The classroom is not a democracy. If I tell the students that 2+2=4, we do not take a vote on it. Just because the scientifically-illiterate cannot deal with the fact that new species develop all the time in nature and that evolution really does occur, that is no reason for us to dispense with Darwinian theory as a valid starting point to more sophisticated argumentation.

If we let the ignoramuses among us decide what our medical care would be, we'd still be up to our asses in leeches.

If some IMAX places don't wish to show anything about evolution, that is of course their prerogative. But then don't get bent all out of shape when some theatres don't want to show the Gospel According to St Mel either.

You want to triumph over the increasing ghettoization of whatever the Southern US represents these days, well hey, knock yourself out.

"Darwinism isn't the kind of faith that could survive in a free market"

The theory of evolution is doing exceedingly well in the free market of ideas, among intelligent, educated people.

Creationism finds its biggest takers among high school dropouts.

Enjoy.

bart:

Of course it's a democracy. Leeches work.

creeper:

Over 13% of Americans have educations, no?

"You want to triumph over"

I suppose that should read "You want to feel triumphant because of"

"Over 13% of Americans have educations, no?"

When 29% say they "don't know enough to say" regarding evolution/creation, you have to wonder.

Incidentally, I have to say I'm glad you brought the subject of 'Darwinism' back on the table, because I'd been meaning to follow up on this question:

How do you know that the evolution/speciation we have observed in the fossil record can not be due to the various theories proposed in the modern evolutionary synthesis?

If you have an answer, let me know. If it's about the one-celled to two-celled thing, I'm not so sure that that's part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.

creeper:

Feel? We are triumphant. The declining has-beens of europe are Darwinists. The world's hyperpower is anti-Darwinist. Darwin himself could figure out who's fit in that scenario.

"The controversy's over"... sheesh, this is within a week or two of him trying to claim that God is anything beyond our solar system.

Sad.

creeper:

It could be. It could equally well be faeries.

"The world's hyperpower is anti-Darwinist."

The part of the US that is the "hyperpower" happens not to coincide all that much with the religious red states...

Darwin would go for the blue states. That's where the economy is, for the most part. Sure, there are military bases in the red states... but sponsored by taxpayers in the blue states.

Same for the intellect - how many major universities do you have to go down the list until you hit one in a red state? Seriously.

"It could be. It could equally well be faeries."

According to you, it is faeries.

Bart and Creeper:
"But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. ... No evidence in the vast literature of hereditary change shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographic isolation of populations, leads to speciation. ... Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced."

Scientifically-illiterate, uneducated high school dropouts? Actually, no. The above is from Acquiring Genomes, pp. 29 & 32, by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, with a foreword by Ernst Mayr.

oj,

The educated(those with real educations not liberal arts and not theology) classes of America are almost entirely Darwinist in orientation. Take a stroll over to your local college's Bio Department and ask how many of them are Creationists. But then what do they know, they've only spent their entire professional lives studying the matter. What do they know compared to some Bible-toting yahoo?

Leeches work? Have you told the AMA about that? Or at least your insurer? Why spend thousands on prescription drugs, just give everyone a box of leeches and let nature take its course. In that scenario, we won't have to worry about Social Security anymore, because everyone over 40 will be dead.

oj,

You would have benefitted from a course in Discrete Mathematics. 'If A, then not B' does not equate to 'If Not A, then B.'

Are there holes in the fossil record? Yes. Does that mean that pure Darwinism is incorrect? Perhaps. Does it mean that Biblically-based creationism is therefore correct? Of course not.

Stayin' outa this one, I yam. OJ don't need my kinda help.

bart:

No one said B. But obviously if not A then not A, no?

jd:

Traced? There's never even been speciation of the Galapagos finches or the drosophilia.

creeper:

The part?

What part other than the political leadership, growth states, and military matters?

Which states contribute the most to the federal coffers?

High school dropouts are the least accepting of evolution.

creeper:

I don't know that many high school dropouts, just doctors, lawyers, professors and such. All are skeptical of Darwinism.

oj:
Agreed. I omitted a long discussion of the Galapagos finches and drosophila:

"Yet here's the rub: Speciation, the details of the appearance of any given new species of bird, whether Ecuadorian [Grants, Galapagos finches} or Melanesian [Mayr and Diamond], has not been documented. ... But there is no evidence whatsoever that this process [i.e., trait variation due to environmental pressure] is leading to speciation. ... The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophila paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation [a preference for different temperatures], not a new species, appeared."

I took their use of the word "traced" as academic-speak to soften the blow of their demolition of original Darwinism and the modern NeoDarwinian synthesis.

bart:

Assuming your ignorance is real and not feigned:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/013964.html

jd:

Gotcha...I'm not big on softeners. :)

I have to say that you guys make it a little tough for me to be basically accepting of natural selection.

