Open Discussion on Confirmed Prediction of Common Descent

Dr. David Heddle - no fan of ID and no advocate of evolution - recently posted a comment at Telic Thoughts referring to a confirmed prediction of common descent. I asked him for a source and he kindly directed me to this site which also provided this paper, which described the fusing of two primate chromosones to form 1 human chromosone. This provides strong evidence of common descent, going from 24 primate chromosones to 23 human chromosones.

Being an engineer and not being a biologist/geneticist, some honest questions have come to my mind after reading through the references above:

1. Are the remaining 22 chromosones identical between humans and primates?
2. Are the experiment conditions listed in the paper comparable to "actual" conditions? [I'm still trudging my way through the paper, but I find reading biologist-ese difficult; I require a translator ;) ]

This an open invitation to civil discussion on the above references. Ad hominem comments are not welcome and will be deleted.

Side note: this appears to be along the lines of what Dr. John A. Davison is proposing, that macroevolution occured in the chromosones, not the genes.

Mechanisms and Engines

Yesterday, I received a gift that keeps on giving. I was searching for a list of "evolutionary mechanisms" that I recalled seeing some time ago on Dr. Allen MacNeil's blog, and I have finally hit paydirt (much thanks to Dr. MacNeil at TT and Patrick at UD). These mechanisms are described by Dr. MacNeil as "real sources of variation".

Note: Dr. MacNeil makes it clear that these mechanisms are NOT a comprehensive list. IOW, there could be more out there; they are just undiscovered currently.

Now I can focus on these mechanisms and ask "What can they do and what can't they do?" (IOW, what are the properties and limitations of these mechanisms).

But the gift-giving (or receiving in my case) did not end there. In the linked post, Dr. MacNeil alludes to an earlier article, What Is The "Engine" of Evolution? and in Patrick's comment, he suggested that the "engine of variation" is the next front of debate. This "engine" description intrigues me as an engineer because I view an engine as multiple mechanisms functioning together to produce a separate and larger function that each mechanism could not accomplish on its own. So much to learn, so little time.

Given this and the upcoming Altenberg 16 summit, it appears to me that there is a growing trend among evolutionary biologists to distance themselves from the "Classic Darwinian" view where natural selection is king. As an "observer from the sidelines", these are interesting and intriguing developments.

It's no wonder Richard Dawkins is concentrating his efforts on "evangelising" atheism rather than promoting the "creative power of natural selection" (because if he did, Dawkins would be an endangered/soon-to-be extinct species) ;)

Note: I am adding the link to Dr. MacNeil's blog to my Recommended Sites as I believe it is a good source of information from the "other side".

Ya Oughta Know, Part Deux

Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian posted this video from What You Ought to Know a few days ago. A substantial amount of comments went off topic and turned what was supposed to be a thread about open-mindedness into a good ol' debate on evolution. I know this because I was personally guilty of steering the comments off-topic, and for this, I apologise to Tom.

However, the back-and-forth I had with a commenter named Paul was informative and enjoyable. Therefore, I propose that this discussion continue in this thread.

To briefly sum up:

1. I allowed for the possibility of plant macroevolution (MEvo) due to polyploidy.
2. I remain unconvinced that the examples of speciation given represented evidence for animal MEvo; rather, the speciations listed are good evidence of animal microevolution (mEvo).
3. A discussion took place over the effectiveness of historical sciences (which was started by this article by Dr. Massimo Pigliucci). I criticised evolutionary biology, paleontology, and anthropology for not paying attention to the fine details.
4. Paul took mild exception to my "selection" of gradualism (which I believe is the standard paradigm of MEvo) over saltation (i.e. punctuated equilibrium), stating that gradualism does not represent the "current thinking". I mentioned I was very interested in the particulars of this "current thinking".
5. I asked for, but never received, the mechanisms of MEvo (I have seen a comprehensive list of about 40+ mechanisms listed at a blog, but I can't recall where I have seen them. Help anyone?).

I found Paul to be one of those rare defenders of evolution that don't utilise ad hominem (name calling) attacks. He was the one who helped me fine tune my argument and consistently challenged me respectively. I look forward to continuing the discussion here with Paul and anyone else who has something constructive to contribute.

"Keep your stick on the ice"
Red Green