Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[Dante Writer]

I find it extremely annoying when people say they believe in Evolution but can't even identify which theory/hypothesis of evolution they claim to believe and most people have no clue that there are several theories of evolution:

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

So which of those theories of evolution do you believe because some are very different in their ideas of the process and you can't just say you believe in Evolution if you can't identify which theory.

If you do not know what those theories are you can start here and I have no connection to the website:

https://www.classicalconversations....d-many-theories-evolution-and-why-they-matter

 

[Sapiens]

There are not a number of completing TOEs, there is only one, Natural Selection or (if you prefer) descent with modification. There are discussions of mechanisms, but not of the basic theory itself.

 

[Altfish]

Thanks for correcting the post starter, Sapiens.

I find it extremely annoying when people say they believe in Evolution but can't even identify which theory/hypothesis of evolution they claim to believe and most people have no clue that there are several theories of evolution:

I find it extremely annoying that people start posts decrying evolution that don't know the first thing about it. I'm no expert on the subject but 2-minutes research will correct the errors.

 

[Valjean]

There is one ToE, with a great many mechanisms involved.

Front loaded evolution is theology, not evolution. Evo-Devo isn't a mechanism of evolution, but a comparative research method. NGE is not a separate theory of evolution, but an exploration of some of the mechanisms involved. Somatic evolution, too, is just the study of mutation accumulation, not a separate discipline, Structuralism is just randomness within the process, and McIntoshe's 'Platonic' evolution is just teliological speculation. "Self organization" is just chemistry. Epigenetics is a newly discovered genetic process, not an independent theory. Symbiogenesis is an evolutionary mechanism, maybe more an ecological mechanism, not a new ToE. Teiological selection seems more speculation than mechanism, an attempt to expand "function" to "purpose."

None of these are separate or competing theories of evolution. None presupposes intentionality or extrinsic guidance except maybe Front loading and biological teliology. Both are speculative and strike me as a priori reasoning.

How did you miss Gould's punctuated equilibrium, by the way?

 

[Dante Writer]

There are not a number of completing TOEs, there is only one, Natural Selection or (if you prefer) descent with modification. There are discussions of mechanisms, but not of the basic theory itself.

That is your OPINION and apparently some scientists disagree with you as those are all theories of evolution and many use different mechanisms.

You can't just lay a blanket over them and say I believe them all.

Symbiogenesis, or endosymbiotic theory, is an evolutionary theory that explains the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotes. It states that several key organellesof eukaryotes originated as a symbiosis between separate single-celled organisms. According to this theory, mitochondria, plastids (for example chloroplasts), and possibly other organelles representing formerly free-living bacteria (prokaryotes) were taken inside another cell as an endosymbiont around 1.5 billion years ago. Molecular and biochemical evidence suggest that mitochondria developed from proteobacteria (in particular, Rickettsiales, the SAR11 clade,[1][2] or close relatives) and chloroplasts from cyanobacteria (in particular, nitrogen-fixing filamentous cyanobacteria[3][4]).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis

 

[LuisDantas]

That is your OPINION and apparently scientists disagree with you as those are all theories of evolution and many use different mechanisms.

You can't just lay a blanket over them and say I believe them all.

You really need an urgent primer on the subject matter.

 

[Dante Writer]

Thanks for correcting the post starter, Sapiens.

I find it extremely annoying that people start posts decrying evolution that don't know the first thing about it. I'm no expert on the subject but 2-minutes research will correct the errors.

Then by all means use your words and correct what was posted.

Just saying I disagree and listen to me because I am right and have an eye patch means nothing.

 

[fantome profane]

Front-loaded Evolution

This view says that evolution is not a product of happenstance, or even selection, but instead claims that evolution proceeded by having all of the necessary information to diversify pre-encoded in the earliest ancestor(s). From there, the diversity of life evolves from the information already encoded within the original genome(s). To imagine this, think of the installation program for your computer's operating system. The installer is one program that contains all the information necessary to generate all the other programs on your computer. The programs on your computer were all designed—none of them arose through natural selection—but they did all come from a single source when you installed them on your computer: the installation program. There are many variations on front-loaded evolution, too. Some views are minimalistic; they view a minimal front-loading process, where only the basic outlines of future systems are present. Other views are more maximal; they posit that much of the coding for future organisms was already present in the original ancestors.

