Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Take your pick.

Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 11:25:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
How many theories of evolution are in use by a variety of scientists, and academics and the ones that just go along for the ride.

Evolution by Natural Selection
Front-loaded Evolution
Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo (Me: This one should sell on the nickname alone)
Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering
Somatic Selection
Structuralist / Platonic Evolution
Biological Self-Organization
Multilevel Evolution
Epigenetic Evolution
Evolution by Symbiogenesis
Teleological Selection

And, would you believe? They are all contested by the same scientists and academics that say evolution is a fact. Yeah Right!
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 3:07:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 11:25:53 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
How many theories of evolution are in use by a variety of scientists, and academics and the ones that just go along for the ride.

Evolution by Natural Selection
Front-loaded Evolution
Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo (Me: This one should sell on the nickname alone)
Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering
Somatic Selection
Structuralist / Platonic Evolution
Biological Self-Organization
Multilevel Evolution
Epigenetic Evolution
Evolution by Symbiogenesis
Teleological Selection

And, would you believe? They are all contested by the same scientists and academics that say evolution is a fact. Yeah Right!

Huh? I don't understand. Are you saying that these are mutually exclusive? I think you need to change your mode of thinking that these are all methods organisms change over time, not one over the other.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 2:29:40 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 3:07:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 11:25:53 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
How many theories of evolution are in use by a variety of scientists, and academics and the ones that just go along for the ride.

Evolution by Natural Selection
Front-loaded Evolution
Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo (Me: This one should sell on the nickname alone)
Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering
Somatic Selection
Structuralist / Platonic Evolution
Biological Self-Organization
Multilevel Evolution
Epigenetic Evolution
Evolution by Symbiogenesis
Teleological Selection

And, would you believe? They are all contested by the same scientists and academics that say evolution is a fact. Yeah Right!

Huh? I don't understand. Are you saying that these are mutually exclusive? I think you need to change your mode of thinking that these are all methods organisms change over time, not one over the other.

ME: These definitions come from Google to explain the different theories that a used to "prove" evolution. They are not my definitions.

If one has a theory and that theory is fraught with errors, the best way to cover the errors is to give various examples of what "Could/might be the truth. If this is convincing enough the reader will begin to believe that it is they that thought of these theories as presented. It happens in religion all the time.

Each of the above are used to "prove" different aspects of the evolution theory and in some cases are a theory in themselves.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 2:39:08 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 2:29:40 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 2/15/2016 3:07:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 11:25:53 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
How many theories of evolution are in use by a variety of scientists, and academics and the ones that just go along for the ride.

Evolution by Natural Selection
Front-loaded Evolution
Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo (Me: This one should sell on the nickname alone)
Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering
Somatic Selection
Structuralist / Platonic Evolution
Biological Self-Organization
Multilevel Evolution
Epigenetic Evolution
Evolution by Symbiogenesis
Teleological Selection

And, would you believe? They are all contested by the same scientists and academics that say evolution is a fact. Yeah Right!

Huh? I don't understand. Are you saying that these are mutually exclusive? I think you need to change your mode of thinking that these are all methods organisms change over time, not one over the other.

ME: These definitions come from Google to explain the different theories that a used to "prove" evolution. They are not my definitions.

If one has a theory and that theory is fraught with errors, the best way to cover the errors is to give various examples of what "Could/might be the truth. If this is convincing enough the reader will begin to believe that it is they that thought of these theories as presented. It happens in religion all the time.

Each of the above are used to "prove" different aspects of the evolution theory and in some cases are a theory in themselves.

Like I said, they are not mutually exclusive.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 7:30:32 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 2:39:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/16/2016 2:29:40 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 2/15/2016 3:07:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 11:25:53 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
How many theories of evolution are in use by a variety of scientists, and academics and the ones that just go along for the ride.

Evolution by Natural Selection
Front-loaded Evolution
Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo (Me: This one should sell on the nickname alone)
Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering
Somatic Selection
Structuralist / Platonic Evolution
Biological Self-Organization
Multilevel Evolution
Epigenetic Evolution
Evolution by Symbiogenesis
Teleological Selection

And, would you believe? They are all contested by the same scientists and academics that say evolution is a fact. Yeah Right!

Huh? I don't understand. Are you saying that these are mutually exclusive? I think you need to change your mode of thinking that these are all methods organisms change over time, not one over the other.

ME: These definitions come from Google to explain the different theories that a used to "prove" evolution. They are not my definitions.

If one has a theory and that theory is fraught with errors, the best way to cover the errors is to give various examples of what "Could/might be the truth. If this is convincing enough the reader will begin to believe that it is they that thought of these theories as presented. It happens in religion all the time.

Each of the above are used to "prove" different aspects of the evolution theory and in some cases are a theory in themselves.

Like I said, they are not mutually exclusive.

ME: what do you mean? When one presented theory fails there these other to apply for "added proof" of something unprovable.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 11:46:16 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 7:30:32 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 2/16/2016 2:39:08 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/16/2016 2:29:40 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 2/15/2016 3:07:28 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/14/2016 11:25:53 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
How many theories of evolution are in use by a variety of scientists, and academics and the ones that just go along for the ride.

