September 16th, 2012, 03:32 PM
Hello,
A friend recently told me about an extended evolutionary synthesis that is going on with lots of scientists. As this is a science forum thought I would ask here if anyone knows anything about it?
You can read about it here:
Extended evolutionary synthesis - RationalWiki
any opinions?
Evolutionary synthesis... sounds a bit artificial to me!
It is hardly artificial, questions, it is quite the opposite. By synthesis we mean bringing together all the data relevant to a topic. In the case of biology there were a lot of scattered ideas in separate fields of study and it wasn't until the 1930s that we started to pull it all together to get a natural cohesive picture of evolution. Commonly referred to as modern evolutionary synthesis. The "extended" synthesis is just a way of saying, "Hey, it's been like 70 years! Let's reevaluate what we know, because there have been A LOT of new discoveries since the 1930s."
But why is there no mention of these extended evolutionary synthesis elsewhere on this forum? Users act like they have never heard of it? People not up to date here? Or just not many actual scientists in the field post on this forum?Originally Posted by JoshuaL
It has been discussed at various times (one former member rather bizarrely tried to use it to prove that "Darwin was wrong").
Are there any specific questions or ideas you want to discuss? It is a rather broad topic...
On what are you basing this assumption?
You introduced a topic by asking, "Does anyone here know anything about it?" Narrow it down a little. Get a discussion started. Don't just throw a topic out and expect people to go at it like piranha.
Ranger, the idea is still in its infancy. Biologists are still debating whether any "extension" is needed. There was a recent article (May 2012) from The Royal Society making a case against the need [link here], but you'll find plenty of others making a case for it. This debate will probably go on for another few years before things coalesce a bit. There is a surprising amount of politics in science. But like the man says, l'enfer, c'est les autres -- hell is other people. :P
In multiple posts on many threads I have implicitly acknowledged and explicitly stated what the synthesis addresses. I just don't use the terminology because so far it has not gained sufficient traction to merit that.
I am conscious of several members who are aware of the limitations of the synthesis, but you also have to place any and all responses in context. The context here is one in which one is often defending evolutionary theory against creationists, IDers, or other anti-evolutionary elements. In such an environment one tends to emphasise the continuity of evolutionary theory rather than pick out artificial "turning points".
I could put it another way: why talk about this when its blindingly obvious and just part of the advance of biological science? It permeates - or should do - the thinking of anyone working in the field or interested in it.
I posted a video a couple of years ago of the interview with Stuart Newman who attended the meeting and who was a major player at the Altenberg conference in 2008. The video is entitled "Will the Real theory of Evolution Please Stand up?" The modern synthesis has been challenged for many years. This is nothing new. What is new, is that it seems many evo devos are now actually starting to adress the five hundred pound gorilla in the room. The question is not whether the modern synthesis/neo Darwinian synthesis still pertains. The question is what are the limitations of many of the current dogmas of the theory, i.e. natural selection, random mutation, gene centrism, gradualism, cricks central dogma and population genetics, but especially the limitations of natural selection. I know this may come as a big shock to everyone but yes, secular scientist also criticize the modern synthesis. This is why these men and women of Altenberg are now calling for a reformulation of old ideas and are pushing for an extended synthesis. Even adding in ideas like self organization. Unfortunately the NCSE does not support these men and women because they hate anything that questions the neo Darwinian paradigme. In their minds, even atheist are not allowed to question this tape worm and their personel gravy train they have been preaching for a long time. Why do they not support the extended synthesis? because they're are not going to admit they may have been wrong.
The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis
Michael R Rose1* and Todd H Oakley2
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.
Genetics and Molecular Biolog
Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis
Eva JablonkaI; Marion J. LambII
In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology.
Epigenetics: a challenge for genetics, evolution, and development?
Van de Vijver G, Van Speybroeck L, De Waele D.
Abstract
In this paper, it is argued that differences in how one relates the genome to its surrounding contexts leads to diverse interpretations of the term epigenetics. Three different approaches are considered, ranging from gene-centrism, over gene-regulation, to dynamic systems approaches. Although epigenetics receives its widest interpretation in a systems approach, a paradigmatic shift has taken place in biology from the abandonment of a gene-centric position on to the present. The epistemological and ontological consequences of this shift are made explicit.
.
Themyan, welcome to the forum.
What this debate boils down to is this: Does evolutionary theory advance by evolution, or by revolution?
My response to my own question is, Who the hell cares, as long as it advances?
I would far rather see discussions revolving around the mechanisms of evolution than around what we choose to call those mechanisms, or the extent to which these are dramatic advances, steady progress, or radical reform.
In the light of that, I found your emotional response tobe counter productive to good science and interesting scientific discussion.
Emotional? I'm speaking of fact. Again, even the great Stewart Newman echoes this same emotion in part 4-5 of video I cited. He says that people have been told to believe things that are simply not true. He even criticize the science advisors of the Dover case for giving the public the false notion that neo Darwinism is the way evolution happens, when again he does not believe that the current evolutionary theory is sufficient. I also cited three peer review papers that echo the same. As for who cares? He also spoke of this same kind of "who cares" hand waiving that happens so frequently, and cites it as one of the problems. If you have an organization like the very influential NCSE who say they do not support the same self organization models that make up the extended synthesis, because they feel that people may confuse self organization with Intelligent design. Well then we have a problem. If you agree that scientific advancement is the goal, then maybe you should write the NCSE and ask them why are they against this same scientific advancement we speak of, and why they knowingly continue to feed the public un-enlightened information. Up until you were recently told, you didn't even know anything about the Altenberg meeting and the extended synthesis. Most people falsely believe that the modern synthesis is stronger than ever, yet this is not the case, and most are unaware of the proposed extended synthesis and in fighting it has developed between other staunch neo Darwinist like Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers Larry Moran. And the fighting is very petty. You should see what Jerry Coyne has written about Pigliucci for merely publicly claiming that an extended synthesis is necessary. Anyone who fails to bow down to the neo Darwinian model is labeled a scientific heretic.