The fossil record is a real problem. Fossilization occurs to a vanishingly small percentage of living creatures. Clearly, whole species -- most species? -- and almost all individuals are never preserved. So all subjects upon which Darwinism is founded have in common at least one completely atypical trait. It's as if social science was founded solely on a the study of lottery winners.

And "preserved" is a misnomer, as the process destroys all trace of the DNA sequencing, which is what we really want to know. Maybe genetics follows gross morphology, but maybe not.

Also, creeper and bart insist on a false dichotomy. The choice here is not Darwinism or seven day Creationism, or even ID.

Most problematically, as we've shown here again and again, the cartoonish Darwinism that most Darwinists believe in is clearly wrong. Once Darwinism is whittled down to what the evidence supports (Mutations happen and may persist if they don't interfere with survival), the whole thing is trivial.

David:

You uneducated yokel...

I'll have you know my highschool diploma came from Cracker Jack's Premium.

David has made my day twice in a row.

"But obviously if not A then not A, no?"

And how has 'not A' been demonstrated?

"I took their use of the word "traced" as academic-speak to soften the blow of their demolition of original Darwinism and the modern NeoDarwinian synthesis."

From what I've read of Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, they do not argue that Darwinian natural selection and the other elements of the modern synthesis are not valid, just that the impact of Darwinian natural selection has been over-emphasized. They do not set out to 'demolish' the modern synthesis. Instead, they propose to explain speciation is driven by another process: symbiogenesis. If their theory is valid, the modern synthesis will be adjusted to include it.

"it requires state imposition, but its adherents no longer even control the state"

Since when is IMAX a government-run operation?

creeper:
How else can you interpret their statements? Their criticism is that random mutation is not sufficient, hence NeoDarwinism is wrong. The question, which they do not answer, still remains: where do the genes transferred by symbiogenesis come from? Ultimately you come down to random mutation, which they believe is insufficient. It's a nice try, but by their own criterion they fail.

"The choice here is not Darwinism or seven day Creationism, or even ID."

I don't insist on that dichotomy; I've argued before that there are quite a few possible worldviews, and that a belief in some or most aspects of evolution does not necessarily preclude a belief in a divine being or a creator.

Incidentally, by 'Darwinism' are you referring to the modern evolutionary synthesis, or do you see a distinction between the two?

Oh, and by the way, Margulis and Sagan also criticize:
1) the concept of species as a zoological/botanical-centric definition which excludes about 90% of living things;
2) the misuse of terms like altruism, benefit, selfish gene, group selection, higher organism, inclusive fitness, indirect fitness, levels of selection, lower organism, mate competition, mutualism, parental investment, reciprocal altruism, etc. as meaningless; and
3) the use of the term natural selection as meaning anything other than differential survival and reproduction, which is trivial.
All and all, I consider this a complete criticism of both original Darwinism and the modern NeoDarwinian synthesis, not just a criticism of natural selection.

I'll certainly read up on this, jd, though I doubt that Margulis and Sagan's view of human beings as colonies of closely associated bacteria is going to sit very well with any of the religious folks around here.

creeper: By Darwinism, I tend to mean (though I've probably been inconsistent) nature, red in tooth and claw, honing each creature a bit more until reaching its apotheosis in us, its most nearly perfect creation. In other words, the popular definition of Darwinism in which changes in the environment call an answering mutation and each characteristic must have some "evolutionary purpose" by which it adds to fitness.

Then you oughta get out more, David.

Probably 87% percent -- or some very large preponderance -- of Americans believe, more or less definitively, in the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Yet, somehow, Orrin does not feel himself bound to believe along with them.

Harry:

I believe in it, I just don't think it's significant.

David

"By Darwinism, I tend to mean (though I've probably been inconsistent) nature, red in tooth and claw, honing each creature a bit more until reaching its apotheosis in us, its most nearly perfect creation. In other words, the popular definition of Darwinism in which changes in the environment call an answering mutation and each characteristic must have some "evolutionary purpose" by which it adds to fitness."

If you want to argue that something which isn't Darwinism but which you want to call 'Darwinism' is wrong, then I'm with you, but I'd quibble with your hijacking of the term.

I suppose you've a right to mean whatever you want to mean by 'Darwinism'. It's a free blogosphere.

OJ attacks his personal definition all the time, and if you want to attack yours, go ahead.

It might be more interesting if one day one of you Great Skeptics bothered to address what Darwinism actually says.

Strewth! How naive am I?

David:

Welcome to Darwinism as Gnosticism.

Orrin,

"I believe in it, I just don't think it's significant."

