The illusion of evolution and how it works

[Dustnite]

I took off for the last 6 years. The facts of evolution have evolved this then. Apparently Darwinian evolution has lost and now Neutral Evolution has taken its place.

[sarcasm]IKR, Intelligent Falling got replaced by Gravity and Flat Earth got replaced with Round Earth. These are weird times we live in...[/sarcasm]

 

[Rumraket]

You have been at this for at least six years and you are just finding out about ENCODE? Furthermore, how does finding out that 80% of our genes having a function kill evolution? Your conclusion does not follow from your citation (even if it were correct). Thus far, your modus operandi has been to quote something, declare it disproves evolution, and disengage with us when we correct you on your mistakes (and ignoring the vast majority of what anyone has told you). Why come to a discussion forum if you are only here to preach.

I took off for the last 6 years. The facts of evolution have evolved this then. Apparently Darwinian evolution has lost and now Neutral Evolution has taken its place.

Neutral evolution took over back in the 1960's. Creationism is >50 years behind on some topics of evolution.

 

[Rhed]

I took off for the last 6 years. The facts of evolution have evolved this then. Apparently Darwinian evolution has lost and now Neutral Evolution has taken its place.

I Neutral evolution took over back in the 1960's. Creationism is >50 years behind on some topics of evolution.

That is not true. Darwinian evolution was popular until about 10 years or so.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Popular? Fucking popular? Is that how you think science is done?

'Darwinian' evolution hasn't been seen in the primary literature for decades. Nobody gives a flying fuck what's popular.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Rhed,

What do you think "Darwinian evolution" means?

If by "Darwinian evolution" you mean Darwin's original framing of the theory of evolution then it was replaced by the modern synthesis even before the 60s.

If by "Darwinian evolution" you mean "natural selection" it is one of the evolutionary mechanisms described by the modern synthesis. Though notions of the relative significance of the various mechanisms continue to evolve, as it were.

 

[Rhed]

Rhed,

What do you think "Darwinian evolution" means?

If by "Darwinian evolution" you mean Darwin's original framing of the theory of evolution then it was replaced by the modern synthesis even before the 60s.

If by "Darwinian evolution" you mean "natural selection" it is one of the evolutionary mechanisms described by the modern synthesis. Though notions of the relative significance of the various mechanisms continue to evolve, as it were.

Darwinian evolution as in Natural Selection and Random Mutations.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Rhed,

What do you think "Darwinian evolution" means?

If by "Darwinian evolution" you mean Darwin's original framing of the theory of evolution then it was replaced by the modern synthesis even before the 60s.

If by "Darwinian evolution" you mean "natural selection" it is one of the evolutionary mechanisms described by the modern synthesis. Though notions of the relative significance of the various mechanisms continue to evolve, as it were.

Darwinian evolution as in Natural Selection and Random Mutations.

Mutation and natural selection are two of the mechanisms by which evolution happens. We have known for decades that they aren't the only ones.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Also, what do you mean when you say 'random'?

 

[Rumraket]

I took off for the last 6 years. The facts of evolution have evolved this then. Apparently Darwinian evolution has lost and now Neutral Evolution has taken its place.

I Neutral evolution took over back in the 1960's. Creationism is >50 years behind on some topics of evolution.

That is not true. Darwinian evolution was popular until about 10 years or so.

Stop pretending you know anything about the subject. Kimura published in the 60's. There has been a steady stream of publications on the subject ever since.

Heck, even his Wikipedia page shows it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoo_Kimura

Motoo Kimura (木村 資生 Kimura Motoo?, November 13, 1924 – November 13, 1994) was a Japanese biologist best known for introducing the neutral theory of molecular evolution in 1968.[2][3] He became one of the most influential theoretical population geneticists. He is remembered in genetics for his innovative use of diffusion equations to calculate the probability of fixation of beneficial, deleterious, or neutral alleles.[4] Combining theoretical population genetics with molecular evolution data, he also developed the neutral theory of molecular evolution in which genetic drift is the main force changing allele frequencies.[5] James F. Crow, himself a renowned population geneticist, considered Kimura to be one of the two greatest evolutionary geneticists, along with Gustave Malécot, after the great trio of the modern synthesis (Haldane, Wright, Fisher).[6]

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I took off for the last 6 years. The facts of evolution have evolved this then. Apparently Darwinian evolution has lost and now Neutral Evolution has taken its place.

