Phylogeny - Help me see what you see

[CrisprCAS9]

Your references here don’t actually address the point. They point to large changes in morphology, but these are not inherently incompatible with the mechanisms of microevolution. A change in a single nucleotide is a microevolutionary process, regardless of the scale of the change in morphology such a mutation might cause.

[Faizal_Ali]

Of course, the people most dogmatically committed to Neo-Darwinian understanding of evolutionary theory are the members of the ID movement.

Could you specify how you understand Davidson’s model to involve something other than microevolutionary processes?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Eddie

I’ll give you a quotation that is just one of many I seem to keep stumbling across.

Yes that does seem to just keep happening to you, leaving you perpetually confused, and letting us know at innumerable opportunities. But rather than act like another clone of Henry Morris (who composed an entire book consisting of nothing but quotemines), perhaps if you read more from the author you’re quoting you’d get to some actual explanation.

It is common practice for scientists to give an introduction to a question or problem they are doing work to address or explain (and some times even to exaggerate it for effect, to make it look all the more impressive when they solve it), just as it is common practice for ID-creationists to quote only the posing of the historical problem, and then to stop the quotation before actual exposition of the solution begins.

[Michael_Okoko]

@Eddie

Since everyone here appears to be claiming to be very knowledgeable about evolutionary theory today, they should recognize the author without my naming him or her. Here it is:

Unfortunately, I am not a guru of evolutionary theory so I don’t know the author of your citation. Can you kindly share it?

The author also makes pretty odd statements like this:

@Eddie

“… the puzzle of how new phenotypes come into being has stymied science for more than a century

We know mechanisms that generate new phenotypes and they all involve mutation and/or recombination.

@Eddie

But given the staggering odds, selection is not enough. [emphasi

Everyone agrees selection is insufficient to explain all evolutionary changes. Things like drift, plasticity, evolvability have been added to the repertoire of mechanisms capable of producing evolutionary change.

@Eddie

We need a principle that accelerates innovation .” [emphasis added]

Mutation and recombination are the substrates for evolutionary novelties, so its unclear (to me) what the author means by acceleration of innovations. Speeding up mutation rates increases genetic diversity within a population paving the way for new phenotypes to emerge (as we see in RNA viruses like HIV), so is this what the author meant?

@Eddie

And I don’t think that for these theorists “a principle that accelerates innovation” means “waiting indefinitely until a useful mutation happens to come along, so that selection can act on it.”

We had billions of years to get to where we are. The wait was kinda worth it, don’t you agree?

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

That example would explain the massive destruction of species or groups. It wouldn’t explain, e.g., the generation of dozens of new phyla in a (relatively speaking) short period of geological time.

True. It isn’t intended to. It’s intended to be an example of a macroevolutionary process that isn’t reducible to microevolution. “The generation of dozens of new phyla” is accomplished through microevolutionary processes.

@Eddie

Thus, we see phrases like “the problem of the rise of novel organismal form.”

It’s a problem, but not a problem that involves anything other than mutation, selection, etc. The problem is in figuring out what kind of mutations can happen, what their effects would be, what sort of selection would be attendant on them, and what sort of pathway of changes could lead from one body plan to another. All that is not in any way in contradiction to the idea that change happens through known microevolutionary processes; it’s just looking at the nature of the input.

@Eddie

they should recognize the author without my naming him or her

I don’t, unless it’s Gould. I disagree, though. We don’t need a new principle; we just need to understand how genotype leads to phenotype and how the environment affects (or effects) selection.

@Eddie

But clearly, some evolutionary theorists think that “a principle that accelerates innovation” is necessary to explain the speed of major evolutionary change.

Do you know of any proposed principles of that sort? Why would one be necessary?

[scd]

@CrisprCAS9

This is as blatantly wrong now as it was when you said the same thing in the other thread. Try again.

@Rumraket

of genes that don’t positively contribute to reproductive fitness.

@Faizal_Ali

It is the fact that the existence of the fusion was predicted on the basis of common descent

see my comment here:

Chromosome Fusion in Humans - or Not?

That needs to be elevated into a post in and of itself.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@jeffb

What I’m curious to know here is how you find this leaning you towards common descent and away from design (again, help me “see” what you’re seeing)…

Thanks for the clarity and genuineness of your questions.

I’m concerned that this particular thread has become a morass, for a few reasons. It is highlight to me that I should probably write more about this, and give you an understandable and orderly account.

[John_Harshman]

Ute: Because of your criticism of neo-Darwinism, some people from Intelligent Design or creationism embrace you. How do you deal with that? Do you react at all, or do you just let them go?

Eric: There are three classes of people I never talk to. I don’t talk about religion, I don’t talk about neo-Darwinism, and I don’t talk to Republicans, I mean, extreme Republicans – Tea Party Republicans. They’re all the same to me. They all live in a counter-factual world, and I don’t deal with them. They all believe in “belief-based” decision-making and I don’t care for that. They live in an irrational world, all three groups of people, so I don’t deal with them.