Do you believe in it literally, or as a metaphor or allegory?

Which controversy is it that's supposed to be over, by the way?

Literally and metaphorically.

Brit: When have I ever said that I don't accept natural selection? I just think that it's trivial.

And while we're on the subject of secret definitions, it's you guys who have a secret definition of Darwinism, carefully tweaked to actually, you know, match the evidence. My definition is what 99/100's of the population understand by the term "Darwinism", including -- hilariously -- most of the people who stop by to ridicule OJ.

We long ago agreed to abide by Ernst May's definition of Darwinism:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/009588.html

"I consider it necessary to dissect Darwin's conceptual framework of evolution into a number of major theories that formed the basis of his evolutionary thinking. For the sake of convenience, I have partitioned Darwin's evolutionary paradigm into five theories, but of course others might prefer a different division. The selected theories are by no means all of Darwin's evolutionary theories; others were, for instance, sexual selection, pangenesis, effect of use and disuse, and character divergence. However when later authors referred to Darwin's theory thay invariably had a combination of some of the following five theories in mind:

1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.

2. Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.

3. Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.

4. Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.

5. Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation."

To which we need only add May's own Modern Synthesis:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/2/l_062_01.html

"Ernst Mayr and the Evolutionary Synthesis:

Ironically, one great unsolved problem in Darwin's master work, On the Origin of Species, was just that: How and why do species originate? Darwin and his later followers were faced with a seeming paradox. They described evolution as a continuous, gradual change over time, but species are distinct from each other, suggesting that some process has created a discontinuity, or gap, between them.

Credit for doing the most to crack this puzzle goes to Ernst Mayr, perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century. Along with Theodosius Dobzhansky, George Gaylord Simpson, and others, Mayr achieved the "modern synthesis" in the 1930s and 1940s that integrated Mendel's theory of heredity with Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection [...]

In his landmark 1942 book, Mayr proposed that Darwin's theory of natural selection could explain all of evolution, including why genes evolve at the molecular level. On the stubborn question of how species originate, Mayr proposed that when a population of organisms becomes separated from the main group by time or geography, they eventually evolve different traits and can no longer interbreed.

It's this isolation or separation that creates new species, said Mayr. The traits that evolve during the period of isolation are called "isolating mechanisms," and they discourage the two populations from interbreeding.

Moreover, Mayr declared that the development of many new species is what leads to evolutionary progress. "Without speciation, there would be no diversification of the organic world, no adaptive radiation, and very little evolutionary progress. The species, then, is the keystone of evolution." "

'Naive' Brit earlier on was kind and astute enough to point out the absurd yet seductive way of defining yourself a convenient opponent that you can then heroically defeat. But why exclude important elements of the modern synthesis?

The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:

1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
2. It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
3. It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the writings of anti-evolutionists.

The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 (above). There are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change, but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model.

Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name.

Found here (with minor grammatical corrections).

"Literally and metaphorically." [referring to the miracle of the loaves and fishes]

Interesting.

How do you interpret Noah's Ark - literally, metaphorically, allegorically?

"And while we're on the subject of secret definitions, it's you guys who have a secret definition of Darwinism, carefully tweaked to actually, you know, match the evidence."

You make this thing of 'tweaking to match the evidence' sound backhanded, but is it really backhanded to examine new evidence and try to incorporate it into existing scientific knowledge?

The acceptance of randomness, stasis, and punctuation -- it goes nearly without saying -- is the rejection of all of Darwinism, not a synthesis of anything. As your source points out, it leaves them without any way of explaining speciation, thus returning evolution to where it was late in the 18th century, widely accepted but utterly unexplained by science.

1. Darwin is not the be-all and end-all of evolution, even though you would like him to be. It sure does appear to be an easier target.

2. In what way does the theory of evolution reject randomness, stasis, punctuation?

3. "As your source points out, it leaves them without any way of explaining speciation"

--- sorry, where does it do that?

"The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 (above). "

creeper: You misunderstand me. I wasn't being backhanded at all. I'm all for tweaking the theory to fit the evidence, which is why I don't have much trouble with the theory as tweaked. But it is clear to me that the understanding of Darwinism in the general population is my definition, which we all agree is wrong.

Orrin,

Mind that "(usually)"... as well as "There are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change, but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model."

You know... those bits.

I take it that was your response to #3.

How about #2?

"In what way does the theory of evolution reject randomness, stasis, punctuation?"

And:

"How do you interpret Noah's Ark - literally, metaphorically, allegorically?"

David,

If I misinterpreted your honest intentions, I hereby present my sincere apologies.

When you said "And while we're on the subject of secret definitions, it's you guys who have a secret definition of Darwinism, carefully tweaked to actually, you know, match the evidence.", I interpreted both 'secret definitions' and 'tweaked to match the evidence' as insinuating nefarious motivations on the part of us so-called 'Darwinists'.