Neutral evolution took over back in the 1960's. Creationism is >50 years behind on some topics of evolution.

Only >50 on some topics? You are given intelligent design creationism far to much credit.

 

[Rumraket]

Neutral evolution took over back in the 1960's. Creationism is >50 years behind on some topics of evolution.

Only >50 on some topics? You are given intelligent design creationism far to much credit.

Well, when I typed that post I actually wrote that on others it's 156 years behind (basically since the origin of species), dunno why I didn't just leave it in

 

[surreptitious57]

Since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact

You can not believe in something if it is a fact because belief is an article of faith which is not dependent on fact. A fact is defined as a data
point and as such is non falsifiable. If belief was fact based then it would by definition be objectively true. At which point it would cease to be
belief. So I do not believe in evolution because it is a fact : all animal and plant species [ including extinct ones ] share one common ancestor
which is single cell non self replicating bacteria that emerged from the primordial soup between three and a half to four billion years ago. One
of the fundamental things about facts is that they are completely independent of subjective interpretation. So not accepting them as objectively
true does not invalidate them. So while you may not accept evolution as being objectively true that makes zero difference to it actually being so

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

How yeast doubled its genome—by mating between species

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rhed]

Mutation and natural selection are two of the mechanisms by which evolution happens. We have known for decades that they aren't the only ones.

Apparently, near-neutral theory of evolution (N-NTE) is more about unguided and random chance rather than natural selection. As I see it N-NTE is a theory of chance and lots of luck.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Mutation and natural selection are two of the mechanisms by which evolution happens. We have known for decades that they aren't the only ones.

Apparently, near-neutral theory of evolution (N-NTE) is more about unguided and random chance rather than natural selection. As I see it N-NTE is a theory of chance and lots of luck.

Part of nearly-neutral theory is the idea that different mechanisms are more important in different circumstances. Natural selection plays a larger role in smaller populations.

Nobody claims that genetic drift alone explains the current diversity of life.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Also, what do you mean when you say 'random'?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Part of nearly-neutral theory is the idea that different mechanisms are more important in different circumstances. Natural selection plays a larger role in smaller populations.

Wrong way around, IIRC. Drift plays a larger part in smaller populations, NS in larger populations. As I said in my debate opening, though, there are advocates of the position that separating them is a mistake, as they are simply different facets of a single process.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Part of nearly-neutral theory is the idea that different mechanisms are more important in different circumstances. Natural selection plays a larger role in smaller populations.

Wrong way around, IIRC. Drift plays a larger part in smaller populations, NS in larger populations. As I said in my debate opening, though, there are advocates of the position that separating them is a mistake, as they are simply different facets of a single process.

Thanks. I may have gotten that backwards. Have to do some checking.

But either way, the claim that nearly-neutral theory means selection is unimportant is wrong.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Definitely.

 

[Rhed]

Part of nearly-neutral theory is the idea that different mechanisms are more important in different circumstances. Natural selection plays a larger role in smaller populations.

Wrong way around, IIRC. Drift plays a larger part in smaller populations, NS in larger populations. As I said in my debate opening, though, there are advocates of the position that separating them is a mistake, as they are simply different facets of a single process.

Thanks. I may have gotten that backwards. Have to do some checking.

But either way, the claim that nearly-neutral theory means selection is unimportant is wrong.

According to wiki (Michael Lynch and N-NTE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearly_neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution

hackenslash is correct. Natural Selection and Small populations (mostly the animal kingdom) don't work due to the drift barrier.

So how does neutral evolution explain species diversity?