Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Have Systematists Defined the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis?

  1. #1 Have Systematists Defined the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis? 
    Forum Freshman Shubee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    75
    What is your favorite list of precisely stated ideas that is, or is logically equivalent to, the "modern evolutionary synthesis"?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I don't really understand your question, though I suspect there might be some interesting thoughts behind it.

    First, what do you mean by a systematist? If I see the word used in a biological context, as it is here, then I must lean heavily to believing you mean taxonomist. If not, what?

    If so, I am still lost. You ask, in essence, two questions.

    1. What is your favorite list of precisely stated ideas that is the "modern evolutionary synthesis"?
    I don't think the modern evolutionary synthesis cane be framed as a list of precisely stated ideas. Since it is a synthesis it involves much preamble and discussion of the vaired strands that come together in the synthesis. Also, your suggestion that one might have a favourite list of such ideas, implies sveral lists exist from which one might choose. None of that makes sense to me. Perhaps I am being dense. Please clarify.

    2. What is your favorite list of precisely stated ideas that is logically equivalent to the "modern evolutionary synthesis"?
    This leaves me even more confused. I don't even know where to begin asking for clarification because your request simply makes no sense. Help!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I believe shubee is looking for someone to give a clear-cut definition and stated list of logical points for the Evolutionary Theory. He's looking for a bottlable version of the expansive and convoluted theory. Don't get me wrong, though, it is complete, it's just very complex and hard to follow in points because of the massive discussion and 'revelations' that come about within it.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    The current definition of biological evolution is a change in the gene allele frequencies of a population over time. The modern synthesis includes explanatory theory on the different mechanisms by which this change can occur, the primary mechanisms being natural selection (the only mechanism that results in adaptation), genetic mutation, and a variety of population dynamics such as genetic drift, migration, bottlenecks, and hybridization. This definition is not limited to systematists and is accepted in all areas of biology.

    Also refer to this essay on what evolution is from the Talk Origins archive (a resource I strongly recommend for anyone with questions about evolution):

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

    Shubee, since the last thread you started did not end well I'd like to refer you to this sticky:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Biolo...rds-16214t.php

    These are my moderation standards for the biology forum. I want you to be aware of them ahead of time, so that if you cross a line, you will know that you have already been warned.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman Shubee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    The current definition of biological evolution is a change in the gene allele frequencies of a population over time. The modern synthesis includes explanatory theory on the different mechanisms by which this change can occur, the primary mechanisms being natural selection (the only mechanism that results in adaptation), genetic mutation, and a variety of population dynamics such as genetic drift, migration, bottlenecks, and hybridization. This definition is not limited to systematists and is accepted in all areas of biology.
    I've read that the modern evolutionary synthesis generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics and mathematical population genetics. Is that definition acceptable? Is it logically equivalent to the statements in What is Evolution? from the Talk Origins archive?

    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Shubee, since the last thread you started did not end well I'd like to refer you to this sticky:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Biolo...rds-16214t.php
    I assume that you're referring to my thread, The Theory of Devolution, and that you locked it because I wasn't quick enough to provide evidence for the theory. Thanks for removing the off-topic posts in that thread. I am now aware of direct experimental evidence which supports devolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    I've read that the modern evolutionary synthesis generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics and mathematical population genetics. Is that definition acceptable? Is it logically equivalent to the statements in What is Evolution? from the Talk Origins archive?
    Yes, as well as other developments in molecular genetics and cellular biology that enabled us to better understand inheritance past what Mendel started with his work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    I assume that you're referring to my thread, The Theory of Devolution, and that you locked it because I wasn't quick enough to provide evidence for the theory. Thanks for removing the off-topic posts in that thread. I am now aware of direct experimental evidence which supports devolution.
    You may begin another thread in Biology to present this evidence to us, but I will warn you now that if that evidence does not come from a peer-reviewed journal article it will immediately be questionable. Since you have already had one chance to defend your idea and merely ended up going in circles, I am going to be quite strict in whether or not you will be allowed to continue discussing your idea.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •