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

So, Darwinists apparently don't agree on anything. And it's a cult, with no disagreement allowed. Or at least no disagreement allowed in textbooks, which apparently in other fields are the very places scientific disputes are conducted.Hangonasec_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

... far from being irrelevant, it’s the “junk DNA” that is running the whole show:
So? That's exactly what we would expect if evolution is true. Hoyle was right all along.Mung_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Mapou:
Are you denying this?
I haven't commented on it one way or another. I do assert that the UD narrative may be fairly characterized as, "Darwinism is rigidly enforced within the academy (you know, “profs” and all), as well as within the scientific community, with no tolerance for dissent." You apparently disagree (@68). And agree (@78).Reciprocating Bill_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

RC:
IOW, Darwinism is rigidly enforced within the academy (you know, “profs” and all), as well as within the scientific community, with no tolerance for dissent.
Are you denying this? If so, you are both a fascist and a liar. Show me the approved academic textbooks that dissent from Darwinism and materialism. You people are just a chicken shit cult that found a sleazy way to use our tax money to preach your religious dogmas to our children without our consent. But not for much longer. Your comeuppance is almost at the door. Wait for it. LOLMapou_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

wd400, I thought of you when I read this article: New Book on "Junk DNA" Surveys the Functions of Non-Coding DNA - April 29, 2015 Excerpt: Carey,, goes on to explain how today we now believe that, far from being irrelevant, it's the "junk DNA" that is running the whole show: "The other shock from the sequencing of the human genome was the realisation that the extraordinary complexities of human anatomy, physiology, intelligence and behaviour cannot be explained by referring to the classical model of genes. In terms of numbers of genes that code for proteins, humans contain pretty much the same quantity (around 20,000) as simple microscopic worms. Even more remarkably, most of the genes in the worms have directly equivalent genes in humans. As researchers deepened their analyses of what differentiates humans from other organisms at the DNA level, it became apparent that genes could not provide the explanation. In fact, only one genetic factor generally scaled with complexity. The only genomic features that increased in number as animals became more complicated were the regions of junk DNA. The more sophisticated an organism, the higher the percentage of junk DNA it contains. Only now are scientists really exploring the controversial idea that junk DNA may hold the key to (increasing)complexity. (p. 4),,," She goes on to spend the bulk of the book reviewing the numerous discoveries of function for non-coding "junk" DNA. Just a few of those include: * Structural roles such as packaging chromosomes and preventing DNA "from unravelling and becoming damaged," acting as "anchor points when chromosomes are shared equally between different daughter cells and during cell division," and serving as "insulation regions, restricting gene expression to specific regions of chromosomes." * Regulating gene expression, as "Thousands and thousands of regions of junk DNA are suspected to regulate networks of gene expression." * Introns are extremely important: The bits of gobbledygook between the parts of a gene that code for amino acids were originally considered to be nothing but nonsense or rubbish. They were referred to as junk or garbage DNA, and pretty much dismissed as irrelevant. ... But we now know that they can have a very big impact. (pp. 17-18) * Preventing mutations by separating out gene-coding DNA. * Controlling telomere length that can serve as a "molecular clock" that helps control aging. * Forming the loci for centromeres. * Activating X chromosomes in females. * Producing long non-coding RNAs which regulate Hox genes or regulating brain development, or serving as attachment points for histone-modifying enzymes helping to turn genes on and off. * Serving as promoters or enhancers for genes, or imprinting control elements for "the expression of the protein-coding genes." * Producing RNA which acts "as a kind of scaffold, directing the activity of proteins to particular regions of the genome." * Producing RNAs which can fold into three-dimensional shapes and perform functions inside cells, much like enzymes, changing the shapes of other molecules, or helping to build ribosomes. As she notes: "We've actually known about these peculiar RNA molecules for decades, making it yet more surprising that we have maintained such a protein-centric vision of our genomic landscape." (p. 146) * Serving as tRNA genes which produce tRNA molecules. These genes can also serve as insulators or spacers to stop transcription from spreading from gene to gene. * Development of the fingers and face; changing eye, skin, and hair color; affecting obesity. * Gene splicing and generating spliceosomes. * Producing small RNAs which also affect gene expression. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/a_new_book_on_j095611.htmlbornagain77_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

I find it impossible to credit the claim that you have simply been trying to understand my posts in this thread. Have you read what you've written?wd400_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H @89 - you are quite correct. I confused fixation of a descendant of an ancestor sequence with fixation of that sequence unchanged. Well, that for starters!Hangonasec_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

wd400 I said: "The point of the OP is about disagreements within what is claimed to be evolutionary theory." You reply:
You have a serious reading comprehension problem. The OP asks what evolutionary biologists agree on.
It's very helpful to see this. You think BA makes no implication about disagreements within evolutionary biology. You think I have a serious reading comprehension problem and I'm 'derailing' the thread. The title of the OP is: "Is there even one tenet of modern evolutionary theory that is universally agreed upon by the proponents of modern evolutionary theory?" You don't perceive anything within the rhetorical tone of that question that speaks about disagreements among proponents of evolutionary theory? When BA says "even one tenet", that doesn't seem like an emphatic point? Ok, wow. Again, it helps to see this. I have to trust that you're being honest. I'll suggest to any OP authors that things need to be spelled out for you a lot more explicitly and maybe slowly. In any case, I can see why you think the response that "selection is important" (that's a tenet?) answers BA's challenge. I'm not trying to score points. I'm trying to understand your point of view and I'm commenting on what appears as a defensive and very unconvincing position. If you don't want to continue and you think I'm just wasting time, I understand and I'm sorry it seems that way.Silver Asiatic_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: Is There Even One Point Upon Which There is Universal Agreement? Unlike consensus, there will rarely, if ever, be universal agreement on anything. Scholars often stake out contrarian positions in an attempt to make a name or to push the conversation.Zachriel_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @86 Exactly! ;-)Dionisio_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

The point of the OP is about disagreements within what is claimed to be evolutionary theory.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem. The OP asks what evolutionary biologists agree on. I listed some examples, explicitly saying the relative importance of selection in evolution is debated, even as the fact selection is important is agreed upon. When you challenged this with regard specific fringe evolutionary biologists I gave you direct quotes that proved you wrong. After all that you are still trying to derail the thread, and even resorting to petty point-scoring while avoiding the topic of the OP. So, why bother with you?wd400_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Hangonasec @ 83 -
- Only frequency-dependent selection can oppose the progress of such an allele through to the fixation of one variant and elimination of the other. This is rare, so origin-fixation is the norm, long-term.
No. Mutation, migration, and heterozygote advantage can also act to oppose fixation. I'm sure epistasis can too.Bob O'H_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

BA77 @20 ‘Man, that thing is just a mess. It’s like looking into a room full of smoke.’ Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we’re talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology.’ - Berlinski He's got a wicked tongue, that Berlinski, hasn't he ?!Axel_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

BA77 @20 ‘Man, that thing is just a mess. It’s like looking into a room full of smoke.’ Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we’re talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology.’ - Berlinski He's got a wicked tongue, that Berlinski, hasn't he, BA?!Axel_{April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply