hopeful monsters are real

[FunctionalAtheist]

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.

Valid points! I think the think is, science is in many ways like this forum. A critical part of science is the back and forth exchange of ideas and peer review. So a paper is published, scientists write and talk with their friends, anothe experiment, another paper, etc. It is very difficult to keep up with the lates unless you are a part of the community. Imagine if you came to this site once a week and wanted to everything that had gone on all week. There really is no solution for most of us. Even scientists spend there whole lives keeping up to date on a small part of their chossen discipllin, so they only know the basics and some details about many subjects.

 

[painted wolf]

Speciation via polyploidy and endosymbiotic events are examples of the "hopeful monster" concept and is covered in every reputable book on general biology. As well as any intro book on evolution, genetics and botany.

For example both are discussed in length in the following:
Biology: 7th ed.
Evolutionary Analysis: 4th ed.
Introduction to Genetic Analysis: 9th ed.

In a way "hopeful monsters" are not accepted, at least not in the sense that a lizard would lay an egg that hatched a chicken... but this is a creationist version of the concept. Nor, is it used in the way that Goldschmidt proposed, even though polyploidy and endosymbiotic events are "saltonian" they do not actually support Goldschmidt's wider hypothesis.

Generally the term "hopeful monster" isn't used as it is pretty hopelessly muddled.

wa:do

 

[ecologist88]

Speciation via polyploidy and endosymbiotic events are examples of the "hopeful monster" concept and is covered in every reputable book on general biology.

Please point to a single biology textbook (with quotes) which classifies endosymbiotic events or polyploidy as "hopeful monster". I have never seen any and such a thing would be stupid, and a search on google books doesn't reveal a single biology textbook with both these words on the same page, you are getting confused.

Whilst it is true that polyploidy will be mentioned in most biology books, it should not be confused with the hopeful monster concept. Both are very different.


The hopeful monster is all about macromutations, Guenter Theissen has classified homeotic mutants as hopeful monsters and documented examples of these in plants (see the papers in the OP).

Endosymbiotic events have nothing to do with large mutations hence why they not described as "hopeful monster".

even though polyploidy and endosymbiotic events are "saltonian" they do not actually support Goldschmidt's wider hypothesis.

Firstly there is no such word as "saltonian" and that word does not appear anywhere else, the correct word is Saltationism in biology. But yes I agree both polyploidy and endosymbiotic events are important in evolution are are clear examples of saltationism, but as mentioned they are not examples of the hopeful monster concept.

For example both are discussed in length in the following

The words "hopeful monster" do not appear in two of those books from what I have checked via a scan, of course feel free to prove me wrong if you have the exact page numbers that we can actually see.

at least not in the sense that a lizard would lay an egg that hatched a chicken... but this is a creationist version of the concept

Whilst it is true creationists have set up that straw man, there was actually a scientist who toyed around with a similar idea. There was actually a scientist who speculated that the first bird may have hatched from a reptile's egg, it was a speculation of Otto Schindewolf based on his theories about cosmic radiation causing mutational rates from supernova explosions but it was only a speculation and he later dropped this view.

The problem is the creationists never admit this and set up the false claim that evolutionary scientists are actually teaching that in the classroom, it was the speculation of one man over 70 years ago and was never really anything to do with the hopeful monster concept.

The conclusion? Hopeful monsters are real (see the papers in the OP), that is all I wanted to share.

 

[gnostic]

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

So?

Our understanding of gravity have gone beyond that of Newton's theory on gravity and his laws of motion. With Einstein's relativity and with Quantum Mechanics, science have gone far beyond Newton's theory.

Modern mainframe computers are far complex than the original mainframe built in the 50s. And computers have gone smaller and smaller that even an average person can owned one and carrying it around, like the laptops, PDA and smartphones.

The desktop computer or PC was pretty basic and limited (with less powerful processor, small memory and just as small storage, using only floppy diskette) at the beginning, but it has become more advanced since then.

Knowledge, such as science, is gained through insight of observable facts, whether it be natural or man-made. And technology make use of those knowledge, progressively, and through innovation.

Yes, evolution is more complex, but at least the knowledge is gained from observation and testing, and not by wishful thinking like creationism and religion.

The only thing of worth religion, other than the spiritual aspect of belief (belief in deity, spirit or afterlife), is ethics (or code of conduct) and law. And though some laws and ethics in scriptures and religious teachings are some what universal, others are simply outdated or archaic and barbaric.

 

[painted wolf]

Please point to a single biology textbook (with quotes) which classifies endosymbiotic events or polyploidy as "hopeful monster". I have never seen any and such a thing would be stupid, and a search on google books doesn't reveal a single biology textbook with both these words on the same page, you are getting confused.

No... as I said the actual term "hopeful monster" isn't really used because it's both misunderstood and flawed. The fact you ignore that part of my post is not my problem.

"Hopeful monsters" are discussed just not under that designation.

Whilst it is true that polyploidy will be mentioned in most biology books, it should not be confused with the hopeful monster concept. Both are very different. [/qutoe] Actually, polyploidy is given as an example of Saltation (ie. "hopeful monsters") in more advanced discussions on the subject.
for example: JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The hopeful monster is all about macromutations, Guenter Theissen has classified homeotic mutants as hopeful monsters and documented examples of these in plants (see the papers in the OP).

It's not just about macromutations, but it is a large part of it.

Endosymbiotic events have nothing to do with large mutations hence why they not described as "hopeful monster".

Endosymbiosis doesn't involve a mutation, but it does involve the sudden appearance of a new species. Which is generally consitant with the definition of Saltation.

Firstly there is no such word as "saltonian" and that word does not appear anywhere else, the correct word is Saltationism in biology. But yes I agree both polyploidy and endosymbiotic events are important in evolution are are clear examples of saltationism, but as mentioned they are not examples of the hopeful monster concept.

Pedantry will get you nowhere.
Saltation is the production of "hopeful monsters" and has been since it's inception by Goldschmidt. Who got the idea from the originator of the term "hopeful monster"... Schindewolf.

The words "hopeful monster" do not appear in two of those books from what I have checked via a scan, of course feel free to prove me wrong if you have the exact page numbers that we can actually see.

again, I never said the exact phrase "hopeful monster" was used... I said the mechanisms used to explain them are.

Whilst it is true creationists have set up that straw man, there was actually a scientist who toyed around with a similar idea. There was actually a scientist who speculated that the first bird may have hatched from a reptile's egg, it was a speculation of Otto Schindewolf based on his theories about cosmic radiation causing mutational rates from supernova explosions but it was only a speculation and he later dropped this view.

Yes, I'm aware of the histocracy of Saltation.

The problem is the creationists never admit this and set up the false claim that evolutionary scientists are actually teaching that in the classroom, it was the speculation of one man over 70 years ago and was never really anything to do with the hopeful monster concept.

The conclusion? Hopeful monsters are real (see the papers in the OP), that is all I wanted to share.

Real... excedingly rare and they are not somehow anti-neodarwinian.

wa:do