"The last third of the 20
th 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 21
st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21
st Century" End
You have fallen into using typical creationist misunderstandings. Michael R Rose and Todd H Oakley are not anti-evolution and they are not challenging evolution. Yes they are challenging parts of the modern synthesis that is all.
Please note the Rose and Oakley paper is not calling for an extended synthesis, it is one of those publications similar to Koonin and Shapiro which is calling for a totally new synthesis.
Yes Im sure that all this dissent and disagreement among evolutionist does appease creationist and ID'ers, but so what?
You have exposed your agenda. The problem is, you have misunderstood the extended synthesis with non-Darwinian evolution. This is a typical creationist mistake (infact it's not even a mistake) you do it on purpose to try and undermine the evidence for evolution.
I also provided talking notes from the Altenberg meeting as published by Massimo Pigliucci (again, a man you also cited) in which many of the assumptions of the modern synthesis are cited as follows…."Assumptions include: heredity by transmission through the germ line; heredity from recombination and mutation; heritable variation has small effects; unit of selection is the gene (added in the 1970s); phenotypic innovations are a result of cumulative gene mutations; targets of selection are individuals; evolution is a matter of descent with modification from a common ancestor" The above statement were the words of Pigliucci not mine.
Please give a cituation for this, looks like creationist quote mining to me and taken out of context.
And again, these are evolutionist asking if we need another theory, yet are honest enough to admit that many tenants of the modern synthesis are based on assumptions.
yeh and so what? the modern synthesis is based on assumptions, but EVOLUTION IS A FACT. Do you get that? Modern neo-Darwinian synthesis is not evolution, it is just supposed mechanisms for it. There is no debate in science about the fact of evolution, only the mechanisms. You are not honest enough to admit this.
This is well known. I'm sorry if you thought that macro evolution was a fact. Again it is not. It is a broadly accepted assumption. This has nothing to do with mine or anyone else's personal metaphysical views.
All scientists accept macroevolution, you have exposed yourself as a creationist. It is your personal views which don't want you to accept the evidence for macroevolution. If you want to try and make a case name some non-creationists who deny macroevolution.
Again please tell me how am I misrepresenting the facts concerning the modern synthesis or the extended synthesis.
You are using the extended synthesis to try and make out evolution is falling apart, this is typical creationist dishonesty. Do some real research and will see the extended synthesis is not anti-evolution, and the extended synthesis is not even anti-Darwinian, it is just looking to extend certain parts of the modern synthesis. Perhaps you should send some emails to Massimo Pigliucci. Pigliucci even defines himself as a "Darwinian". You make no sense with all these claims that the extended synthesis is undermining macroevolution or common descent. You have been given links which debunk these creationists claims but you choose to ignore them.
Did you think that someone who did not support the modern synthesis and who instead sided with ID was incapable of having a rational conversation?
Listen your first posts on this forum were good, I even explained you I am a critic of the modern synthesis myself. You lost the plot and gave the game a way though when you started calling scientists atheists and then claiming macroevolution and common descent are wrong.
When did I ever claim to be a secular theorist or claim that I had ID publications out? Can you provide quotes to back up your statement that I ever said this? When did I say my publication over turned evolution?
I also have several articles published by ID theorist in respected science journals. I can also cite cases were design theory is now being used in practical application in the field of systems biology and with great success, i.e. in viewing the cell as a complex engineered and designed system we are making great advancements, and or what some would call reveres engineering. If you wanted to discuss design theory, all you had to do is ask. I pull no punches with anyone. I have even debated other design advocates and a few popular narrow minded creationist, some who have even banned me from their cites as did some narrow minded evolutionist like PZ Meyers, Jerry Coyne and Larry Moran. Why you ask? Maybe because of my writing style, but I believe the real reason is that I challenged many of them to back up claims with empirical science which they were unable to do. And you are wrong. There many scientist who question macro evolution. They might be a minority but they are present and are still a part of the science community.
You say in the above paragraph that you have several ID articles published you also admit that you have been banned on many forums and blogs. You also keep saying many scientist question macroevolution but you can not list any. You are a creationist exploiting and misunderstanding the extended synthesis.
It's been over 100 years and every time a scientist proposes a new evolutionary mechanism or challenges or debates the existing mechanisms etc all creationists do is misunderstand and claim then that scientist is denying evolution it crosses over the line from laughable to flagrant dishonesty and is just getting annoying. Debating the mechanisms of evolution is not denying evolution. Evolution is a fact that has been stated many times, scientists are not questioning evolution some of them question the mechanisms but no matter how many times you say this to a creationist they never seem to get it, they will mine any of these scientists into dishonest attempts in trying to make out evolution is falling apart. Get educated about the subject, if you want to be a critic of neo-Darwinism then go ahead many scientists are but they are not denying the fact of evolution like you and resorting to creationism or intelligent design.