Last edited by THEMYAN; September 24th, 2012 at 05:51 AM.
And the fact is that your post was, in parts, emotional. If you insist on bringing emotion to the table you will make it difficult to hold a balanced, objective discussion. Do you disagree with this point?
So many things wrong with this:
1. Qualifying Stewart Newman as great looks suspiciously like the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
2. I prefer, for the most part, not to get my science from videos.
3. Where is the evidence (in peer reviewed journals) that his contentions are valid?
4. He doesn't believe current evolutionary theory is sufficient?!#! [Emotion Alert] No one who can reasonably call themselves a scientist believes current evolutionary theory is sufficient. [/Emotion Alert]
I am perplexed. Based upon your own explanation the NCSE is not against this scientific advancement. Keep in mind that their remit, as I understand it, is to promote the effective teaching of science. It is not to advance science, but to communicate advancements in science and to help provide individuals with the tools that will help them advance science. With the benefit of their experience in reaching these goals they have concluded that emphsasising the current debates within the biology community would introduce ambiguity, diminish clarity and ultimately fail their constituency.If you have an organization like the very influential NCSE who say they do not support the same self organization models that make up the extended synthesis, because they feel that people may confuse self organization with Intelligent design. Well then we have a problem. If you agree that scientific advancement is the goal, then maybe you should write the NCSE and ask them why are they against this same scientific advancement we speak of, and why they knowingly continue to feed the public un-enlightened information.
They may be right on this point, they may be wrong. There is room for a debate on the issue. However, if you promote your argument with the outraged demeanour you display here you will turn your audience against you. Why would you choose such a self-destructive path?
How do you arrive at that conclusion?Up until you were recently told, you didn't even know anything about the Altenberg meeting and the extended synthesis.
The Altenberg meeting is one expression of the debate as to the detailed nature of evolutionary mechanisms. This debate has been ongoing since Darwin first talked about evolution. (I refer to Erasmus, by the way, not his grandson.) I've been questioning evolutionary mechanisms since spotting some gaps as an undergraduate in the late 1960s. Over the last few years, as a rank amateur, I considered a possible mechanism which I now find may have been expressed as niche creation.
Many better people than I have questioned, found answers and the synthesis evolves. If a casual amateur is aware of these undercurrents are you seriously suggesting that those engaged in front line research are not aware of the changes? The Altenberg group is merely a subset of the ongoing debate. Please stop trying to burden it with mystical significance.
And the fact is that your post was, in parts, emotional. If you insist on bringing emotion to the table you will make it difficult to hold a balanced, objective discussion. Do you disagree with this point?
So many things wrong with this:
1. Qualifying Stewart Newman as great looks suspiciously like the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
2. I prefer, for the most part, not to get my science from videos.
3. Where is the evidence (in peer reviewed journals) that his contentions are valid?
4. He doesn't believe current evolutionary theory is sufficient?!#! [Emotion Alert] No one who can reasonably call themselves a scientist believes current evolutionary theory is sufficient. [/Emotion Alert]
I am perplexed. Based upon your own explanation the NCSE is not against this scientific advancement. Keep in mind that their remit, as I understand it, is to promote the effective teaching of science. It is not to advance science, but to communicate advancements in science and to help provide individuals with the tools that will help them advance science. With the benefit of their experience in reaching these goals they have concluded that emphsasising the current debates within the biology community would introduce ambiguity, diminish clarity and ultimately fail their constituency.If you have an organization like the very influential NCSE who say they do not support the same self organization models that make up the extended synthesis, because they feel that people may confuse self organization with Intelligent design. Well then we have a problem. If you agree that scientific advancement is the goal, then maybe you should write the NCSE and ask them why are they against this same scientific advancement we speak of, and why they knowingly continue to feed the public un-enlightened information.
They may be right on this point, they may be wrong. There is room for a debate on the issue. However, if you promote your argument with the outraged demeanour you display here you will turn your audience against you. Why would you choose such a self-destructive path?
How do you arrive at that conclusion?Up until you were recently told, you didn't even know anything about the Altenberg meeting and the extended synthesis.
The Altenberg meeting is one expression of the debate as to the detailed nature of evolutionary mechanisms. This debate has been ongoing since Darwin first talked about evolution. (I refer to Erasmus, by the way, not his grandson.) I've been questioning evolutionary mechanisms since spotting some gaps as an undergraduate in the late 1960s. Over the last few years, as a rank amateur, I considered a possible mechanism which I now find may have been expressed as niche creation.
Many better people than I have questioned, found answers and the synthesis evolves. If a casual amateur is aware of these undercurrents are you seriously suggesting that those engaged in front line research are not aware of the changes? The Altenberg group is merely a subset of the ongoing debate. Please stop trying to burden it with mystical significance.
You seem to keep ignoring the peer review data that I also cited, and as for authority, I never said that Newman was the last word. I never implied that people in the front lines were unaware of anything, and I was not asking you to get your science data from a video. I simply cited an interview from one of the more famous attendants of the summit that put the proposition on the table. Again, as for scientific data, you can find many current articles on soft inheritance, epigenetics and self organization models which much of the extended synthesis is based on, as well as data that refutes Dawkins selfish gene centrism and the Junk DNA paradigme which was just eulogized by ENCODE two weeks ago. Again, I was merely providing added commentary from someone who was there, and these are the same people who are pushing for the extended synthesis.
I have not tried to burden anything with mysticism. I simply stated that the NCSE which is a very influential organization does not support the extended synthesis, and feel that the public will confuse self organization with Intelligent design. Director Eugenie Scott of the NCSE said this. Those were her words not mine. My point is that the theoretical framework of the modern synthesis is no longer a viable explanation in light of 21century data. My second point was the stifling of scientific progress by those who claim to adhere to the scientific method and for the petty reasons already mentioned. You spoke to none of this, and instead like many other knee jerk responses, you chose to attack the messenger instead of dealing with the issue at hand. As for your question....."How do you arrive at that conclusion?" That was my mistake for not reading the name of poster, since my initial response was not to you, but nevertheless you decided to put your two cents in anyway. I speak and write with passion, and I dont concern myself with winning any popularity contest. You can comment on emotions all you want. As for myself, I would rather speak to the substance, and if you have a substantial argument or response, then shoot, otherwise I'm not really concerned how you feel about my sensibilities. I was speaking of science, and let it be known that you first personalized the discussion, not me. (And as for your......."No one who can reasonably call themselves a scientist believes current evolutionary theory is sufficient" response) you're wrong. I cited the NCSE as well as others, and there are also many in NAS as well, who feel that the modern synthesis is sufficient explanation, and that it is within this framework of natural selection and random mutation being the main mechanisms of evolutionary theory that all the other answers will eventually fall into place someday. These are the people who are holding back science by not supporting the extended synthesis, not me.
And the fact is that your post was, in parts, emotional. If you insist on bringing emotion to the table you will make it difficult to hold a balanced, objective discussion. Do you disagree with this point?
So many things wrong with this:
1. Qualifying Stewart Newman as great looks suspiciously like the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
2. I prefer, for the most part, not to get my science from videos.
3. Where is the evidence (in peer reviewed journals) that his contentions are valid?
4. He doesn't believe current evolutionary theory is sufficient?!#! [Emotion Alert] No one who can reasonably call themselves a scientist believes current evolutionary theory is sufficient. [/Emotion Alert]
I am perplexed. Based upon your own explanation the NCSE is not against this scientific advancement. Keep in mind that their remit, as I understand it, is to promote the effective teaching of science. It is not to advance science, but to communicate advancements in science and to help provide individuals with the tools that will help them advance science. With the benefit of their experience in reaching these goals they have concluded that emphsasising the current debates within the biology community would introduce ambiguity, diminish clarity and ultimately fail their constituency.If you have an organization like the very influential NCSE who say they do not support the same self organization models that make up the extended synthesis, because they feel that people may confuse self organization with Intelligent design. Well then we have a problem. If you agree that scientific advancement is the goal, then maybe you should write the NCSE and ask them why are they against this same scientific advancement we speak of, and why they knowingly continue to feed the public un-enlightened information.
They may be right on this point, they may be wrong. There is room for a debate on the issue. However, if you promote your argument with the outraged demeanour you display here you will turn your audience against you. Why would you choose such a self-destructive path?
How do you arrive at that conclusion?Up until you were recently told, you didn't even know anything about the Altenberg meeting and the extended synthesis.
The Altenberg meeting is one expression of the debate as to the detailed nature of evolutionary mechanisms. This debate has been ongoing since Darwin first talked about evolution. (I refer to Erasmus, by the way, not his grandson.) I've been questioning evolutionary mechanisms since spotting some gaps as an undergraduate in the late 1960s. Over the last few years, as a rank amateur, I considered a possible mechanism which I now find may have been expressed as niche creation.
Many better people than I have questioned, found answers and the synthesis evolves. If a casual amateur is aware of these undercurrents are you seriously suggesting that those engaged in front line research are not aware of the changes? The Altenberg group is merely a subset of the ongoing debate. Please stop trying to burden it with mystical significance.
As for additional the peer review.......Müller G.B. 2007. EvoDevo: Extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8(12): 943-950.▪
Evolution – the Extended Synthesis (2010, together with Massimo Pigliucci)
Newman S.A. and G.B. Müller. 2000. Epigenetic mechanisms of character origination. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 288: 304-317.
THEMYAN, here are several disparate points addressing those you've raised.
1. You say you are not introducing personal issues here. That is false. The moment you introduce emotional constructs you have made it personal. I have advised you against this approach since it weakens your argument and diminishes the chance your argument will be listened to. You are free to disregard this advice.
2. You argue that you are passionate. Passionate is good, but when it spills over into snide potshots at people (no matter how anonymous) and ideas then, once again it is personal and likely to be counterproductive.
3. You mention that I will find many items that will support the new synthesis. I am sorry if I was not clear. I have been making, or at least contemplating, the same kind of arguments for four decades. I am well aware of many of the concepts. Hox genes were a revelation, evo-devo is hugely important, the role of epigenetics has not yet been properly addressed, and so on. But the research community is well aware of this. If a researcher in any of these fields quite comfortable fitting his major advances into the Modern Synthesis, then so what? How does that slow down progress. The Modern Synthesis was being revised from the time it came into being. As I noted earlier the discussion here is whether we consider the changes are now so great we should give it a new name.
4.Really. Please stop this now. You have offered no evidence for petty reasons. Indeed the reason you provided for the NCSE is perfectly sound and assuredly not petty. And I spoke directly to that point.My second point was the stifling of scientific progress by those who claim to adhere to the scientific method and for the petty reasons already mentioned. You spoke to none of this, and instead like many other knee jerk responses, you chose to attack the messenger instead of dealing with the issue at hand.
Nor, at any time have I attacked you. I have challenged your writing style in an effort to help you get your argument across more effectively.
Nor, was my response knee jerk. It was a carefully considered expression of my thoughts on this field, based upon decades of contemplation and a careful reading of your position on the matter. Please cease characterising my posts with emotional terms. You are free, indeed I encourage you, to point out factual errors, ambiguities, omissions and the like. Howver, it is presumptuous to assign motives to another's post as you have done here with the epithet "knee jerk".
TheMYAN there is a whole collection of peer reviews supporting the extended synthesis, you can find them here:
Talk:Extended evolutionary synthesis - RationalWiki
So far I have only seen 3 papers that criticise the extended synthesis and Jerry Coyne staunchly opposes it on his blog, but most other scientists are now supporting it, it seems.
Although they might not be on the same team, it is actually evo devo's and Intelligent design theorist that have been the most vocal dissenters of the the neo Darwinian synthesis. I would also like to believe that most other scientist are now supporting the extended synthesis, but unfortunately I doubt most scientist have even heard of the extended synthesis. I have spoke with many who call themselves college professores who accused me of making up the meet in Altenberg and have told me that if there was such a proposed extended synthesis, they would have already heard about it. I find this type of arrogance to be very sad. You said nothing about the NCSE and whether or not they made a change on their stance concerning self organization and the piss poor reason they used to disqualify it, i.e. (people may confuse self organization with intelligent design models) and as far as I know, they still maintain their initial statement. By the way, John Galt seems to view the NCSE reason, as a valid reason.
