Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[Dante Writer]

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.

No there is one science of evolution and many theories as you have been shown.

No theory is beyond argument or it would not be a theory and would be fact.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

Trolling is counted as abuse. I've presented reasonable arguments. Meanwhile, the best you can do in this thread is to copy and paste the same diatribe four times and ignore any and all refutations. That is what I call "no substance".

 

[Dante Writer]

Trolling is counted as abuse. I've presented reasonable arguments. Meanwhile, the best you can do in this thread is to copy and paste the same diatribe four times and ignore any and all refutations. That is what I call "no substance".

You have refuted nothing. you have interjected yourself into other members discussions and threatened and bullied and trolled.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You have refuted nothing. you have interjected yourself into other members discussions and threatened and bullied and trolled.

Please point out any threats, bullying or trolling I have done. Why can't you just respond to my points instead of getting so upset and personal?

 

[Dante Writer]

Please point out any threats, bullying or trolling I have done. Why can't you just respond to my points instead of getting so upset and personal?

This line of debate is now finished- go start your own discussion instead of trolling mine.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

I already fulfill your request, simultaneously revealing that you are a quote miner, that you are incorrect and that Dawkins supplied the answer to your question, had you only not misquoted him. That, with Valgean's comment, is about all the consideration your misapprehension is worth.

 

[Sapiens]

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"?

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

 

[Dante Writer]

I already fulfill your request, simultaneously revealing that you are a quote miner, that you are incorrect and that Dawkins supplied the answer to your question, had you only not misquoted him. That, with Valgean's comment, is about all the consideration your misapprehension is worth.

No you added more to the quote that did nothing to undermine what was said in the OP.

That is a tactic to avoid debating the substance of the post.

Care to try again?

 

[Sapiens]

No you added more to the quote that did nothing to undermine what was said in the OP.

That is a tactic to avoid debating the substance of the post.

Care to try again?

There is no substance to "the post," thus there is nothing of substance to debate.

You have confused mechanisms with theories, as has already been noted. I do not expect that you have much to add in the debate of mechanisms, as evidenced by your neglect of Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium."

You might want to stop reading Christian apologist claptrap and sink your teeth into something with actual scientific meat, like: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_toc_01

 

[Dante Writer]

There is no substance to "the post," thus there is nothing of substance to debate.

You have confused mechanisms with theories, as has already been noted. I do not expect that you have much to add in the debate of mechanisms, as evidenced by your neglect of Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium."

You might want to stop reading Christian apologist claptrap and sink your teeth into something with actual scientific meat, like: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_toc_01

The mechanisms "processes" are the theories and each one is a theory.

You are confusing the science of evolution which has many theories to a theory of overall evolution.

Is this an evolutionary theory or mechanism?

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

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

Your opinion of me means nothing and your immature ad hominem attack does nothing to lend your opinions credibility.

 

[Altfish]

No there is one science of evolution and many theories as you have been shown.

No theory is beyond argument or it would not be a theory and would be fact.

They are NOT many theories. I have shown nothing of the sort, there is ONE theory.
I agree, no theory is beyond argument, but the details of even well established theories (like gravity and germ and evolution) are argued about. If someone can overturn these Theories there is fame, Nobel prizes, vast amount of money for that person. But, to query one element of any theory is a relatively minor issue.

 

[Sapiens]

The mechanisms "processes" are the theories and each one is a theory.

You are confusing the science of evolution which has many theories to a theory of overall evolution.

Is this an evolutionary theory or mechanism?

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

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

Your opinion of me means nothing and your immature ad hominem attack does nothing to lend your opinions credibility.

Might I recommend a short course in the meaning of hypothesis, theory, scientific theory, law and scientific law?

While you're at it, please look up the meaning of "ad hominem," you need to understand the term prior to using it. I did not attack your person, but rather your competence in the field you were commenting on. That is considered "sound."

 

[metis]

One doesn't "believe" in evolution any more than one "believes" that Earth has a moon. Either one accepts reality or they don't.

 

[Dante Writer]

One doesn't "believe" in evolution any more than one "believes" that Earth has a moon. Either one accepts reality or they don't.

Reality?

Evolution is still a theory and in fact is several theories with believers or supporters in all camps.

the·o·ry

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

 

[fantome profane]

Reality?

Evolution is still a theory and in fact is several theories with believers or supporters in all camps.

the·o·ry

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

This is very helpful. It is good that we can now understand what you mean when you use the word theory. But at the same time you need to understand what the scientific community means when they use the word theory. They mean this:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

source

 

[Dante Writer]

This is very helpful. It is good that we can now understand what you mean when you use the word theory. But at the same time you need to understand what the scientific community means when they use the word theory. They mean this:
source

If you want to tie yourself in knots over a definition go ahead.

I was not aware you spoke for the scientific community?

 

[fantome profane]

If you want to tie yourself in knots over a definition go ahead.

I was not aware you spoke for the scientific community?

I listen to what they have to say and try to understand what they mean.

 

[Milton Platt]

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

ADDED:

Evolution by Natural Selection

This is the standard view most people think of when they hear the term "evolution." This is the theory posited by Darwin –that evolution proceeds by accidental changes (now called mutations), and that the beneficial changes are kept and amplified by the process of natural selection. Natural selection is simply a mechanical process of differential survival; the fit ones will survive and thrive, and the unfit will not. There is no forward-looking purpose, only the ability to thrive and produce offspring in the present environment. This combination of mutation and selection is then capable of producing the entire diversity of life-forms over extremely long periods of time. This view is essentially the "textbook" view of evolution.

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.

Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo)

In this view, evolution progresses based on developmental switches and modules. Life is like a grab bag of components that all work together. Organs, body parts, and body plans do not really "evolve" so much as they are switched on, switched off, reorganized, and tweaked. The evolution of life is basically the continual reorganization of highly complex gene regulatory networks. In addition, many parts of the organism are not even specified by genetics, but rather are found through exploration. For instance, nerves and blood vessels build themselves out based on feedback from the surrounding tissues. Essentially, they "feel out" the path they need to follow. Therefore, recombining different types of body plans, organs, and tissues is not as difficult as one might think, because many of the connecting systems will be able to adapt to the basic structural changes automatically.

Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering

In this view, cells are equipped with systems that enable them to adapt. That is, when a cell faces a challenge, it does not passively wait for a mutation to happen, and then passively wait to see if it is improved or killed by it. Instead, cells are equipped with systems which allow them to respond to external stress by modifying their own genome in ways which are likely to be beneficial. It then deploys those modifications. If it is unsuccessful, then it tries again. Therefore, evolution is an active, not a passive, process within the cell. The process involves enzymes, DNA sequences, and regulatory networks which work together to evolve an organism in response to changing environmental conditions.

Somatic Selection

Somatic selection is similar to Natural Genetic Engineering, but is more applicable to multicellular organisms. In somatic selection, evolution proceeds by performing "evolutionary experiments" in your body cells (called somatic cells)—in other words, mutating in response to environmental stress. Then, when an experiment is successful, it transmits the modified genetic code to your sex cells (called gametes). With this method, evolution can happen relatively quickly even on organisms that do not reproduce often, because the body can perform numerous simultaneous evolutionary experiments in somatic cells, select the results it wants, and then transmit the modified DNA to the gametes for future generations.

Structuralist / Platonic Evolution

This theory of evolution focuses on the numerous examples of "convergent evolution" that are found in nature—organs and systems which are not related evolutionarily, but still function in largely similar ways. One striking example of an evolutionary convergence is in the vertebrate eye and the cephalopod eye (cephalopods include the octopus). While these two types of eyes have some important differences, the similarities in structure and function are striking. The structuralists therefore ask what processes would cause evolution to build the same structure in two different lineages in two radically different environments. What the structuralists propose is that the actual range of biological possibilities is fairly small. Physics and chemistry limit the available organizations, structures, and biochemistry such that there are only a set number of routes that evolution could take. As such, the same structures evolve over and over again because those are the only ones which could be evolved.

Biological Self-Organization

Self-organization is actually two phenomena rolled into one concept. The first is the ability for simple rules to establish complex, coordinated behavior. This can be seen in many areas of life. For example, the code to create a complex picture on a computer screen does not have to be complex itself –the code may in fact be very simple. Likewise, following a few simple traffic rules keeps everyone on the street coordinated without crashing into each other. Basically, by following simple, local rules, complex large-scale patterns can emerge. The individual participants need only follow their rules, and can ignore the large-scale pattern which will happen automatically. The second phenomenon is that chaotic systems exhibit patterns which are not always predictable just by looking at the pieces. Therefore, self-organization theorists think that metabolic systems essentially come into existence all at once when the right pieces are together. Evolution involves switching from one self-organizational pattern to another. Since the large-scale patterns emerge from local rules, small changes in the rules can lead to immediate, and large, evolutionary changes.

Multilevel Evolution

This is kind of a "meta" view of evolution. Basically, it proposes that evolution on different scales has fundamentally different causes. That is, microevolution and macroevolution (and some add mesoevolution) are fundamentally different processes, and they have fundamentally different causes and mechanisms. For instance, some multilevel evolutionists think that natural selection might be the cause for microevolution, evo-devo might be the cause for mesoevolution, and that there is an as-yet undiscovered cause for macroevolution.

Epigenetic Evolution

In epigenetic evolution, the genetics of an organism are not as important as how the genes are read. Thus, the factors which control the expression of genes are as important, or perhaps more important, than the genes themselves. Epigenetics also differs from genetics in that lifestyle choices of the parent can affect the biology of the offspring in profound ways.

Evolution by Symbiogenesis

This view says that evolution primarily proceeds by the creation of new symbiotic relationships between organisms. In this view, changes to the genome are of secondary importance. The primary driver in biological change is the changing ecological relationships an organism has with other organisms. This view is most well-known for its speculations on the origin of cellular organs (such as mitochondria), which it claims are actually separate bacterial organisms that are now in permanent symbiotic relationships with the rest of the cell.

Teleological Selection

This is similar to natural selection. Rather than selection being a process which is blind to the future results of selective action, this view holds that selection can be forward-looking. Therefore, selection can, in fact, select for configurations which will only have meaning or usefulness in the future. Proponents of this view hold that most discussions of natural selection do not make sense on their own unless teleological selection is presumed. For instance, much of evolutionary literature talks about things which were "selected for" such and such a purpose. The term "selected for" does not make sense if selection is blind to future purposes, but makes perfect sense in the context of teleological selection.

There is only one theory of evolution. The others you mention are some of the mechanisms within the theory of evolution.

 

[Dante Writer]

I listen to what they have to say and try to understand what they mean.

Well here is what is funny about that:

The term theory comes from the root word Theo which means God and and the original intent of a theory was to explain philosophical and sometimes scientific ideas.

Now scientists hijacked that term to make it so restrictive no new ideas can be presented and are suppressed before they can even be considered.

Sort of like what is happening in this forum

 

[Dante Writer]

There is only one theory of evolution. The others you mention are some of the mechanisms within the theory of evolution.

Well it seems some scientists disagree with you:

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

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

That is one of several evolutionary theories from my OP.