If you wish not to be misunderstood, I would suggest you use the phrase 'theory of evolution' or 'modern evolutionary synthesis' or simply 'modern synthesis' in context when referring to anything other than Darwin's theories in a historical context prior to the 1930s. Eventually it might even wean Orrin off it.

"As your source points out, it leaves them without any way of explaining speciation, thus returning evolution to where it was late in the 18th century, widely accepted but utterly unexplained by science."

That really went completely nowhere, didn't it?

creeper:

Yes, the debate being over the mechanism, evolution is back where it was two centuries ago.

How so? - evolution without the capital 'e' has not changed one bit.

Yes, evolution fits Creationism, ID, Nature and all the rest again.

But as regards Evolution you've thrown in the towel on at least Mayr's 1, 3, 4, & 5 of Evolution, plus his own addition. All you have left is common ancestry...for now.

"But as regards Evolution you've thrown in the towel on at least Mayr's 1, 3, 4, & 5 of Evolution, plus his own addition."

Say what?!

When and where did that happen?

When you acknowledged randomness, stasis and punctuation.

In what context, and how do they contradict the modern synthesis?

Because isolation, separation, variation and selection no longer matter.

How so?

"you've thrown in the towel on at least Mayr's 1, 3, 4, & 5 of Evolution"

Orrin, it seems that once again you have confused your own self with other people. You yourself threw in the towel on 1 - evolution as such, when you said quite clearly that the fossil record showed evidence of evolution and speciation.

I hardly gave up on 3 and 4 when I recently asked you to have a look at this.

And where exactly was I supposed to have thrown in the towel on natural selection?

If you had a solid case for Intelligent Design to make, then surely you would make it, instead of these silly attempts to proclaim victory or an end to the controversy, or your bizarre arguments that gravity isn't scientific, or that the laws of nature somehow stop at the outskirts of our solar system. These all have a whiff of despair about them.

No one has ever questioned evolution. Genesis describes evolution. It is the particular claim of Darwinist and/or Sythesists that they comprehend Evolution. However, once y'all conceded randomness, stasis, and punctuation there's nothing left of Evolution and you're back to evolution.

"No one has ever questioned evolution."

Just a few comments ago you claimed that I had thrown in the towel on evolution, presumably to surrender and agree with your stance against it.

"y'all conceded randomness, stasis, and punctuation"

Again: Where and in what context were these conceded, and how do they negate the modern synthesis?

No, on Evolution.

"No, on Evolution."

No, on evolution. Right here:

"you've thrown in the towel on at least Mayr's 1, 3, 4, & 5"

"Mayr's 1" is:

1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.

That's evolution, as opposed to biblically literal creationism, which states that man has not evolved since being created by God. And no, God creating man from dust or a woman's rib from man is not evolution.

"y'all conceded randomness, stasis, and punctuation"

Again: Where and in what context were these conceded, and how do they negate the modern synthesis?

Yes, 1 is half right. It is universally accepted that things changed, just not that they changed/change steadily as Darwinian Evolution mistakenly posited. You accpted that such was false when you too adopted stasis.

"It is universally accepted that things changed"

There's a heck of a lot of people out there who think that man has not changed since Adam and Eve of biblical fame.

"just not that they changed/change steadily as Darwinian Evolution mistakenly posited"

The fossil record is full of evidence that the world has changed steadily and gradually, as you have even conceded yourself quite recently. Perhaps it's the time scale you're confused about.

"Darwinism can't withstand reasoned debate."

It has withstood such debate, and as a result been subsequently modified as new information and insights came to light, resulting in the modern evolutionary synthesis. No doubt further debate will result in more changes and additions down the line.

IDers, on the other hand, have little to bring to the table in any reasoned debate, since they can not disprove the theory of evolution and, since what they're really selling is stealth creationism, wish to add an entity whose existence they can't prove either, which is why we are treated to bizarre arguments like having the creator sometimes highly intelligent, sometimes not, sometimes benevolent, sometimes not.

If there is an intelligent and solid case to be made for Intelligent Design, why not make it, instead of engaging in such absurd tactics as redefining nature and claiming gravity isn't scientific?

It hasn't, but there was evolution involved in getting to Adam and Eve.

"You accpted that such was false when you too adopted stasis.

Where did I do that?

"It hasn't, but there was evolution involved in getting to Adam and Eve."

Only if you want to stick to your silly notion that void to earth to dust to man to woman is evolution, which it's not, by the definition that you yourself cited. We've been over this before, Orrin.

creeper:

Yes, and Creation remains a multi-stage process in Genesis. It's evolutionary.