A couple of people it appears other than myself have brought this issue up on quite a few biology and science forums in the last few months. I have been reading an exchange of events here which took place in this discussion Had Evolution Moved Beyond Neo-Darwinism? - Hypography Science Forums it appears one of the users who responded even confused the "extended evolutionary synthesis" as a creationist idea (after he embarrassed himself it appears he didn't further reply). As I said on my post on this thread, I was suprised that nobody on this forum at all had even mentioned it before I started this thread. The word will get out eventually though. There will be more and more talk and publications about the extended synthesis in the next few years.I would also like to believe that most other scientist are now supporting the extended synthesis, but unfortunately I doubt most scientist have even heard of the extended synthesis.
I would also point out there is a group of scientists who take it even further than the extended synthesis, these scientists claim an entire new evolutionary synthesis needs to be built and is emerging as many parts of the neo-Darwinian synthesis are dead. Of course this is quite controversial and most of these scientists have been ignored as their words have been abused and exploited by the creationists.
The extended synthesis should not be put anywhere near the intelligent designers. Evolution is not in crisis, evolution is a fact, it's only the mechanisms that are still up for debate but no matter how many times you mention this to the creationists/Ider's they still insist evolution is falling to pieces due to the extended synthesis. I have recently read quite a few papers which have said that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is dead and as I said these papers are controversial on one hand we have creationists exploiting these papers and on the other we have neo-Darwinists refusing to even look at them. It is just a matter of time before many of these people will have to accept that there is an alternative which is based on neither creationism or neo-Darwinism.
The NCSE do a good job of debunking religious creationism. They have also embraced the extended synthesis (see some of the reviews on their website). I am not sure why the NCSE seems to think self-organization will be confused with intelligent design. Self-organization pretty much refutes intelligent design so I am not sure why they do not discuss it on their website. I have seen some criticism of self-organization saying that it is "anti-Darwinian" so they may of confused it with intelligent design by mistake.I find this type of arrogance to be very sad. You said nothing about the NCSE and whether or not they made a change on their stance concerning self organization and the piss poor reason they used to disqualify it, i.e. (people may confuse self organization with intelligent design models) and as far as I know, they still maintain their initial statement.
As another user said, it's still early days and we need a few more years to see what will happen. I have seen more papers support the extended synthesis than oppose so I think that is a good sign. Yes there are certain individuals who do not want evolution to expand, they seem to think mutation, some drift and natural selection has nailed it but these people are not real scientists, I have discovered they are people who just sit online all day debating creationists and they have not educated themselves about the recent discoveries in biology. The NCSE have supported the extended synthesis but they have not written much on it. You can see a supportive review though by Anya Plutynski for the National Center for Science Education in which she wrote "Anyone interested in becoming aware of both what we know now and what theoretical advances may come from this new data for evolutionary theory should take a look through Pigliucci and Müller’s superb collection."I cited the NCSE as well as others, and there are also many in NAS as well, who feel that the modern synthesis is sufficient explanation, and that it is within this framework of natural selection and random mutation being the main mechanisms of evolutionary theory that all the other answers will eventually fall into place someday. These are the people who are holding back science by not supporting the extended synthesis, not me.
Actually, a proposed extended synthesis goes back farther than just 2008. I know there was at least one meeting ten years earlier. I uploaded Susan Mazur's interview with evo devo biologist Stuart Newman who was a main player at Altenberg. If we indeed did evolve from preCambrian sponges or prokaryote bacteria, one thing is now certain. It had nothing to do with the outdated paradigm of neo Darwinism. Yes Darwin could explain how Finch beaks could change over time through natural selection, (and sometimes even reverting back to the original shape) but what neither Darwin or the modern neo Darwinian synthesis can or could do, is explain macro evolution. This is now exceedingly clear, and this is why school books need to be updated. As even the atheist evo devo Stuart Newman has said.... "people have been told to accept things that are simply not true" I.e. we have been lied too for many years. The video I cited earlier can be googled and is entitled...... 'Will the real Theory of Evolution Please Stand up?"
Actually, a proposed extended synthesis goes back farther than just 2008. I know there was at least one meeting ten years earlier. I uploaded Susan Mazur's interview with evo devo biologist Stuart Newman who was a main player at Altenberg. If we indeed did evolve from preCambrian sponges or prokaryote bacteria, one thing is now certain. It had nothing to do with the outdated paradigm of neo Darwinism. Yes Darwin could explain how Finch beaks could change over time through natural selection, (and sometimes even reverting back to the original shape) but what neither Darwin or the modern neo Darwinian synthesis can or could do, is explain macro evolution. This is now exceedingly clear, and this is why school books need to be updated. As even the atheist evo devo Stuart Newman has said.... "people have been told to accept things that are simply not true" I.e. we have been lied too for many years. The video I cited earlier can be googled and is entitled...... 'Will the real Theory of Evolution Please Stand up?"
Yes I agree, there have been some proposed ideas for an extended synthesis much before, I should of mentioned this. Stephen Gould wrote two articles Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? (1980) and Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory (1982). Niles Eldredge also called for an extended synthesis in his book Unfinished Synthesis: Biological Hierarchies and Modern Evolutionary Thought (1985). In 2003 Brian K. Hall, Roy D. Pearson Gerd B. Müller wrote an evo-devo book which called for an extended synthesis titled Environment, Development, and Evolution: Toward a Synthesis. You don't hear much about these books and publications.
Evolution - the Extended Synthesis by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller however has had much more publicity and many scientists have read it. It is very interesting that you mention Stuart Newman becuase I just checked my email and noticed I have been put into a joint email discussion with him and he and some other scientists are working on book which goes beyond natural selection and calls for an extended synthesis and it will be released in 2013 I think.
