Origin of the species

[druiaghtagh]

Is Charles Darwins theory still the accepted way of things in this age, thankyou

[Clanad]

Contd.

"Dr. Richard G. Klein ...said that it was hard to correlate the specific gene changes in the three populations with events in the archaeological record, but that the timing and nature of the changes in the East Asians and Europeans seemed compatible with the shift to agriculture. Rice farming became widespread in China 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, and agriculture reached Europe from the Near East around the same time.
Skeletons similar in form to modern Chinese are hard to find before that period, Dr. Klein said, and there are few European skeletons older than 10,000 years that look like modern Europeans..." That seems to me (call me sceptical) to be less than a ringing endorsement of a proposed theory. Once again, those believing in evolution infer an end result deduced from hard to find or totally missing evidence. This is what you find difficult to accept in my use of the term "uncontested" and your choice of applying the bon mot of circular reasoning when in fact there are no uncontested examples.
As to molecular proof... I'll wheel out Michael Denton... "There is not a trace at the molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: cyclostome [invertebrate] to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal." In fact, he says that studies of the dispersion of molecular characteristics is so great, that "Each class is isolated and unique. No classes are intermediate or partially inclusive of other classes." Denton believes that this information is so devastating to the theory of evolution, that were it known when the theory of evolution was being developed, the idea of organic evolution would never have been accepted. (2, pgs. 274-307, Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1986.)

Back later...

[Clanad]

I do owe a response to the post concerning DNA. I'd simply quote: "According to evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, if one were to rewind the tape of life and replay it, the outcome would be different each time. The concept of historical contingency maintains that evolution will not produce the same outcome repeatedly, since its mechanism relies on a sequence of chance events. Numerous studies indicate that indeed throughout life�s history there have been repeated, independent origins of specific complex anatomical, physiological, and behavioral systems. New research based on analysis of the fossil (and DNA evidence) record indicates that this pattern extends beyond particular instances to the entirety of life�s history. The recognition that repeated functional and ecological manifestations characterize the flow of life�s history challenges the veracity of evolution... Geerat J. Vermeij, "Historical Contingency and the Purported Uniqueness of Evolutionary Innovations," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA103 (2006): 1804-09. (Emphasis added).
Included in the report are systematic investigations into DNA and RNA replications and definitions of previously described "junk" DNA.
The point being, neither you nor me, probably, has the knowledge or background to seriously discuss matters of this in-depth technicality. I can wheel out just as many proponents of my position as you can yours. Neither of us will come away with a changed mind.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

But... your (I presume) namesake, Richard Dawkins' quote "... Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.� ( quoted from The Blind Watchmaker) displays the same mind-set that those who propose alternate explanations of the evidence are often accused of.

It�s comforting that evolutionary theory is in the capable hands of rigorous empirical scientists like Dawkins, no?

[dawkins]

Clanad

I truly am sorry. i've always been a bit rubbish at explaining stuff. Let me try it this way round: Gould remains highly misquoted on punctuated equilibrium (PE). PE was not intended as a form of saltationism or catastrophism but rather as a form of rapid gradualism. In the face of certain events - such as mass extinctions - the pace of evolutionary change would pick up. This did not mean that speciation could not occur unless these conditions were met but rather that these conditions provided a catalyst that could lead to more rapid evolutionary activities.. Gould, in common with, and consistent to Darwinism, accepted gradualism but contended that the rate of evolutionary change would vary depending on environment. Gould was saddened by the extent to which he was misunderstood (many say deliberately) on this matter. In no way do I want to diminish the importance of the cambrian explosion all I am saying is that the cambrian explosion is not a barrier to phyletic gradualism. Nobody is suggesting that animals manifested themselves fully formed in the Cambrian or that it doesn't fit in with evolutionary theory.

Cont...

[dawkins]

Denton, oh this Denton:

"One of the most surprising discoveries which has arisen from DNA sequencing has been the remarkable finding that the genomes of all organisms are clustered very close together in a tiny region of DNA sequence space forming a tree of related sequences that can all be interconverted via a series of tiny incremental natural steps."

"So the sharp discontinuities, referred to above, between different organs and adaptations and different types of organisms, which have been the bedrock of antievolutionary arguments for the past century , have now greatly diminished at the DNA level. Organisms which seem very different at a morphological level can be very close together at the DNA level."


Source: Nature's Destiny "The Closeness of All Life in DNA Sequence Space" CH 12 (p276).

I'm off until monday. Have a good weekend.



D

[druiaghtagh]

Thankyou Clannad and dawkins for you very thorough answers and discussions, you have left me behind a while back though.

[dawkins]

oh just before I go. the actual Dawkins quote is:

My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories

What is your theory that explains the emergence of more and more complex life through large expanses of time from simple bacteria to modern day flora and fauna? or why we can breed wolves into Chihuahuas in 500 years? Surely a jack russell can't be related to a great dane! Or why we can trace genetic differences both morphologically and geographically in such an accurate way? Why are there genetic differences that align themselves so accurately to specific groups?



D

[dawkins]

sorry druiaghtagh for talking b@llocks over your question. have a good weekend

D

[Clanad]

I suspect dawkin, that our kind host, druiaghtagh, is coming to the end of his/her patience what with the numerous e-mail notifications of yet another response...
I certainly appreciate the genteel tone of the debate, which is unusual.
I will say though, that you display an inherent abilty to accomplish two things simultaneously: The first being that you often miss the point and the second, by doing so you seem to (unintentionally, I sure) confirm my position. An example is your last post; 'wolves into chihuahuas'. First, that morphological transistion would take a lot shorter than 500 years. Secondly, was that end results not designed? Thirdly, not one thing changed as to the Genus... still Canus, no? Fourthly, left to their own devices with the availability of interbreeding with other dogs, the chihuahua, would, in a very few generations return to the original source... either the wild dog or wolf as seen in experiments for this very purpose.
This factoid supports my contention and observed in fossil records, that stasis in populations is the rule and change, regardless of time is minor. As with the Cambrian event, sudden, entirely new populations appear and old ones disappear, again, with virtually no intermediate examples supporting gradualism...
At any rate, thanks to druiahtagh for patience and dawkin for civility...