From here.

Web definitions for evolution development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); [...] Posted by: oj at February 14, 2005 07:11 AM [...]

Orrin,

The dictionary definition you cited talks about passing to a different state by degrees.

Dust spawning homo sapiens is not by degrees.

Homo sapiens spawning homo sapiens is not passing to a different state.
Posted by: creeper at February 17, 2005 09:54 AM

DUST WASN'T THE FIRST DEGREE
Posted by: oj at February 17, 2005 10:01 AM

Dust to homo sapiens is not by degrees.

Neither are void to water, or water to earth.

"By degrees" = little by little, not by huge leaps.
Posted by: creeper at February 17, 2005 10:06 AM

Ah, you're back to Darwinism, rather than evolution.
Posted by: oj at February 17, 2005 10:51 AM

No, I was going by the dictionary definition of evolution that you brought into the discussion some time ago.
Posted by: creeper at February 17, 2005 11:09 AM

It may not be as many degrees as you wish for, but it is by degree.

It's not the number of degrees, it's the size of them. There is nothing 'little by little' about the transformation of void to water, or of water to earth. Earth to dust, potentially, dust to man, nyet.

Little by little is your invention, not part of the definition.

"Little by little is your invention, not part of the definition."

The definition you cited was:

a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)

I didn't write the dictionary, but to keep you on the straight and narrow, I do like linking to it once in a while:

by degrees: little by little; gradually.

de·gree Audio pronunciation of "by degrees" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-gr)
n.

1. One of a series of steps in a process, course, or progression; a stage:

I don't see how that is supposed to nullify the specific meaning of the phrase 'by degrees'.

It doesn't--Creation proceeded by degrees.

Creation did not proceed little by little, which is what 'by degrees' means.

According to Genesis it did.

Is there an echo in here?

Dust to homo sapiens is not by degrees.

Neither are void to water, or water to earth.

"By degrees" = little by little, not by huge leaps.
Posted by: creeper at February 17, 2005 10:06 AM

They are small steps for God, not for us.

They may well be small steps for God, but they are still huge leaps, not little by little. God's interpretation of their relative size doesn't come into it.

"y'all conceded randomness, stasis, and punctuation"

Just thought I'd try this again: Where and in what context were these conceded, and how do they negate the modern synthesis?

What's your definition of the modern synthesis?

As that definition of evolution points out, Evolution would no longer fit, being neither steady nor little by little.

I posted it previously on this thread, Orrin.

The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:

1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
2. It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
3. It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the writings of anti-evolutionists.

The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 (above). There are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change, but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model.

Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name.

From here.

It looks little by little to me.

And what's your complaint about 'steady'?

It removes #3 from the scenario.

1. "As that definition of evolution points out, Evolution would no longer fit, being neither steady nor little by little."

When you say 'that definition of evolution', which one are you talking about? Because the one we've been discussing doesn't seem to feature the word steady.

a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)

2. ['steady'] "removes #3 from the scenario."

This is #3:

3. It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

This doesn't seem to be at odds with 'steady'.

If your general beef is that punctuated equilibrium is at odds with the notion of 'steady', then I don't really see the problem: evolution does not posit any constant rates of change (if that is what you mean by 'steady'), merely that if change does occur, it will do so gradually. The speed at which it changes will undoubtedly vary, due to a variety of different factors.

Yes, population, accumulation, isolation, geography, etc. no longer matter once you accepted randomness, stasis and punctuation.

"once you accepted randomness, stasis and punctuation"

Okay, I'll try this again: Where and in what context were these 'accepted', and how do they negate the modern synthesis?

If you keep throwing this soundbite out there, surely you must be able to come up with a straight answer.

It doesn't occur gradually--thus stasis and punctuation. Meanwhile, combine thise with its its randomness and there is no accumulation--each speciation becomes an event unrelated to what has come before.

"It doesn't occur gradually--thus stasis and punctuation.

Even with stasis and punctuation (both influenced by, among other things, population size and survival pressures), when change does occur, it occurs gradually. You seem to be equating 'gradually' with 'at a constant rate'. The theory of evolution does not posit a constant rate of change and has plausible explanations for relatively slow and relatively fast changes in the evolution of organisms. Also if something does change, it will do so gradually, on a commensurate time scale.

"Meanwhile, combine thise with its its randomness and there is no accumulation--each speciation becomes an event unrelated to what has come before."

I still have no idea what you mean by us 'conceding' or 'accepting' randomness, stasis and punctuation. As you can see, stasis and punctuation are included in the theories of the modern synthesis. Why they should, according to you, disprove the modern synthesis is a mystery to me.