If Eugenie Scott as a director and representative of the NCSE has changed her mind and now supports this extended synthesis which incorporates the same self organization models that she said initially she would not support, then I have not heard of it yet. If you actually read carefully, the article you cited starts off by saying.....According to reviewer Anya Plutynski. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know Plutynski is not an official member of the NCSE. And Plutynski according to the NCSE, goes on to say when speaking of the book you cited by MIT press, (which by the way was not even fact checked by MIT)...."Scientists disagree about many things, and any disagreement among evolutionary biolo- gists, especially involving claims to the effect that “tenets” of evolutionary theory are being challenged, is all too often taken to imply that evolutionary biology is “in trouble,” and this makes for big headlines. The truth is, perhaps, rather more mundane. Pigliucci and Müller, and the contributors to this volume, do not intend to challenge the fact of common descent, or evolution by natural selection as one of several
mechanisms of descent"
However Newman who was also present at Altenberg does indeed challenge the limitations of many of the major tenants of the modern synthesis including the limits of natural selection. Pigliucci obviously does not speak for everyone who was there. Secondly, in the minutes of the meeting the following memo was put forth when speaking of "assumptions of the modern synthesis"....."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" These are all constructs that are either being challenged, reformulated or at least questioned. In fact in the past Pigliucci has not been married to the concept of common ancestry, as in one common ancestor for all living things and has questioned it himself. The only honest review I have seen so far is from Suzan Mazur, and she has taken a lot of heat for not towing the line.
Here is something I posted on another forum that sums up my view on the matter:
What we call something is, or at least should be, less important than what it is. Our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms is still far from complete and not fully integrated. Large steps have been taken over a century and a half. Is it important to mark those steps? Important, but not necessarily essential.
Darwin's idea was accepted with suprising alacrity by the scientific community, supporting the claim by some that it was an idea whose time had come. (And Wallace served to offer confirmation to that notion.) Yet by the turn of the century Darwinism was all but dead as people gravitated to mutation and the concepts of Mendel rediscovered by Bateman, de Vries and Corren. When the two were fused in the 1930s and 40s did the resultant concept merit a new name? One could hardly call it Haldane/Huxley/Dhobzhanksy/Fisher/Simpson/Stebbins/Wright/Mayrism, so the Modern Synthesis was born.
And now, more than half a century later, we've learnt even more about the mechanisms and processes, so much more that some people think a new name is in order. Is it?
I said at the outset that what we call something is, or at least should be, less important than what it is. But is this true? Darwin may have been the right man in the right place at the right time, but he ignited a revolution that is arguably of greater scientific importance than any other. His handful of principles still lie at the heart of evolutionary thought, so my view is simple. Let's just call the current hypothesis and those that will develop in future, Darwinism. Direct, concise, effective.
And it has the secondary advantage that it will piss off the creationists.
You may be getting confused about the extended synthesis. No scientist is going to challenge the fact of common descent and those associated with the extended synthesis are not denying natural selection.The truth is, perhaps, rather more mundane. Pigliucci and Müller, and the contributors to this volume, do not intend to challenge the fact of common descent, or evolution by natural selection as one of several mechanisms of descent"
Pigliucci as you have mentioned does not speak for everyone at the Altenberg. Eva Jablonka is another scientist who attended the Altenberg meeting yet has many views that Pigliucci does not agree with. Jablonka for example believes neo-Lamackism is a reality (Pigliucci has denied this on his blog). You have to remember the Altenberg meeting was made up of 16 scientists and not all of them will agree with everything.However Newman who was also present at Altenberg does indeed challenge the limitations of many of the major tenants of the modern synthesis including the limits of natural selection
Suzan Mazur has sadly misrepresented the Altenberg 16 meeting but I believe she did a good job of documenting many of the recent "non-Darwinian" scientists. What Mazur has done is confuse non-Darwinian evolution with the extended synthesis.The only honest review I have seen so far is from Suzan Mazur, and she has taken a lot of heat for not towing the line.
It has all been explained on these articles:
Altenberg 16 controversy - RationalWiki
Non-Darwinian evolution - RationalWiki
None of the scientists from the original Altenberg 16 meeting were "non-Darwinians" (I am not sure about Newman). What Susan Mazur did was confuse non-Darwinian evolution with the extended synthesis. For example Mazur includes in her book non-Darwinians such as Jerry Fodor, Lima-de-Faria, Lynn Margulis and Stuart Pivar but none of these were anything to do with the Altenberg 16 meeting.Over the past decade, new conceptions of evolutionary theory have emerged going under the umbrella term of the "Extended Synthesis," which is intended to modify the existing Modern Synthesis. This proposed extended synthesis incorporates many of the mechanisms listed by Shapiro as well as others including niche construction and epigenetics. Its proponents include Massimo Pigliucci, Gerd Müller, and Eva Jablonka. In 2008 sixteen scientists met at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria to propose an extended synthesis. Creationists and intelligent design advocates have misunderstood and distorted the events of this meeting (see Altenberg 16 controversy) by claiming the scientists involved with the extended synthesis are "anti-Darwinian". Massimo Pigliucci has explained that the extended synthesis is not "anti-Darwinian" (Pigliucci and Müller, 2010). Non-Darwinian evolution should not be confused with the extended synthesis.
So users such as John Galt who describe themselves as "Darwinists" or evolution as "Darwinism" would have no problem with the extended synthesis of Pigliucci et al becuase it is not replacing neo-Darwinism it is just calling for an extension. The extended synthesis is not as controversial as it first looks, it has only become controversial becuase some people have confused with it non-Darwinian evolution and becuase some creationists have lied and misrepresented the entire thing.
October 11th, 2012, 10:42 AM
Can we move this thread to the biology section, so perhaps we can get some further opinions from other scientists on this forum?
Your response is filled with inconsistencies and half truths. Yes it is true that Darwin's "idea" was accepted by many. In fact Dawkins once wrote about how when he heard of Darwin's theory it allowed him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, and I'm sure that at least many of that time felt the same. Again for atheist, this was and is the most important idea, and not because of any compelling scientific evidence, as there was already compelling evidence that actually refuted many of Darwins claims and notions. Unfortunately even then, by many it was already falsely regarded as a theory, yet again was still only an idea.