Evolution by Natural Selection
Front-loaded Evolution
Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo (Me: This one should sell on the nickname alone)
Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering
Somatic Selection
Structuralist / Platonic Evolution
Biological Self-Organization
Multilevel Evolution
Epigenetic Evolution
Evolution by Symbiogenesis
Teleological Selection

And, would you believe? They are all contested by the same scientists and academics that say evolution is a fact. Yeah Right!

Huh? I don't understand. Are you saying that these are mutually exclusive? I think you need to change your mode of thinking that these are all methods organisms change over time, not one over the other.

ME: These definitions come from Google to explain the different theories that a used to "prove" evolution. They are not my definitions.

If one has a theory and that theory is fraught with errors, the best way to cover the errors is to give various examples of what "Could/might be the truth. If this is convincing enough the reader will begin to believe that it is they that thought of these theories as presented. It happens in religion all the time.

Each of the above are used to "prove" different aspects of the evolution theory and in some cases are a theory in themselves.

Like I said, they are not mutually exclusive.

ME: what do you mean? When one presented theory fails there these other to apply for "added proof" of something unprovable.

What I mean is that epigenetics and natural selection are both actions under the evolution umbrella. They can both be equally valid. Simply because passing on epigenetic changes to DNA causing a change to gene expression to off spring has been proven beyond a doubt does not mean that natural selection is invalid. They are proven actions which have the ability to significantly change form and function of future generations over time. When you couple all the actions together which cause change, well, then even more change happens.

IE: we know the genetic changes which allow a fish to take a muscle and change it to an electric organ, which allows it to take prey easier. We however do not know all the forces which may have happened to cause that series of 7 or so changes. It would be erronious to think that only one of the actions from your list were involved.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 6:02:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 7:30:32 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: what do you mean? When one presented theory fails there these other to apply for "added proof" of something unprovable.

To take a much simpler example you might understand. Suppose we wanted a theory of where rocks come from. We notice a volcano erupting and see that after the magma cools rocks are leftover. So we have a theory that says rocks come from cooling magma (igneous rocks). But then suppose someone notices that in the beds of rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water rocks form. They formulate a theory of rocks forming over time repeated deposits of sediment (sedimentary rocks). Insert same idea of metamorphic rocks if you care to read about that.

Would we say geology has failed in this case? We had one theory (igneous rocks) that failed to explain a different type of rock (sedimentary rocks). Does this mean magma cooling does not form rocks or does this mean that there are multiple ways in which rocks form? It would seem this is the same way evolution works, the basic idea holds (rocks form/lifeforms evolve) but there are multiple means by which those occurrences happen.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 6:35:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 11:25:53 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
How many theories of evolution are in use by a variety of scientists, and academics and the ones that just go along for the ride.

Evolution by Natural Selection
Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo (Me: This one should sell on the nickname alone)
Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering
Somatic Selection
Structuralist / Platonic Evolution
Biological Self-Organization
Multilevel Evolution
Epigenetic Evolution
Evolution by Symbiogenesis
Teleological Selection
Front-loaded Evolution
And, would you believe? They are all contested by the same scientists and academics that say evolution is a fact. Yeah Right!

I think there is some confusion here, Peter.

Let me clear it up.

Given the evidence we can see in Genetics, Taxonomy, Embryology and Paleontology; including the fossil record, we can establish that all organisms on the planet are related to each other beyond any reasonable doubt. The patterns we find here, are so specific to descent, and have no reason to be true short of unbelievably coincidence, that we can practically rule out any other process other than descent with modification being an explanation for life: "Evolution".

However, now that it is reasonably and practically established that it did happen, science has been sequentially moving onto the specifics of how it happens. In many cases, specifically, what mechanisms can cause changes in the genome that produce new traits or features, and how do those new traits or feature propagate or not.

So, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (colloquially known as "the theory of evolution") includes a broad section of these based on experiment and information we have gained.

For example, at it's root level, ignoring how mutations occur and how they present themselves on an organism, we can observe a number of factors that affect how these are passed to subsequent generations. This includes the ubiquitous "Evolution by Natural Selection", Genetic drift (which isn't mentioned in your list), and "Evolution by Group Selection". However, Group Selection (you've called it multi-level evolution) is actually the same thing as Natural Selection statistically, but applying to the level of a group, rather than individual.

There could be others, but these are the parts of evolution that mediate how changes spread across generations.

The next, is how those changes occur. Traditionally, the low level cause of organism changes has been Genetics; the code in DNA; but it seems that epigenetics (acquired differences that occur outside of the DNA or through environmental responses) also contribute to changes in an organism. How much either specifically contribute, and in what ways is still in the process of being understood.

There is also some evidence that indicates through a combination of epigenetic and biological processes that as well as having random mutations, organisms are able to alter the genome in specific ways based on enviromental stress too; otherwise known as "Natural Genetic Engineering', or on the scale of a multicellular level "Somatic Evolution". These are still bound by the rules of natural and group selection, but are simply other mechanisms that can produce evolvable differences.