While randomness and chance certainly play their part in evolution, there is nothing random about the selection of which changes are favored - the direction of the change, once you look at a big enough picture, is in the direction of features that allow the organism to better survive. This is not random.

Nope, you're given up geography and population size. Randomness gives up the game.

"Nope, you're given up geography and population size."

Say what? Where and when did I do that?!

Link?

"Randomness gives up the game."

That's awfully vague, Orrin. What do you mean by 'randomness', and how do you think I 'concede' or 'accept' it in a way that demolishes the modern synthesis or "gives up the game"?

You keep making these vague pronouncements and then consistently avoid any real answers or coherent arguments. Each time you do that (and it's been a lot on this thread), it only reinforces the impression that you do not have a solid argument to present.

If that is so and you really can't present your case, why not take a moment to re-evaluate your position?

Because it's you guys who are in retreat. Once you concede random drift you've given up Evolution.

"Once you concede random drift you've given up Evolution."

That's awfully vague, Orrin. What do you mean by 'random drift', and how do you think I 'concede' it in a way that demolishes the modern synthesis or "gives up the game"?

Link, please?

You keep making these vague pronouncements and then consistently avoid any real answers or coherent arguments. Each time you do that (and it's been a lot on this thread), it only reinforces the impression that you do not have a solid argument to present.

If that is so and you really can't present your case, why not take a moment to re-evaluate your position?

"you're given up geography and population size."

Where and when did I do that?

"Because it's you guys who are in retreat."

Retreat from what? Creationism? You acknowledged yourself that the fossil record disproves creationism ("Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible").

Intelligent Design? Have IDers done anything to disprove the modern synthesis?

If you're on the winning side of the argument, why do you feel the need to make up stuff like gravity not being scientific, or the laws of nature only applying to our solar system? That kind of stuff smacks of weakness and despair, not the assured coherence of having a winning case and being willing to engage in reasoned debate about it.

Read your definition of the Modern Synthesis. It accepts randomness and denies that a mechanism for Evolution is any longer accepted meaning that Evolution is toast.

The fossil record indicates Creationism.

Please define Evolution with a capital E. It's not in the dictionary.

If you've created yourself a little strawman that you've now managed to defeat, congratulations.

You defined it: "speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. " But the rest of your definition refutes it.

"The fossil record indicates Creationism."

Not if Adam and Eve are supposed to have been the first humans, and before them only dust. Not if creationism is the belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

The fossil record disproves creationism. If you have a different definition for Creationism with a capital C, please provide it; there isn't one in the dictionary.

"You defined it: "speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes."

I didn't define Evolution as that, and neither did the source you quote. But anyway: So you now define Evolution as "speciation (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes"? Is that right?

Creationism is simply the belief that God Created all existence and gave it its present form. The details are unimportant, but the fossil record supports it.

"It accepts randomness and denies that a mechanism for Evolution is any longer accepted"

Which mechanism does it deny as being accepted any longer?

"Creationism is simply the belief that God Created all existence and gave it its present form. The details are unimportant, but the fossil record supports it."

Fine, so that's your Creationism with a capital C. The fossil record disproves creationism ("the belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible") and supports evolution.

Your definition of Creationism is so vague that it happens to include "evolution as is, but God did it" in a God-of-the-gaps kind of way. As such, the fossil record thus indicates evolution, but is of course compatible with Creationism, because, well, everything would be.

As such, the fossil record does not indicate Creationism instead of evolution. Creationism is simply along on an "oh by the way, God did this" basis.

Any

No, that's your definition. I define Evolution more broadly as speciation and/or significant morphological change occurring entirely as a function of processes within Nature, with no interference from outside the biosphere.

"Any"

One of your unfounded "deny everything" responses. You should read the thing again:

"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)." - Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

And this:

The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:

1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
2. It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
3. It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

And:

The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 (above). The are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model.

... and yet, after having been provided this text, you claim that the modern synthesis denies any mechanisms of evolution as being accepted any longer?

The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 (above).

No #3, no theory.

Yes, the fossil record supports evolution via Creation, as suggested by Genesis.

"No, that's your definition."

No, that's me trying to make sense of your response. I asked you for your definition and that's what you gave me. I don't have a definition for Evolution with a capital E.

"I define Evolution more broadly as speciation and/or significant morphological change occurring entirely as a function of processes within Nature, with no interference from outside the biosphere."

What is your reason for limiting your definition of Evolution to exclude effects originating from outside the biosphere?

Please define Nature with a capital N. It's not in the dictionary.

It's an odd little strawman you've created yourself. The peculiar, unnecessary and unfounded detail of the biosphere thing aside (which is what turns it into a strawman), I don't really see why you consider it disproven.

No #3, no theory."

The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals.

That's just whistling past the graveyard. If you're debating the mechanism you have no mechanism and no Evolution.

"Yes, the fossil record supports evolution via Creation, as suggested by Genesis."

Doesn't Genesis say that man was created in his present state? That Adam was created from dust and has no human-like progenitors? That Adam was pretty much like us, and not an Australopithecus or somesuch? And that Adam and Eve lived more recently than tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago?

In that way, Genesis and the fossil record are at odds.

Man was created in his present state.

"If you're debating the mechanism you have no mechanism"

Weighing the relative impacts of different mechanisms is very different from 'having no mechanism'.

To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model.

"Man was created in his present state."

Good, that's one down.

Doesn't Genesis say that Adam was created from dust and has no human-like progenitors? That Adam was pretty much like us, and not an Australopithecus or somesuch? And that Adam and Eve lived more recently than tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago?

In that way, Genesis and the fossil record are at odds.

Yes, the bold print is the point. Even now that yu'all have admitted the theory has failed you insist there must be an alternative that proves you right. Being unable to differentiate among the various mechanisms you propose demonstrates ignorance of whether they even work.

"Even now that yu'all have admitted the theory has failed you insist there must be an alternative that proves you right"

By theory you mean the modern synthesis? Where and when have we 'admitted that it failed'?

Link, please.

"Being unable to differentiate among the various mechanisms you propose demonstrates ignorance of whether they even work."

No, they are all widely accepted and based on extensive research, but trying to define the relative impacts of each in individual cases is hardly a black-and-white issue.

"However, once y'all conceded randomness, stasis, and punctuation there's nothing left of Evolution and you're back to evolution."

You know, when I read something like this, where you say that something that is part of current understanding of the theory of evolution somehow completely disproves the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel, it seems to me you're not arguing against the modern synthesis at all - you're arguing against something called "Evolution", which turns out to be evolution as Darwin understood it.

creeper:

It doesn't disprove anything. It can't be disproven. It just demonstrates that it's a faith, not science, as Richard Dawkins said.

"It doesn't disprove anything. It can't be disproven. It just demonstrates that it's a faith, not science, as Richard Dawkins said."

What is the 'It' in each case?

If 'It' is the theory of evolution, a.k.a. the modern synthesis, then (a) 'It' doesn't have to disprove anything, (b) 'It' can be falsified in theory, but has not been in practice (which is the crux of the matter), and (c) 'It' most certainly is science, though people are free to incorporate its consequences into their belief systems (faiths) as well. The fact that its consequences can be incorporated into belief systems does not disqualify it from being science, as you are fond of trying to insinuate.

"once y'all conceded randomness, stasis, and punctuation there's nothing left of Evolution and you're back to evolution"

Based on this, you should reconsider the definition you offered for Evolution with a capital E:

"I define Evolution more broadly as speciation and/or significant morphological change occurring entirely as a function of processes within Nature, with no interference from outside the biosphere."

There's no contradiction between that and "randomness, stasis, and punctuation".

What is your reason for limiting your definition of Evolution to exclude effects originating from outside the biosphere?

Doesn't Genesis say that Adam was created from dust and has no human-like progenitors? That Adam was pretty much like us, and not an Australopithecus or somesuch? And that Adam and Eve lived more recently than tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago?

In that way, Genesis and the fossil record are at odds.

"Even now that yu'all have admitted the theory has failed you insist there must be an alternative that proves you right"

By theory you mean the modern synthesis? Where and when have we 'admitted that it failed'?

Link, please.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

In other words, 'we' did not 'admit that it failed'. The link you gave is a definition of modern synthesis, not an admission of its failure, as you are no doubt aware. Simply acknowledging that there is controversy about the specifics of one aspect of it is hardly the same as admitting that the modern synthesis is a failure, nor does the controversy carry that conclusion.

How increasingly desperate your unearned claiming that the controversy is over and the argument settled in your favor looks with every one of these transparent ploys...

The definition makes clear its failure, though it protests that all still accept it must be true. That's a faith, not a science.

The definition does not make clear its failure at all, Orrin. Just because the current understanding of evolution is more complicated than you would like it to be does not mean that it is invalid.

If you have a problem with the modern synthesis, please argue something specific, not this "you all conceded stasis, therefore Evolution is toast" or some such nonsense.

creeper:

The admission that there's no settled mechanism ends the issue. Unable to rule anything in, nothing can be ruled out and you're back to square one. You're welcome to still believe it all a function of Nature, but that's what you've got is your faith. Faith suffices for all of us, not least y'all.

"The admission that there's no settled mechanism ends the issue."

There is no admission that there is "no settled mechanism". Instead, there is consensus that there are settled mechanisms:

To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model.

So much for "Unable to rule anything in, nothing can be ruled out and you're back to square one". Scientists are well able to rule in the currently accepted mechanisms; what's more, no new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model. Keep in mind that even the theory of punctuated equilibrium rests on previously accepted mechanisms and does not deny them.

Feel free to try to argue against any of those mechanisms or theories on their merits. It seems you are unwilling or unable to do so. Vague and illogical insinuations and hasty, unearned proclamations of victory appear to be all you have these days.

If you can't tell which you can't say whether.

It's all of them, Orrin. The component theories are well supported by evidence, their effects overlap, and there is no neat line one can draw, saying in this case this or that mechanism had no effect. Nor would there be any point in doing so.

And no, this does not automatically invalidate all the components of our current understanding of evolution, as you are so fond of claiming, because that would mean you could claim a victory of sorts while the facts are stacked against you.

Given your vague and evasive answer, I'll have to conclude you're not willing or able to debate any of these component theories on their merits.

It's all of them, Orrin. The component theories are well supported by evidence, their effects overlap, and there is no neat line one can draw, saying in this case this or that mechanism had no effect. Nor would there be any point in doing so.

And no, this does not automatically invalidate all the components of our current understanding of evolution, as you are so fond of claiming, because that would mean you could claim a victory of sorts while the facts are stacked against you.

Given your vague and evasive answer, I'll have to conclude you're not willing or able to debate any of these component theories on their merits.

There's no evidence for any of them, which is why even the Modern Synthesists can't settle on a mechanism among themselves. And, yes, the inability to differentiate does invalidate all.

A standard "deny everything" response. You know very well that there is scientific evidence for all of them, and you've been unable to mount a specific argument against any of them.

I'm unaware of any scientific evidence for either.

No one is stopping you from looking into it. There are a lot of research tools available that you clearly have access to.

Got none, huh?

Research tools? Plenty. So do you.

Yes, I've read it all and there's still ne evidence for a mechanism that would cause speciation naturally, gradual or punctuated, as your cite admits.

The cite does not say there is no evidence for either mechanism, but then again you probably knew that already. Still, I encourage you to read up on the current state of scientific knowledge of evolution though, and not be so fixated on Darwin.

The Modern Synthesisists, or whatever you nprefer to be called now, are just Darwinists.

Fine, if that's the term you want to use, as long as you get over being fixated on the level of scientific understanding of a hundred years ago.

nothing's changed except that genetics gave us the mechanism that Darwin sometimes assumed for transmission of traits.

Next time you rant about how, say, stasis invalidates however you define 'Evolution' these days, you might want to remember that you are ignoring a number of scientific advances and theories, and are arguing on the basis of outdated knowledge. Coming up with arguments that should properly be placed in the 1920s or 1950s will not win you any arguments.

I recommend you read up on today's state of the theory of evolution, and if you have a problem with it, then debate it on the merits.

Yes, the theories keep drifting but there's still no evidence, which is what forced frauds like the peppered moth.

I recommend you read up on today's state of the theory of evolution, and if you have a problem with it, then debate it on the merits.

The lkast two things I read said that DNA repairs itself rather than allow mutation and "The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 (above)." Which puts paid to the Modern Synthesis.

1. If you read that DNA does not allow mutation, you really should keep reading. Apparently it was recently found that DNA has a capacity to 'repair' itself in some cases, but that is extremely rare and hardly means that DNA does not allow mutation in the vast majority of cases, for which there is overwhelming empirical evidence. It's an interesting phenomenon, sure, but which part of the modern synthesis do you think this demolishes?

2. The controversy you cite concerns the degree to which gradualism and punctuated equilibrium impact on evolution. If you read even just a few sentences further, you'll see that this is entirely consistent with the components of the modern synthesis, as is clearly pointed out ("No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model"), and thus in no way "puts paid to the Modern Synthesis". (Always reaching for that unearned victory, Orrin; not very admirable.)

If you have a problem with punctuated equilibrium, then make your case. Be specific. What you're proposing instead is like pointing at two meteorologists who are debating exactly which process was responsible to exactly what degree for the rain. They both accept the processes are valid and they both agree that it's raining. You on the other hand would come along and declare all meteorological knowledge null and void.

In both cases you cite, it seems you read no further than up to the point where you have a soundbite to throw out there in support of your pre-conceived notions, which explains the disproportionately large number of instances in which you are completely unable to back up your hasty and vague comments.

It is quite transparent and only strengthens the impression that you have no solid case that you wish to present. Perhaps there is a case there to be made, but you're consistently avoiding that.

The inability to differentiate any mechanism is the denial that the mechanism has been found. The rest is faith.

Wow. That really is all you've got.

Oh well. Perhaps there is a case to be made, but you're not willing or able to go there.