It is not big secret that classical Darwinism was unable to pass the test of science even by 1930's standards, and this often parroted revisionist history of Mendel which you speak of is used in a away to defer from the real story. Mendel did not agree with Darwin, and he made this clear. Unfortunately by the time his work was synthesized into neo Darwinism/the modern synthesis, he had been dead for decades. The real truth was that Mendel was ignored. He spoke at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia in 1865 and even sent out copies of his work to anyone willing to read them but without success.
No one wanted to give credence to a Christian monk who did not agree with Darwin's new popular idea, even though he had empirical scientific evidence on his side. This alone cost us at least fifty years of stasis in this area when we could have been researching and building on Mendel's laws, and be rest assured that it is Mendel who is considered the father of modern genetics, and not Darwin. Even by that time, Darwin's attempt to explain a law of hereditary through what he called pangenesis was already known to be a failure and profound misunderstanding of how heredity works. Modern empirical science itself has shown us that the current synthesis is not only incohesive, but extremely limited, i.e. the theory you claim is so "Direct, concise, effective" is no longer considered a valid theoretical frame work for evolutionary theory, and surprisingly enough, after creationist and ID'ers, the most vocal against the current theory, again being the neo Darwinian synthesis/modern synthesis are actually evo devo/evolutionary development biologist.
These are the biologist who actually specialize in field of evolution, and again I already cited video of interview with the great Stuart Newman who also represents many other high level scientist from around the globe and who was one of the attendees of the Altenberg meeting. This is an atheist and a person who still believes that we evolved, but is honest enough to admit that the theory as it stands is insufficient to explain life. He goes on to question the limitations of natural selection and many other major tenants of the current theory. He also admits that many scientist use silly hand waving arguments, and that the general public has been lied too.
He blames a lot of distrust and misunderstanding on his own neo Darwinian colleagues. He and the people he represents, as well as all the other attendees, officially proposed an extended synthesis. Keep in mind this is in many ways a bottom up and not just a top down approach, i.e. Its not simply a building of new data on to a solid foundation, but again in many ways a reformulation of the foundation itself and not just an extended version. I already cited peer review article that speak of the fact that the modern synthesis has crumbled in light of 21 century science and I can cite more if you wish. In the end, the current theory is filled with holes and false predictions. Its last failed prediction was highlighted by the demise and Eulogy given to the the junk DNA paradigm by ENCODE two weeks ago.
TheMyan the whole thing is filled with many different opinions, but this is what science is about, this is the way science progresses. We have Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd Müller et all who are calling for an extended synthesis whilst Jerry Coyne opposes such an idea and believes neo-Darwinism is complete. Then on the complete opposite other side we have scientists like James A. Shapiro or Eugene Koonin who have written the entire foundations of the neo-Darwinian synthesis are dead.
Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475 and Eugene Koonin, Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics, Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034 says for example:
In the post-genomic era, all the major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolutionThe 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, namely 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.So which scientists are correct? Group 1. Orthodox neo-Darwinism (Coyne, PZ Myers, Dawkins et al) Group 2. The extended synthesis (Massimo Pigliucci, Gerd Müller, and Eva Jablonka et al) or Group 3. Non-Darwinian evolution (James Shapiro, Lynn Margulis, Stanley Salthe et al).The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair
I will go with group 3, though many users such as Flick Montana, John Galt or Kalster would disagree with me and probably go with group 1. The truth is evolution is a fact but the mechanisms are all down to different interpretations and I don't ever think there will be a unified consensus on it. There have always been critics and dissenters from neo-Darwinism. But as this thread has shown the extended synthesis is not about criticising neo-Darwinism it just extending certain parts of it. Unfortunately you can't admit this in public as you will be accused of giving ammo to creationists etc. In reality of course none of this has anything to do with creationism it is about trying to improve our knowledge about evolution.
Sure...its been a reasonably good discussion so far.Can we move this thread to the biology section, so perhaps we can get some further opinions from other scientists on this forum?
Why shouldn't the public be made aware of these facts? Again, Eugenie Scott initially stated that the very influential NCSE does not support theories that include self organization models because the public might confuse self organization with Intelligent Design. In my opinion this is a piss poor reason to not support a supposed advancement in science. Why shouldn't kids be told the truth? If they can comprehend mathematics which can be as abstract as calculus or trigonometry then they should be able to handle the truth. The fact is, till this day and hour, they are still spoon fed this outdated neo Darwinian paradigm, and when people insist that the textbooks need to be updated they are accused of wanting to usher in mandatory school prayer and state theocracy. In this hostility (to anything that is not neo Darwinism) environment, who is it that is stifling scientific progress? Again to go on pretending that feeding un-enlightened information to the public is simply just the sacrifice we make in order to not give creationists and ID'ers talking points is simply absurd, and that is putting it very mildly. I have corresponded with many of the names you cited and more than once. I felt that some were reasonable while others were not, and used the same silly straw-man arguments that are typically found on the web. I remember right before she died and in light of current data, Lynn Margulis took some heat for asking.... 'if we really actually knew what a gene was?' Now I find many others asking the same question.
