Hilarious Aqueous Id your evidence is a public "blogspot" and a book with "religion" in the title. TELL ME WHY YOU IGNORE THIS PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPER BY PROF. EUGENE KOONIN:
From The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? by Prof Eugene Koonin.
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.
Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection 16, 17. And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit.
The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone. What’s next? The answer that seems to be suggested by the Darwinian discourse of 2009: a postmodern state not so far a postmodern synthesis. Above all, such a state is characterized by the pluralism of processes and patterns in evolution that defies any straightforward generalization.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/
You are speechless on the above paper, and 40 of the other SCIENTIFIC peer-reviewed papers I have pasted in. In response you ignore everyone of these papers.
Here you are, STUMPED again:
Michael R Rose and Todd H Oakley, in their research paper, titled "The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis" published on 24 November 2007
wrote that The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century".
Oakley is a professor of biology, and this was published in a peer-reviewed journal:
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/30/
Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb
Another paper you IGNORED:
This paper presents some of the recent challenges to theModern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominatedevolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus ofthe paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the idea that variations that arise during development can beinherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNAsequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources ofhereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes.
Furthermore, under certain conditions, themechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveriesare clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role forLamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challengesto the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework fore volutionary biology.
http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/soft1.pdf
Why are you IGNORING scientific papers on evolution? You clearly are a creationist loon. I see your agenda. You are the reason so many creationists exist in America, you claim evolution has not moved beyond "Darwinism" in the last 150 years. You play right into the creationists hands, are they paying you? You fall into the typical creationist fallacy of confusing "Darwinism" with evolution.
I have peer-reviewed papers backing up this thread which proves beyond doubt evolution has progressed in the 150 years, yet you deny all of this.
Why do your posts never mention the following mechanisms in evolution:
gene flow, genetic draft, genetic hitchhiking, horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis, symbiogenesis, paleopolyploidy (genome duplications), group selection, internal selection, kin selection, social selection, molecular drive, niche construction, saltationism, self-organization, epigenetics, hybridization, natural genetic engineering, orthogenesis, directed mutagenesis, field theories of morphogenesis, transposable element (jumping genes) etc etc.
Face it you have never heard of any of the above mechanisms, you are not a scientist in the field or up-to-date about the latest events and finds in evolutionary biology. You are not a scientist, just a troll who sits on this forum all day offering his personal opinion. None of your claims are backed with any scientific evidence. You have a poor understanding of the subject and you refuse to accept anything which is not "Darwinian", you are acting like a loon and you have never read a book on evolution, if you did you should know what the above mechanisms are, many of them of found in evo-devo textbooks. Why I am even giving you this knowledge? You are not worthy. I do not need to educate ignorant creationists such as yourself who refuse to accept that science progresses. You have exposed your anti-science agenda by denying to read any the scientific papers I cited, personally attacking me and creating fake accounts. Your agenda is religious and you clearly are anti-evolution.
I will not feed the troll any longer, I have asked for my account to be deleted. How old are you anyway 60, 70? If you wern't such an old fart and perhaps you realised that sudents such as myself are learning about evolution everyday then perhaps you would get somewhere. We are not in the 1950's any longer... trying going to a recent evo-devo class or conference you would probably walk out when they describe how evolution is no longer "Darwinian" due to recent finds in the relationship between genotype and phenotype. You seem to be obsessed with Darwin like the creationists and refuse to accept evolution has progressed in the last 150 years.
Here is a SCIENTIFIC TEXTBOOK on evolution:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10128/
Developmental Biology. 6th edition.
by Gilbert SF
He points out how the neo-Darwinian synthesis is incomplete as it ignored finds in evo-devo, and that how evo-devo calls for an extended synthesis beyond the limited neo-Dariwinian framework.
The population genetics model contained some major assumptions that have now been called into question.
1.
Gradualism. The supposition that all evolutionary changes occur gradually was debated by Darwin and his friends. Thomas Huxley, for instance, accepted evolution, but he felt that Darwin had burdened his theory with an unnecessary assumption of gradualism. A century later, Eldredge and Gould (1972), Stanley (1979), and others postulated punctuated equilibrium as an alternative to the gradualism that characterized the Modern Synthesis. According to this theory, species were characterized by their morphological stability. Evolutionary changes tended to be rapid, not gradual. At the same time, molecular studies (King and Wilson 1975) showed that 99% of the DNA of humans and chimpanzees was identical, demonstrating that a small change in DNA could cause large and important morphological changes. New findings in paleontology and molecular biology prompted scientists to consider seriously the view that mutations in regulatory genes can create large changes in morphology in a relatively short time.
2.
Extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution. The idea that accumulations of small mutations result in changes leading to new species has also been criticized. Richard Goldschmidt (1940) began his book The Material Basis of Evolution by asking the population genetic evolutionary biologists to try to explain the evolution of the following features by accumulation and selection of small mutations: hair in mammals; feathers in birds; segmentation in arthropods and vertebrates; the transformation of the gill arches into structures including aortic arches, muscles, and nerves; teeth; shells of molluscs; compound eyes; and the poison apparatus of snakes. Interestingly, both Goldschmidt and Waddington saw homeotic mutations as the kind of genetic change that could alter one structure into another and possibly create new structures or new combinations of structures. These mutations would not be in the structural genes, but in the regulatory genes. Few scientists paid attention to Goldschmidt or Waddington, however, because they were not working under the population genetics paradigm of the Modern Synthesis and because their scientific programs were suspect. (Goldschmidt did not believe in Morgan's notion of the gene as a particulate entity, and Waddington's work was misinterpreted as supporting the inheritance of acquired traits: see Gilbert 1988; 1991; Dietrich 1995.)
3.
Specificity of phenotype from genotype. Developmental biologists have found that life is more complicated than a 1:1 relationship between genotype and phenotype. Chapter 21 documents numerous cases wherein the genotype can permit any of several phenotypes to form. These cases include polyphenisms induced by predators, diet, day length, or antigenic or visual experience. Moreover, development always mediates between genotype and phenotype. The same gene can produce different phenotypes depending on the other genes that are present (Wolf 1995). A mutant gene that produces limblessness in one generation can produce only a mild thumb abnormality in the next (Freire-Maia 1975). That evolution is the result of heritable changes in development (Goldschmidt 1940) is as true for whether a fly has two or three bristles on its back as for whether an appendage is to become a fin or a limb. One way of visualizing this is to use a mathematical analogy (Gilbert et al. 1996):
Why don't you try learning about evolution? Instead of clinging to an outdated view? Science progresses. Please accept this. I have no more time for your personal attacks so further responding will not be read. Bye.