kornbelt888: It is plausible that myopic variation was responsible for horse evolution.

Good. What about Equidae? I want to know where in the phylogenetics world you think the problem lies.

kornbelt888: As I've said over and over, I am particular unimpressed and unconvinced with the claim that the "modern synthesis" explain evolution with regards to novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans, among other things. There are other top notch biologists who agree.

You say you are uncommitted to the assertion of a fundamentally myopic process. I have presented significant evidence that evolution is a fundamentally myopic process, but you won't engage specifics.

kornbelt888: I am particular unimpressed and unconvinced with the claim that the "modern synthesis" explain evolution with regards to novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans, among other things.

I was addressing the question of whether evolution is a fundamentally myopic process. Again, refer to the evidence I presented above. I will be happy to discuss cell types. The evidence is found in the phylogenetic tree.

You have asked to be shown the way, but fear to take the first step. Let us start our journey at the beginning and overcome each of our obstacles in turn.

If your point is that you accept evolutionary theory with the exception that there are several missing pieces in the explanation then I suspect the vast majority of biologists would likely agree with you. It seems likely that new evolutionary mechanisms will continue to be discovered and existing mechanisms will continue to be refined. If biologists thought they understood everything they wouldn't still be researching these things.

Or do you think an intelligent agent had to rewire the horse's biochemistry to introduce the necessary variation? What about the evolution of Equidae. Is this reasonably explained by natural variation and selection?

It is plausible that myopic variation was responsible for horse evolution. From the available evidence, it appears no novel cells types, tissue types, organs or body plans would be necessary. As I've said over and over, I am particular unimpressed and unconvinced with the claim that the "modern synthesis" explain evolution with regards to novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans, among other things. There are other top notch biologists who agree.

See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories...

Zachriel, I'm tiring of this exchange.

You can have the last word on this thread.

kornbelt888: While I accept that the process manifests some myopic behavior in the "short run"

Well, let's consider the "short run", then. Keep in mind the evidence concerning myopia I previously outlined. Do you think the evidence supports the evolution of domestic horses by artificial selection? Or do you think an intelligent agent had to rewire the horse's biochemistry to introduce the necessary variation? What about the evolution of Equidae. Is this reasonably explained by natural variation and selection?

Zachriel: The entire process of evolution, variation and Natural Selection, is myopic, as the previously cited scientific evidence indicates.

While I accept that the process manifests some myopic behavior in the "short run" (which a designer might use to reduce programming required to "explore" and exploit niches), I am not convinced that the process is myopic overall given what is understood and not understood about transcriptomes and other things.

If you are interested in an interesting exchange touching on this, see:

http://www.uncommondescent.com...

Particularly:

1) How did all that information pertaining to the right trancriptomes evolve?

2) Where, and how is it written?

kornbelt888: It's the source of the variation that is at issue. For some reason I get the feeling you're having a hard time understanding what I'm saying. Although I am willing to accept any blame for poorly expressing myself.

The entire process of evolution, variation and Natural Selection, is myopic, as the previously cited scientific evidence indicates.

Is this reasonably explained by Natural Selection and related mechanisms?

I thought I answered this already:

The only part of the general sweep of the modern synthesis (we know there are disagreements on various particulars) that I am uncommitted to is the assertion that a fundamentally myopic process, particularly at the genomic and intracellular level, is responsible for all of the variation that has occured, particularly variation that is responsible for novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans. I further acknowledge that it may be true, but I am not scientifically convinced. (And of course, abiogenesis is another matter, as previously discussed, but we can shelve that for now.)

I accept that variation occurs. I accept that natural selection acts as a filter for the variation and "shapes" the phenotype according to various factors (enviroment, sexual selection, etc.) It's the source of the variation that is at issue. For some reason I get the feeling you're having a hard time understanding what I'm saying. Although I am willing to accept any blame for poorly expressing myself.

Start with artifiical selection and the domestication of the horse. The horse has increased considerably in size, speed and strength just in the last few thousand years. What about the evolution of Equidae. Is this reasonably explained by Natural Selection and related mechanisms? Mammal diversification? Chordates?

kornbelt888: The only part of the general sweep of the modern synthesis (we know there are disagreements on various particulars) that I am uncommitted to is the assertion that a fundamentally myopic process …

Have you read Origin of Species? Darwin points out that Natural Selection is a consequence of exponential growth potential competing for finite resoures. Though somewhat dated, Darwin considers many aspects of empirically distinguishing the historical effects of Natural Selection.

We know that organisms and traits share common descent. We also know that populations exhibit variations in traits. If Natural Selection is a plausible explanation, then we should see the following evidence.

* Historical change will be largely stepwise (first-order approximation) as variations are filtered.
* Each stepwise change will be adaptive in the environment the organism finds itself in.
* Irreducible structures will occur through stepwise processes, such as cooption and optimization.
* We won't see an adaptation that has a future benefit, but is not selected in the current environment.
* We won't see part of a so-called irreducible structure that has no benefit in the current environment just waiting for the rest of the parts to show up.
* We won't see an adaptation that is of benefit to an unrelated species that is not also a benefit to the adapted species.
* Structures may become vestigial, meaning they may lose part of all of their original function (though may have some other function).
* Vestigial structures will tend to vary more than structures under positive selection.
* Coevolution.

In addition, the process will tend to be haphazard. For instance, when organisms invade a new niche, we would expect to see rapid diversification followed by a pruning of excess branches. Grow every which way, then prune. This process is more like water filling all the paths of a maze than taking just the turns necessary to reach a prespecified goal. Deadends. This wastefulness is a signature of evolution.

When Darwin posited Natural Selection, scientists did not have the capability to directly observe evolution.

Darwin *predicted* that populations changed due to natural selection. Darwin *predicted* sources of novel variation. But since that time, methods have been developed that allow us to directly observe evolution, *confirming* these predictions. In addition, we can measure the rate of evolutionary change, e.g. in darwins, and these rates are far more rapid than required to explain the historical pattern. Just as we have confirmed the essential concept of Common Descent.

Evolutionary biologists even correctly *predicted* the great age of the Earth when physicists were still claiming a much younger age.