The classical Darwinian crowd initially ignored Mendel in spite of the fact that he had empirical evidence behind him, and this set us back at least fifty years. The neo Darwinian crowd also ignored and even ridiculed Barbera Mcclintock's work on transposons and maize studies for decades, and like Mendel she wasn't redeemed until decades later when she was finally honored and even given a Noble Prize for her work. That was another 30 years down the drain when instead of ignoring work that went against the grain, we could have used that same time to do further research on what later became known by many as so called junk DNA. Fortunately during the seventies and later during the nineties there were a brave few who did question this junk DNA paradigme, yet again their work was largely ignored by the neo Darwinian status quo who felt that the paradigm of junk DNA could better be served as a poster child for bad design. People like Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins were using it in this same way, saying how from a design perspective it was nonsensical, i.e. what kind of intelligent designer would create a bunch of mindless repetitive scribble? <but from an evolutionary perspective, useless vestigial junk DNA made better sense and was indeed a prediction of evolutionary biology, (not really, but this is what we were told for many decades. Again ENCODE just eulogized the junk DNA paradigm when over thirty recently released papers confirmed that even if not fully understood yet, at least 80% of our genome has bio chemical function including millions of switches which regulate gene function etc. It turns out this is not the useless dead weight we were once spoon fed to believe. John Mattick stated...."the failure to recognize the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology" Even evo friendly WIKIPEDIA stated that this paradigm slowed down scientific research. (paraphrased), when we could have been doing what ENCODE is doing now, and that is making up for lost time. When ENCODE released its finding, some of the names you cited went on seek and destroy missions trying to ridicule and marginalize them for making this public. Some were even accused of being creationist, lol. With all this said, I believe the neo Darwinian mindset has actually cost us almost a hundred years in scientific progress and I say that not taking away anything from the great minds of the last few centuries that have advanced the sciences. In fact we stand on the shoulders of many giants, and I have no problem including those who did not share my personal beliefs since again it is science that we speak of.
Last edited by THEMYAN; October 11th, 2012 at 04:58 PM.
Themyan, your claim that my recent post was full of inconsistencies and half truths is met with a series of strawman attacks in which you carefully ignore what I said, place words in my mouth with which I do not agree, then attack these. I have little time for such contentious and cynical debating techniques. I stand by every word and every nuance of my post #24, the executive summary of which is "You are mistaken."
The public should be made aware of these facts but at the moment most members of the public are not aware about any of it. Think about the average person of the street they might know what natural selection is but have probably never heard of the modern synthesis, let alone the extended synthesis or non-Darwinian evolution.Why shouldn't the public be made aware of these facts? Again, Eugenie Scott initially stated that the very influential NCSE does not support theories that include self organization models because the public might confuse self organization with Intelligent Design.
Most of the public have been brought up to equate Darwin with evolution, so if it gets out that some of Darwin's ideas are wrong then it will be accused of giving ammo to the creationists and that is problem. People need to understand that evolution is a fact whilst Darwinism is only a theory, evolution is not Darwinism it is just an interpretation of evolution via specific mechanisms. This has all been mentioned a million times before in books and publications so there is no need to go over old ground but let me just add a couple of years ago there was an article in the NewScientist Magazine called "Darwin was wrong", both Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne objected the the title of the name saying it is giving ammo to the creationists. This as explained is the problem. I believe like many of the other recent scientists who I have cited that Darwinism has held back science and it is time to move beyond that framework.
The NCSE does a good job at debunking religious creationism, but are they the best website to get recent news about evolution from? Are we really meant to go to that website to learn about evolution? Not really... don't get me wrong they have done some ok book reviews but it isn't a website to learn about evolution.
I do not know much currently about self-organization but did manage to find this paper:
The uniqueness of biological self-organization: challenging the Darwinian paradigm
J. B. Edelmann and M. J. Denton
http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/p...ation.2007.pdfAbstract: Here we discuss the challenge posed by self-organization to the Darwinian conception of evolution. As we point out, natural selection can only be the major creative agency in evolution if all or most of the adaptive complexity manifest in living organisms is built up over many generations by the cumulative selection of naturally occurring small, random mutations or variants, i.e., additive, incremental steps over an extended period of time. Biological self-organization-witnessed classically in the folding of a protein, or in the formation of the cell membrane-is a fundamentally different means of generating complexity. We agree that self-organizing systems may be fine-tuned by selection and that self-organization may be therefore considered a complementary mechanism to natural selection as a causal agency in the evolution of life. But we argue that if self-organization proves to be a common mechanism for the generation of adaptive order from the molecular to the organismic level, then this will greatly undermine the Darwinian claim that natural selection is the major creative agency in evolution. We also point out that although complex self-organizing systems are easy to create in the electronic realm of cellular automata, to date translating in silico simulations into real material structures that self-organize into complex forms from local interactions between their constituents has not proved easy. This suggests that self-organizing systems analogous to those utilized by biological systems are at least rare and may indeed represent, as pre-Darwinists believed, a unique ascending hierarchy of natural forms. Such a unique adaptive hierarchy would pose another major challenge to the current Darwinian view of evolution, as it would mean the basic forms of life are necessary features of the order of nature and that the major pathways of evolution are determined by physical law, or more specifically by the self-organizing properties of biomatter, rather than natural selection.
This is a public forum. Posted to by members of the public. Read by members of the public. I think we can assume that any member of the public can be aware of this (if they care).
It's only a problem to those who are more concerned with PR and politics than science and truth. Everyone has access to the same information and to use hand waive arguments to the general public is what Newman calls one of the biggest problems, and one that undermines science and the publics trust. To say that evolution is a fact is also a tricky term. No one including the most narrow minded creationist believes that natural selection does not have its place. Everyone believes in some kind of evolutionary process, especially if defined by changes in allele frequencies, but to say that that macro evolution is a fact, is simply false. This requires assumptions and extrapolations and again the term "assumptions of the modern synthesis" is a valid term and can be found in the science literature. There is a big difference between at least some evidence that supports that all major animal groups had a common ancestor but its another thing to assume that because of this, prokaryote to man evolution is a fact. Even Darwin understood that certain facts such as the Cambrian record was an obstacle to this theory and did not show this slow gradual incremental stages of descent with modification from prokaryotes life forms to eukaryotic life forms, and he and later others could only infer and without evidence that they were descendant of prokaryotes. <br>We in fact see very complex creatures already in their own classification and taxa already highly specialized from the fist appearance of eukaryotic life. However, Darwin did do some great work. Again he showed how Finch beaks could vary from island to island through natural selection, but could only speculate on how finches or any other organism got here in the first place. I dont blame Darwin for others attempting to deify him as some kind of savior to the atheist mindset, and where even members of the NAS sang him a birthday song with a birthday cake and praised and glorified him while giving their own personel testimonials to what Darwin means in there life, and doing so as if he were standing there in the same room with them (which by the way I felt was a little freaky). I neither blame him for the Clergy Letter Project which U. Scott was the brain child of and its attempts to convince the clergy to accept and to teach its church members that evolution is an unguided process with no need for a creator as well as asking them to set aside a day of praise to honor Darwin on his birthday. Keep in mind this is the same project which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Zimmerman_(biologist)" target="_blank">Michael Zimmerman</a> directs and the NCSE fully support, and the same organization that ridiculed ID theorist for (in their words) trying to bring religion into science. Talk about a dual standard. <br><br>As for self organization models. Self organization, epigenetic, soft inheritance, non gene centrism or gene placidity among others, are some of the main components of the extended synthesis.<br><br>
http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/p...ation.2007.pdf[/QUOTE]
Let me agin clarify my last post. I made the distinction between common ancestry of major animal groups and universal common ancestry, i.e. prokaryote to man. Thanks for the citations.