The next part is how specific mutational differences actually produce morphological or behavioral changes in the organism. The most common is Evo-Devo; which attempts to describe how changes in gene expression produced by genetic changes can influence the organisms embryological development. Evo-Devo and embryological development itself has a great deal of capacity to explain how apparently small, minor changes to the genome have a large impact on the morphology of an organism in ways that wouldn't necessarily have been thought of. For example, in Embryological development, small changes to protein expression within the heart can allow it to change between a 3 and 4 chambered organ; something that could have been expected to require massive changes over a long period. Indeed, Evo-Devo explores the functional expression of genes with regards to animal morphology and development to explain what appears to be large scale changes in terms of simple evolutionary steps.

However, Evo-Devo also allows us to the ways organisms can't evolve either; where simple changes such as the giraffe Recurrent Laryngeal nerve cannot move from being wrapped around the neck; nor can organisms grow a new pair of functional legs very easily, this plays into Structuralist / Platonic approach to evolution; where specific things are easy to evolve, and other things are impossible or difficult to evolve (and match the relative occurrence or lack thereof within life and the fossil record).

Indeed, Evo-Devo is really an expression of Biological Self-Organization; where very simple rules invoke complex behaviors. IE: the rules of gene and protein expression are very easy and any animals development is generally based on genes turning off and on, with changes to when and where they turn on being easy to change. Biological Self-Organisation also appears to be evident when boiling down the behavior of DNA and the operation of animal behaviors too; simply rules can produce complex results that can propagate to subsequence generation by natural selection and group selection.

Other than this, there remain one or two route obstacles in account for evolution from a common ancestor; the primary one of which being the origin of Eukaryotic cells; however given the evidence of independent genomes of Mitochondria, and the rest of the cell; it appears evident that Eukaryotes were produced by symbiotic evolution, two organisms that fused, and then both co-evolved to be dependent on one another; subject to the forces of natural selection.

These items, could all individually be true; and indeed we know for certain through experiment that all but a couple are definitely true; with the remainder being an explanation of one or two specific events in the entire history of life. What is primarily under contention is what differences between organisms are caused by which of the above, which aspects have the greatest impact and the degree to which they are relevant to the evolution of life.

The remaining items Teleological selection, and Front-Loaded evolution are not things I've heard discussed within evolution at all; and seem to be more the remit of Creationism.

So in relation to your post; these are not "different theories" but in most regards are explaining different aspects of how organisms can change over time in a way that explains what we see of common descent, and in almost all cases are highly interrelated with each other; for example, Somatic Selection, Natural Genetic Engineering and Epigenetics are all closely related if not all fundamentally the same thing approaching the process at different levels. Evo-Devo, Structural Evolution and Biological Self-Organization are indeed all closely related too.

All that is contested, is not that whether most of them do occur; but the various influences each individual part has on the whole. Are changes in an organisms more the results of random genetic changes, or epigenetics? Does group selection have a bigger impact on the overall evolution of multiple species than does natural selection on the individual?

Suggesting that we "take our pick" begs the question that most are wrong; or incompatible with each other. In reality, you don't need to, they are all true to some degree, and it's the specific degree to which they are true (or indeed some other mechanism that we haven't found), and in what combination and relative occurrence that is still being contested.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 8:33:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 6:02:08 PM, Floid wrote:
At 2/16/2016 7:30:32 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
ME: what do you mean? When one presented theory fails there these other to apply for "added proof" of something unprovable.

To take a much simpler example you might understand. Suppose we wanted a theory of where rocks come from. We notice a volcano erupting and see that after the magma cools rocks are leftover. So we have a theory that says rocks come from cooling magma (igneous rocks). But then suppose someone notices that in the beds of rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water rocks form. They formulate a theory of rocks forming over time repeated deposits of sediment (sedimentary rocks). Insert same idea of metamorphic rocks if you care to read about that.

Would we say geology has failed in this case? We had one theory (igneous rocks) that failed to explain a different type of rock (sedimentary rocks). Does this mean magma cooling does not form rocks or does this mean that there are multiple ways in which rocks form? It would seem this is the same way evolution works, the basic idea holds (rocks form/lifeforms evolve) but there are multiple means by which those occurrences happen.

For the sake of debate, not argument: There appears to be too much "ifs" in this thinking. Let's say that the first lot of rocks were formed from volcanoes, then the substance for those rocks was in the volcano to start with and had to evolve there, or were they instantly made when the were spewed out and cooled.

The spreading of magma onto the surface does not form rocks in this situation as the rocks were already available.

Genesis, or the creation concept, touches on the formation of rocks and everything else of the earths make up, except living beings, when it is said that the earth was a formidable waste, maybe already consisting of rocks and everything else that makes up the earth.

I have no problem with the earth or the creative days taking millions of years to complete, and that the age of the earth is unknown millions of even billions of years old. What I do have a problem with is to say that evolution, the slow, almost unseen change process caused all the elements that made up the earth and the universe.