Message from @Draco
Discord ID: 520291163656290334
who the fuck is lying, I never even fucking read about darwinism (at least neo-darwinism) but the first two sources claim against you
Do you have trouble reading? Or you have low IQ? You literally posted a definition for HGT that says other than from parents to offsprings and then you posted what Neo Darwinism that says inheritable
Read this paper, dumbass
``` inheritable (ĭn-hĕrˈĭ-tə-bəl)►
adj.
That can be inherited: inheritable traits; inheritable property.
adj.
Having the right to inherit or the capability of inheriting: an inheritable heir.
```
```verb (used with object)
to take or receive (property, a right, a title, etc.) by succession or will, as an heir: to inherit the family business.
to receive as if by succession from predecessors: the problems the new government inherited from its predecessors.
to receive (a genetic character) by the transmission of hereditary factors. ```
So, sorry. Scientists disagree with you
The Modern Synthesis adds discrete (Mendelian) inheritance to neo-Darwinism. Alternatives to the Modern Synthesis include: symbiogenesis, the idea that major steps in evolution, such as the formation of eukaryotes and multicellular organisms, resulted from cooperation and/or fusion between different organisms; horizontal gene transfer within and between organisms
```Essentially, neo-Darwinism introduced the connection between two important discoveries: the units of evolution (genes) with the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). By melding classical Darwinism with the rediscovered Mendelian genetics, Darwin's ideas were recast in terms of changes in allele frequencies. Neo-Darwinism thus fused two very different and formerly divided research traditions, the Darwinian naturalists and the experimental geneticists. This fusion took place roughly between 1936 and 1947.
While the modern synthesis remains the prevailing paradigm of evolutionary biology, in recent years it has both been expanded and challenged as a result of new developments in evolutionary theory. In particular, concepts related to gradualism, speciation, natural selection, and extrapolating macroevolutionary trends from microevolutionary trends have been challenged.```
```This article argues that the gene-centric interpretations of evolution, and more particularly the selfish gene expression of those interpretations, ```
```selfish gene theory holds that adaptive evolution occurs through the differential survival of competing genes, increasing the allele frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic trait effects successfully promote their own propagation,```
I love how you are just pasting bits to somehow find a counter to the direct statement by the same author
Lol
this is his hypothesis:
```he selfish gene idea is not useful in the physiological sciences, since selfishness cannot be defined as an intrinsic property of nucleotide sequences independently of gene frequency, i.e. the ‘success’ in the gene pool that is supposed to be attributable to the ‘selfish’ property. It is not a physiologically testable hypothesis.```
Im putting it in here to develop a hypothesis-argumentation-proof chain
Well, press Ctrl+F and search this - The Modern Synthesis adds discrete (Mendelian) inheritance to neo-Darwinism. Alternatives to the Modern Synthesis include: symbiogenesis, the idea that major steps in evolution, such as the formation of eukaryotes and multicellular organisms, resulted from cooperation and/or fusion between different organisms; horizontal gene transfer within and between organisms
That is not his hypothesis; that is his assertion backed by citations, you can find.
```These are not at all the same thing when it comes to questions like ‘what do genes do?’ and ‘what kind of causation is involved?’ When Johannsen (1909) introduced the term ‘gene’ it was defined as the (necessary) cause of a phenotype, since it was defined as an inherited phenotype that could be attributed to an allele. But now it has to be shown to be a cause, and the nature of that causation needs clarification. ```
``` They are reinforced by the fact that most changes at the level of DNA do not have a measurable phenotypic effect under normal physiological conditions (see, for example, Hillenmeyer et al. 2008). By the original definition, these would not even have been identified as genes, since a gene was an entity that necessarily had a phenotypic manifestation.```
so thats his "proof"?
thats not even against the fucking theory
He merely says that not every change could be categorized as a whole new phenotype
what a bright discovery, isnt it?
Oh, but he has a paper and you don't.
Strange
His whole idea was basically that not every mutation might lead to a viable/very distinguish phetotypic change, thus the selfish gene theory could not entirely apply to some cases such as above
what
are you dumb
Please write a counter paper
Get it published
And peer reviewed
he generally sums up what many people would agree on, and just proposes that the selfish gene theory might not explain everything
We will wait
im not even denying that man you dumb faggot
Wow. So, you agree with him but do not. Not very bright are you
you call me an atheist and I made one mistake reading but you cant read fucking scientific articles, prove me fucking wrong
I posted a direct statement. You don't want to read that. Because that will break your atheism apart.
I have no time for babies
Write a counter article, get it published and then we will listen to your woes