hopeful monsters are real

[ecologist88]

Hopeful monsters or macromutations have been laughed at in 1000s of creationists books as being miracles, and even early neo-Darwinians laughed at them back in the 1950's.

But there is now evidence that they do exist:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hopeful_monster

See these papers:

http://evolocus.com/Publications/Theissen2006.pdf

http://www.evolocus.com/publications/theissen2009.pdf

Not all evolution is gradual :guitar1:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Therefore?

 

[ecologist88]

Therefore?

creationism and neodarwinism were both wrong, and evolution is far more complex than many scientists first believed. : hamster :

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... evolution is far more complex than many scientists first believed.

Most science is more complex than earlier proponents suggested.

 

[ecologist88]

Richard Goldschmidt was laughed at, abused and ridiculed for his entire scientific career for proposing hopeful monsters, but some of what he said is has proven to be valid and he wasn;t totally wrong after all.
creationists, take note, and they should update their textbooks instead of laughing at the man.

 

[LuisDantas]

creationism and neodarwinism were both wrong,

In remarkably different degrees. Neodarwinism, however, corrects itself.

and evolution is far more complex than many scientists first believed. : hamster :

You realize that is old news? Any biologist worth his salt knows that evolution is far more complex than Darwin believed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You realize that is old news? Any biologist worth his salt knows that evolution is far more complex than Darwin believed.

Yep ... :yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

creationists, take note, and they should update their textbooks instead of laughing at the man.

 

[ecologist88]

In remarkably different degrees. Neodarwinism, however, corrects itself.

Neo-Darwinism denied that hopeful monsters can occur therefore it has been proven wrong, not correcting itself. Read the papers I cited which were written by an evolutionary biologist. It is clear evidence that evolution has progressed beyond neo-darwinism.

 

[ecologist88]

Donald R. Prothero in his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (2007) has written:

The past twenty years have vindicated Goldschmidt to some degree. With the discovery of the importance of regulatory genes, we realize that he was ahead of his time in focusing on the importance of a few genes controlling big changes in the organisms, not small-scales changes in the entire genome as neo-Darwinians thought. In addition, the hopeful monster problem is not so insurmountable after all. Embryology has shown that if you affect an entire population of developing embryos with a stress (such as a heat shock) it can cause many embryos to go through the same new pathway of embryonic development, and then they all become hopeful monsters when they reach reproductive age.

:danana:

 

[ecologist88]

Are you a creationist? Is that why you reject this evidence?

 

[tumbleweed41]

The entire scientific method is self-correcting and non-dogmatic.

Neo-Darwinism commonly refers to current evolutionary theory. Saltation ("hopeful monsters") has gained credibility through limited experimentation, but it is too soon to verify saltation as an actual mechanism of evolutionary biology.

It is, however, a very interesting development, and I look forward to further studies.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Are you a creationist? Is that why you reject this evidence?

I believe the facepalm referred to Creationists updating their so called "textbooks", as if it were a valid field of study.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I recall studying Gould's work as a grad student many years ago. The idea of evolution by leaps and bound seemed rather incredulous. After all I had immersed myself in current prevelant theory and had a very firm grip on understanding many aspects of evolution.

As new ideas are introduced that do not seem to confirm our current state of knowledge, they are always difficult to accept. The more unlikly an idea seems to be, the more evidence one needs to overcome the standard of truth. This is what makes science so successful, not that everyone agrees. They don't, even 70 years ago there were those that believed in 'hopeful monsters.' But that science allows for the examination of hypotheticals through rigourous proceedure, that can be refined and repeated, to produce one tiny piece of evidence at a time. If the hypothetical is true, or if it is adjusted as evidence is uncovered, then eventually there are so many tiny pieces of evidence that it becomes rediculous to deny them. Not that they can't be further improved, or occasionally even turn out to be mostly wrong. But at the current time the provide, unquestionable, the model of understanding most consistent with all known evidence. Science is not a result, it is path forward.

 

[tumbleweed41]

... Science is not a result, it is path forward.

Exactly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you a creationist? Is that why you reject this evidence?

Actually,

1. You are wholly incapable of showing where I've rejected evidence or what evidence was rejected, and
2. I am a big Gould/Eldredge fan.

Furthermore, I've been an NCSE supporter for years and a vocal opponent of creationism - see, for example, post #5 found here (dated May 27, 2005).

Stop embarrassing yourself. :slap:

 

[painted wolf]

Actually the reality of "hopeful monsters" has been accepted for quite some time.

Evo Devo is an accepted part of modern evolution. Hell, we covered the subject in my introductory courses when I was going for my Bachelors. And in more detail in specific classes on evolution and genetics. I even gave a class presentation on Hox genes and the evolution of insect body plans.

I'm rather surprised that you seem to think this is controversial or somehow challenging to modern evolutionary science. Are they not covering these subjects in your classes?
If not, I might suggest switching schools.

wa:do

 

[LuisDantas]

Neo-Darwinism denied that hopeful monsters can occur therefore it has been proven wrong, not correcting itself. Read the papers I cited which were written by an evolutionary biologist. It is clear evidence that evolution has progressed beyond neo-darwinism.

Beyond the way it was in the past, sure. Neo-Darwinism isn't a static, dogmatic doctrine. That is the point of being an scientific theory.

 

[painted wolf]

Beyond the way it was in the past, sure. Neo-Darwinism isn't a static, dogmatic doctrine. That is the point of being an scientific theory.

It's much easier to attack a strawman of what evolution was like almost half a century ago, than what evolution actually says today.

wa:do

 

[ecologist88]

Actually the reality of "hopeful monsters" has been accepted for quite some time

Neo-Darwinist Jerry Coyne denies they exist (see his blog), but neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins says they do exist. The idea of hopeful monsters is not found in evolution textbooks and for some reason somewhere down the line they have been termed "anti-Darwinian" so most people become confused about what is really being said about hopeful monsters, stephen gould did not help by re-inventing the hopeful monster with a different meaning, only books on evo-devo such as Gilbert SF. Developmental Biology. 6th edition etc cover hopeful monsters and a few botany books which talk about saltation in plants, not mainstream evolution textbooks.

So the current situation is a muddle and of course creationists love it becuase they set up a straw man of the hopeful monster by saying a bird literally pops out of a lizard egg, so that does not help and that has been going on since the 1950s. According to an old article on the NSCE hopeful monsters do not exist.... i think they need to update their website. It has only been since around 2007 that recent interest in hopeful monsters has occured and the information has not got out to many people in these fields.

Furthermore, I've been an NCSE supporter for years and a vocal opponent of creationism

Ok, my mistake, I apologise, but the NCSE aren't that good. Of course they are good for shooting down creationism, but are not up-to-date about anything recent in evolution.