Evolutionry/religious nonsense

PBS today had an author report on his new book "Darwin Comes to Town". It was a review of how urbanization has led to rapid evolution of many species of plants, insects, and vertebrates (including certain fish species that have evolved into free roaming "Niche exploiters") and thus changing their entire digestive systems to accomodate these niche exploitations .(All done in less than 10 generations). Our own civilizations have re-defined natural selection

Major physical changes that perfectly adapt to environmental changes are unlikely to be caused by random mutations.

Nice point...follows non-dualistic views of actor-environment relationshi

All that is required is selection of variations which are already present in the genome of the population. And that's exactly what is happening.

Your god appeared only 2,000 years ago.

But it begs the question of where did those ready to go genome possibilities come from? That is even

Goldschmidt was the first scientist to use the term "hopeful monster". He thought that small gradual changes could not bridge the divide between microevolution and macroevolution. In his book The Material Basis of Evolution (1940), he wrote "the change from species to species is not a change involving more and more additional atomistic changes, but a complete change of the primary pattern or reaction system into a new one, which afterwards may again produce intraspecific variation by micromutation." Goldschmidt believed the large changes in evolution were caused by macromutations (large mutations). His ideas about macromutations became known as the hopeful monster hypothesis, a type of saltational evolution, and attracted widespread ridicule.[9]

According to Goldschmidt, "biologists seem inclined to think that because they have not themselves seen a 'large' mutation, such a thing cannot be possible. But such a mutation need only be an event of the most extraordinary rarity to provide the world with the important material for evolution".[10] Goldschmidt believed that the neo-Darwinian view of gradual accumulation of small mutations was important but could account for variation only within species (microevolution) and was not a powerful enough source of evolutionary novelty to explain new species. Instead he believed that large genetic differences between species required profound "macro-mutations" a source for large genetic changes (macroevolution) which once in a while could occur as a "hopeful monster".[11][12]

Goldschmidt is usually referred to as a "non-Darwinian"; however, he did not object to the general microevolutionary principles of the Darwinians. He veered from the synthetic theory only in his belief that a new species develops suddenly through discontinuous variation, or macromutation. Goldschmidt presented his hypothesis when neo-Darwinism was becoming dominant in the 1940s and 1950s, and strongly protested against the strict gradualism of neo-Darwinian theorists. His ideas were accordingly seen as highly unorthodox by most scientists and were subjected to ridicule and scorn.[13] However, there has been a recent interest in the ideas of Goldschmidt in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, as some scientists, such as Günter Theißen and Scott F. Gilbert, are convinced he was not entirely wrong.[14][15] Goldschmidt presented two mechanisms by which hopeful monsters might work. One mechanism, involving “systemic mutations”, rejected the classical gene concept and is no longer considered by modern science; however, his second mechanism involved “developmental macromutations” in “rate genes” or “controlling genes” that change early development and thus cause large effects in the adult phenotype. These kinds of mutations are similar to those considered in contemporary evolutionary developmental biology.[16]

Re: brianjakub (Post 6629084)
brianjakub wrote:
Major physical changes that perfectly adapt to environmental changes are unlikely to be caused by random mutations.

They're not caused by random mutations. Changes of the type mentioned by Farmerman do not require *new* mutations at all. All that is required is selection of variations which are already present in the genome of the population. And that's exactly what is happening.

RICHARD GOLDSCHMIDTS "Hopeful Monster" hypothesis

From my POV, I see enough similarities in animals to believe that evolution was the culprit to produce them. All the variations of life has enough "sameness" to conclude that nature's design for living things somewhat followed the same path.

Could we talk about where "new" patterns come from?

Quote:

All that is required is selection of variations which are already present in the genome of the population. And that's exactly what is happening.

I once proposed that as a possibility. But it begs the question of where did those ready to go genome possibilities come from? That is even more unlikely than random mutations as a source of new species, unless put there by an intelligent actor.

What would you say to those who refute Darwin's theory based on variations of Finch beaks with that explanation?

Well if all the variations were programmed into the Dna from the beginning then evolution isn't happening and you are sounding like a creationist from the discovery institute.

I'm not saying anything new. This is all part of the standard theory. Random mutations do occur and they get into the gene pool. But a whole lot of variation has already accumulated in the gene pool of a population, and those variations are the first to be exploited by selection.

Home | The Third Way of Evolution
www.thethirdwayofevolution.com

The Third Way web site provides a vehicle for new voices to be heard in evolution debates. It will be a forum for accessing empirical data on areas that have been glossed over by Neo-Darwinian viewpoints. The goal is to focus attention on the molecular and cellular processes which produce novelty without divine interventions or sheer luck.