It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I only asked you to provide a source to back up your claim that the MES has been updated to include epigenetic mechanisms, as you've repeatedly (and erroneously) claimed is the case (in this and other threads). What you came up with is an article that I've actually already read (along with several others just like it) which supports what I've been saying all along to you – that the MES needs to be updated!
You didn't read them obviously. And so the heck what that it was a plant biologist. Really Barcs, you're grasping big time here.
Of course you do, because you are misguided by your blind assumptions. I have no idea where you're getting this idea that the MES has been updated, expanded, extended, or whatever. The literature on the synthesis has not changed.
Recall : The MES paints a picture of evolution (which you have repeated over and over in these threads) that proceeds very slowly via accumulation of genetic mutations sorted by natural selection.
Essentially, that all phenotypic variation is derived from the gene and mutations. That's it.
It gives some recognition to GD, and GF, but NS is the stand out "force". Well okay, but what about what the neutral theory says? There is a world of scientists who feel that GD plays a more prominent role. Guess what, the MES does not agree. This is only one small contradiction. There are many others.
Wow, just wow. This couldn't be more off base if you said that the moon is made of cheese. Your lack of understanding is shining through I'm afraid. Try reading the papers I've sourced so far.
epigenetics is the study, in the field of genetics, of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes instead of being caused by changes in the DNA sequence. Hence, epigenetic research seeks to describe dynamic alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell. These alterations may or may not be heritable, although the use of the term "epigenetic" to describe processes that are not heritable is controversial.
Chr0naut was nice enough to mention the same wiki page just a few posts up. Did you think I haven't been on that page? Please quote from that article anything that says epigenetics, and for that matter HGT (which is not an epigenetic mechanism) has become part of the synthesis.
The article said that they were working on integrating it and I still have seen zero evidence to suggest they are not integrating or that MES hasn't been updated since the 60s.
I find it interesting that you appeal to this copy-pasted laundry list of experts without explaining what they want added or why.
Perhaps you could be more specific, provide examples of needed modifications, etc. Glossing over your specific critiques isn't helping.
originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: Prezbo369
Yeah follow suit....
“every young person is entitled to a high quality, broad and balanced education. This includes in biology, where evolution is a central topic and is vital to understanding how human life came to be
High quality? haha....Yeah high quality teaching kids the THEORY of evolution is more "scientific" than creationism....If you are basing it on "science", then don't teach anything about any form of how we all came to be, because there is none!
Science holds no weight to where or how we came to be.....I feel bad for the kids that really want the truth and are now going to be forced into hearing a "theory" that isn't real.....God is real, but if the school system doesn't want kids to learn about God, then they should abandon it all and let them form their own opinion on how we came to be instead of being force-fed a joke theory that is wrong...
Blast away! I believe in God....
You also did not answer my point about genetic mutations directly leading to those factors in the first place.
Are you having a hard time following along? Feel free to read any of those books or links I cited in previous posts.
So my "specific critiques" aren't specific enough? Or maybe you can help the discussion along by stating what, from your knowledge, the Modern Synthesis (considered the current model, framework, textbook version of evolution) says about how evolution works.
The synthesis, produced between 1936 and 1947, reflects the consensus about how evolution proceeds. The previous development of nineteenth century evolutionary ideas by Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel and others and the population genetics, between 1918 and 1932, was a stimulus, as it showed that Mendelian genetics was consistent with natural selection and gradual evolution. The synthesis is still, to a large extent, the current paradigm in evolutionary biology.
1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
2. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction. This theory contrasts with the saltation theory of William Bateson (1894).
Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
3. The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
4. Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
5. In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.