@Aedes,
Aedes;85886 wrote:As you've mentioned yourself in your previous post, mutation and natural selection are hardly the only mechanisms of evolution.
Except, they all broadly fall into either mutation or natural selection. Bottleneck and founder effects, coevolution, etc., for example, are variations of natural selection.
Aedes;85886 wrote: The evidence for endosymbiosis is overwhelming for plastids and for mitochondria. Endosymbiosis may not be a routine mechanism of evolution, but in several cases it has been one of the most significant of all biological developments in the history of life on this planet.
Even if we allow that the evidence is "overwhelming," how does that prove what caused endosymbiosis? Merely listing all the ways life came together doesn't provide the slightest bit of evidence that it is happening purely mechanistically (a logic fallacy, BTW, of composition) . . . you have assumed that a priori, and are working from what you already believe as though mechanics is the default assumption.
Aedes;85886 wrote:Hmmm... I'm not sure you're that familiar with either, then. I mentioned mitochondria and plastids as examples of organelles whose primary evolutionary biogenesis is well established. And I mentioned homeobox genes because they give great insight into the evolutionary origin of organs and body patterns in animals. These are two separate topics that were meant to address your point. Homeobox genes have nothing at all to do with subcellular organelles like mitochondria, chloroplasts, apicoplasts, etc.
I said the same "class" of evidence, meaning far-reaching extrapolations from observations in support of evolution. Neither of your examples (endosymbiosis or hox genes) prove what is behind the genetic changes that lead to organ development, so they are the same class of evidence in that you are hypothetically extrapolative, and do not provide actual observation of what was behind evolution.
Aedes;85886 wrote:I don't agree that this is a "gap" at all, but since you seem to confuse Darwinian theory with evolutionary biology, I can see how you might think so.
Of course you don't agree, but that is because you believe in E-theory. However, I've confused nothing. I was hoping we could keep this respectful, so I hope you don't start with the tactic of claiming I don't "understand evolution" just because I get a little creative with my terms. If you want to claim I am confused, please explain exactly what I said that led you to believe that. Otherwise, assume you didn't understand what I meant until it is patently obvious I am confused.
I will try to guess what you meant with the following answer. I say, all E-theory factors can be grouped into two main categories: mutation and natural selection. In other words, there are things that affect genetics, which is obvious since unless there is genetic change, traits cannot be created and passed on to progeny; and there are those environmental conditions which "select" progeny with altered traits to survive.
If you can name things that are proven to decide how traits become established that are outside those two broad categories, then please list them. But I bet I can make the case that whatever you list
must somehow fit in either mutation or natural selection (at least if we are to rely on it for a few billion years of evolution).
In closing, I think it is you who is confused. No, not about E-theory, which I am sure you understand, but in regard to my argument.
Can you, or anybody, establish with observable evidence, exactly what it was that produced the genetic changes which over time built eyes, limbs, hearts, and especially, the CNS? I've already admitted that we know bigger bird beaks or alterations in moth color are reasonable via mutation/NS, but creating the bird beak or the moth wing in the first place is where I say there is a gap.
Because I am demanding proof, you can't list all the great hypotheses that make you a believer. That's because I am not saying E-theory isn't true, I am saying that acting like it is a "fact" is premature and misleading to the public. I am saying that some other influence could very well have affected the evolution of life at the genetic level, and that just because all life is adapted doesn't mean that alone was the creative influence (hell, every thing I create has to survive if I want to use/enjoy it, but survivability is not all that's behind my creations). If E-theorists can't prove what caused organism-creating genetic change, then they don't get to assume a mechanistic explanation simply because that is their favorite theory. Others of us care about this too, and not everybody who disputes how much evidence supports the mechanistic hypothesis is ignorant of E-theory or a Bible thumper.