Ok, share you expertise with us. Start with this one. Educate us. Can you give us the name of one scientist who supports the idea of front loaded evolution, perhaps link to some peer reviewed papers on the subject, or recommend some good books on the specific topic of front loaded evolution?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How did you miss Gould's punctuated equilibrium, by the way?

 

[Dante Writer]

Blah blah blah and still no substance in your posts and just trolling.

Ok, share you expertise with us. Start with this one. Educate us. Can you give us the name of one scientist who supports the idea of front loaded evolution, perhaps link to some peer reviewed papers on the subject, or recommend some good books on the specific topic of front loaded evolution?

1- Where did I say I was an expert in any of the evolution theories?

2- There were no peer reviewed research when Darwin started to promote his theory.

3- Darwin's Natural selection is the chosen textbook theory because it is easier to explain.

4- Dawkin's and Crick described one scenario where Front Loaded evolution may have been the mechanism on earth.

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

3- Darwin's Natural selection is the chosen textbook theory because it is easier to explain.

Childish nonsense.

 

[Dante Writer]

Childish nonsense.

It is the chosen theory not the only theory as I explained.

It is easier for the masses to see natural selection by choosing a mate as reasonable and therefore is the theory most scientists and text book writers and the Government that funds research have focused on to the detriment of other theories that need further research.

You were taught Natural selection in school and because of that it is the theory most people believe is the only theory.

Natural selection by itself leaves many unanswered problems in the science of evolution that other theories may answer and one mechanism is not sufficient to explain evolution.

What is childish is accepting that only one theory is possible!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You were taught Natural selection in school and because of that it is the theory most people believe is the only theory.

You have no clue what I was taught.

A recommendation: before abrogating to yourself the mantle of mentor you might wish to first make sure that you've earned the credibility to do so.

 

[Dante Writer]

You have no clue what I was taught.

A recommendation: before abrogating to yourself the mantle of mentor you might wish to first make sure that you've earned the credibility to do so.

Well since Natural Selection is widely taught in schools unless you went to a special school that is what you were taught.

Now if you want to prove me wrong please tell us what school you attended and what theory of evolution you were taught?

 

[LuisDantas]

You like to use long texts, but the lack of grasp of the basics is self-evident.

 

[Dante Writer]

The science of evolution is NOT the same as an evolutionary theory!

The science of evolution is the study of how life formed on this planet using some mechanism of evolution within and among species.

The science of evolution does not select one theory as the only answer and in fact is many theories and some that overlap and some that propose other new mechanisms.

You were probably taught just one mechanism of Natural Selection in school because that has had more research done since Darwin proposed it and is easier to explain to the masses because they can see natural selection by choosing mates as reasonable.

Natural selection leaves many problems of evolution unanswered and that is why other mechanisms and theories are all part of evolution science because it is very unlikely just one mechanism was at play in the vast amount of organisms we see on earth.

If you just know natural selection and think that is the only evolution theory you are completely missing the big picture of the science of evolution.

 

[Dante Writer]

You like to use long texts, but the lack of grasp of the basics is self-evident.

Then please do enlighten me to the "basics" you claim to believe?

Otherwise your post has no substance.

 

[Altfish]

Then by all means use your words and correct what was posted.

Just saying I disagree and listen to me because I am right and have an eye patch means nothing.

Ok, calm down.

There is ONE Theory of Evolution but within that theory are explanations/hypothesis for how certain aspects of the Theory work. Some are beyond argument, some are still be discussed and argued about.

Is that good enough for a none expert.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is your opinion which you are welcome to.

They are all theories of evolution that approach evolution from a different angle and while you may like one over the other does not mean you can just dismiss the other theories. Most overlap in some way and fill in areas where others fail.

"None of these are separate or competing theories of evolution"

No theory of evolution is separate and complete. Natural selection is not separate and complete.

I could have added more of these theories but the point was you need to stop saying I believe in evolution without being able to describe the specific theory and mechanism you are supporting or you sound just as bad as the creationists claiming they believe in a God when there are hundreds of religions all with a different theory of what God is.

If you are going to call yourselves evolutionists you damn well better have a deep understanding of that theory and mechanism or you just look like fools!

This is your best response when someone explains why you are wrong? To tell them "that's your opinion", then to repeat and re-paste exactly what you did before and call anyone who doesn't accept what you write at face value a "fool"?

 

[Dante Writer]

This is your best response when someone explains why you are wrong? To tell them "that's your opinion", then to repeat and re-paste exactly what you did before and call anyone who doesn't accept what you write at face value a "fool"?

Is this your best response- to troll all of my posts with no substance?