Evolution. Not Fully Explained by Darwin.

[flacaltenn]

This is NOT an anti-Darwin thread. I'm fully comping his efforts. Nor is this a science vs evolution thread (although there are definate implications to be made).

But IMHO -- we've gone WAAAY past Darwin in terms of looking at the entire picture of evolution, the fossil record, missing links, survival thru mass extinctions, ect. And it does a dis-service to concentrate SOLELY on Darwin's natural selection as the prime explanation for the tree of life on earth..

The three big bangs: comet crashes ... - Google Books

"The Three Big Bangs"-Dauber and Muller

Generally speaking, however, the molecular machinery that allows organisms to generate variety cannot run fast enough to respond to catastrophic changes in their environment. That is why mass extinctions due to extraterrestrial impacts force us to rethink evolution. An obsessive preoccupation with the question of "fitness" may have distracted scientists from examining the accumulating evidence for mass extinctions. As a result, we know think it likely that they have been misled for more than a hundred years. They have fooled themselves into thinking that the primary driving force of evolution has been competition among individuals and species under ORDINARY circumstances, when in fact the driving force has been another phenomenon entirely.

Their theory is large jumps in evolutionary process can occur in times of extreme stress.
The authors also cite the discovery and implications of "jumping genes" in the evolutionary mutation process. From another source on macroevolution::

Jumping genes helped evolution - Joshua Rampling - Science Alert - RichardDawkins.net

Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.

Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons —also known as jumping genes—have had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.

Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.

“You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate,” he says.

The following is what I posted in another thread (with embellishment).
***************************************************

THe entire concept of "missing links" is something that shouldn't escape scientific scrutiny.
I think we all would agree. Needs to be explained -- or "does it"?

Darwinian natural selection doesn't focus on the mechanism of mutations.. It only focuses on the "sifting and sorting" that occurs AFTER a reproducible genetic mutation is caused to be produced.

The adaptation does not CAUSE the mutation. The adaptation and selection part has to WAIT on the random occurence of mutations..

Therefore, what if there were to be found great LEAPS in mutation? Some anatomical form change that taxonomy scientists don't recognize as "a link"? Before you scoff -- realize that we can today jump species in the laboratory. It's being done regularly solely at the will of man.. No "missing link" to be found between a natural species and what can be fabricated TODAY in the lab.

I think we know very little about what actually happened during great extinctions. What if there were periods of great mutation. Caused by intense cosmic ray, chemical exposure or even the periodic introduction of alien DNA every 10 million years or so? All (except the alien part) KNOWN scientific accelerators of mutation.

Have we validated the adaptation and natural selection theory for EVERY Branch of the tree of life -- of course not. To do so would require enormous familiarity with food chain, environment, predation, disease, weather, ect, ect.. that accompanied every branch. So what makes us believe that we haven't missed events and eons where the motive force of evolution ran in overdrive?

But don't SOLELY use Darwin and natural selection to explain every branching of the tree of life. Darwinian theory didn't CAUSE that branching -- it's only the effect that sorted out the results. For instance...

According to the book "Evolution," by Ruth Moore, it is possible to speed up mutations with radiation:

So Muller put hundreds of fruit flies in gelatin capsules and bombarded them with X-rays. The irradiated flies were then bred to untreated ones. In 10 days thousands of their offspring were buzzing around their banana-mash feed, and Muller was looking upon an unprecedented outburst of man-made mutations. There were flies with bulging eyes, flat eyes, purple, yellow and brown eyes. Some had curly bristles, some no bristles...
Mutations fuel the process of evolution by providing new genes in the gene pool of a species.

Then, natural selection takes over.

QED -- no potential missing links. Never were any to begin with... 10 days to new species? Imagine if those conditions persisted for a hundred years!!!!!!

Anybody want to extrapolate to the "religious" aspects of all this evolution discovery?

Wouldn't an insurance company define a 100 yr period of intense cosmic radiation as "an act of God?" Or is that just over-reacting to the scientific possibilities that species jumps and macro-evolution due to meteor collisions and cosmic rays looks ever more possible?

 

[konradv]

Diversity flourished in the good times and a weeding out occurred in the bad. It doesn't sound like a concept Darwin wouldn't have embraced and included in his theory, if his knowledge of natural history was as vast as ours.

 

[rdean]

Why don't right wingers go to school? They wouldn't start threads this laughable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why don't right wingers go to school? They wouldn't start threads this laughable.

Hope you realize that you've just demonstrated a complete inability to comprehend the 150years of evolutionary science SINCE Darwin. I've spent way too much time trying to protect you from yourself. I'm quoting from the website of the scientist who was CITED as a principal defender and explainer of Darwinian evolution. And I brought in the latest knowledge of HOW mutation rates change under environmental pressure and external effects and why..

PLEASE go destroy yourself somewhere else you poor naive hack... I can't watch it anymore..

 

[flacaltenn]

Diversity flourished in the good times and a weeding out occurred in the bad. It doesn't sound like a concept Darwin wouldn't have embraced and included in his theory, if his knowledge of natural history was as vast as ours.

That's one implication.. But I think Darwin would have relished an actual physical confirmation that RATES of mutation could be variable depending on stress levels and exposure to radiation or chemicals (for example) and would have pounced on the discovery of latent gene structures that could activate and cause relatively fast branches in the evolutionary tree.

 

[percysunshine]

Why don't right wingers go to school? They wouldn't start threads this laughable.

Hope you realize that you've just demonstrated a complete inability to comprehend the 150years of evolutionary science SINCE Darwin. ..

Evidently, rdean is a human product of evolution.

Maybe Darwin missed something.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why don't right wingers go to school? They wouldn't start threads this laughable.

Hope you realize that you've just demonstrated a complete inability to comprehend the 150years of evolutionary science SINCE Darwin. ..

Evidently, rdean is a human product of evolution.

Maybe Darwin missed something.

Well it IS a time of great environmental stress for him.. Maybe he's about to bust out a fin or a tail or something..

There goes the OP...