THEMYANTo say that evolution is a fact is also a tricky term. No one including the most narrow minded creationist believes that natural selection does not have its place. Everyone believes in some kind of evolutionary process, especially if defined by changes in allele frequencies, but to say that that macro evolution is a fact, is simply false. This requires assumptions and extrapolations and again the term assumptionsI think you have now exposed yourself. I was very pleased with some of the stuff you were writing before but I was a tad suspicious when you mentioned atheism before on this thread but now I think you come out and expressed your true self on all of this.
It's clear you are a creationist/IDer who is exploiting the extended synthesis/non-Darwinian evolution ideas into an agenda of making out evolution is in crisis. Sorry but scientists do not question macroevolution. Are you Shaun Johnton? He is a Christian creationist who posted on this forum a while back who pretended to be "non-Darwinian evolutionist" but then published articles denying common descent and supporting intelligent design. If you want evolution to evolve and for evolution to move forwards and for more people to look into an extension/revision or replacement of the modern synthesis then creationism is not the way to do it. It seems the latest trend of the Ider's is to highjack and misrepresent the extended synthesis for their own agenda. Not good and it is really annoying!
I have never misrepresented the extended synthesis and if you feel I have then please supply the smoking gun quote and do so in context.THEMYANTo say that evolution is a fact is also a tricky term. No one including the most narrow minded creationist believes that natural selection does not have its place. Everyone believes in some kind of evolutionary process, especially if defined by changes in allele frequencies, but to say that that macro evolution is a fact, is simply false. This requires assumptions and extrapolations and again the term assumptions
It's clear you are a creationist/IDer who is exploiting the extended synthesis/non-Darwinian evolution ideas into an agenda of making out evolution is in crisis. Sorry but scientists do not question macroevolution. Are you Shaun Johnton? He is a Christian creationist who posted on this forum a while back who pretended to be "non-Darwinian evolutionist" but then published articles denying common descent and supporting intelligent design. If you want evolution to evolve and for evolution to move forwards and for more people to look into an extension/revision or replacement of the modern synthesis then creationism is not the way to do it. It seems the latest trend of the Ider's is to highjack and misrepresent the extended synthesis for their own agenda. Not good and it is really annoying!
As for your statement that I "Exposed myself"? I think it is you has made my point for me in that anyone who criticizes neo Darwinism has a religious agenda, yet let me go on record as saying that not only should creationism not be taught in science class, but that it is not even biblically sound. Religion is completely a personal choice and should not be an academic obligation. I never claimed to be an atheist or a neo Darwinist, although for years I also believed that anyone who questioned Darwinian evolution was not very sophisticated because like many others today, I just followed the crowed and did and beleived what I was told without question. I felt that if a designer wanted too, he, she or it could chose any method of creation he, she or it desired, including evolution, and still do, (yet there still seems to be a lack of empirical evidence) but when I started researching the subject in depth many years ago I found that what I was taught in school and later in the public press, including popular science magazines was simply false. This is why I now have on file a collection of peer review data that refutes many of the major dogmas and axioms we have been spoon fed for years. I believe that Intelligent Design is not the same as biblical creationism and is indeed a viable alternative theory with an even stronger prediction criteria record than the modern synthesis. I also brought up many other instances of data and theories that were once written off only to be found true many years later. 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. In science we should let the chips fall were they may in spite of the theological implications or lack of them. My compromise is that people should simply be told the truth as to where we are right now in the field of evolutionary biology instead of being concerned with appeasing and giving talking points those we dont agree with as in your case. Your basic problem is that you dont want creationist to catch evolutionist with their pants down by having to admit that they may have been wrong. In my opinion this is what is really being sneaky and as along as you adhere to this position, please dont try to accuse or imply that I'm being the sneaky one!
October 11th, 2012, 08:32 PM
You are denying macroevolution, and claiming it is based on assumption that is a creationist claim.I have never misrepresented the extended synthesis and if you feel I have then please supply the smoking gun quote and do so in context.
No, many scientists who have criticised neo-Darwinian have no religious agenda at all, but when you start questioning macroevolution or common descent like you have done in this thread that is not what the neo-Darwinism the extended synthesis or non-Darwinian evolution is about, that is creationism.As for your statement that I "Exposed myself"? I think it is you has made my point for me in that anyone who criticizes neo Darwinism has a religious agenda
Theres no lack of empirical evidence. Theres shrouds of empirical evidence for evolution.(yet there still seems to be a lack of empirical evidence)
!!!!!!!!!I believe that Intelligent Design is not the same as biblical creationism and is indeed a viable alternative theory with an even stronger prediction criteria record than the modern synthesis.
thanks for coming out of the box, you are just another intelligent designer exploiting and misrepresenting the extended synthesis for your own religious agenda.I also brought up many other instances of data and theories that were once written off only to be found true many years later. 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.
no my problem is with creationists such as yourself exploiting and lieing and misrepresenting the extended synthesis. MODS?? any comments on this?? Myan i think you should be banned for what you are doing! no wonder the extended synthesis never gets anywhere, its highjacked and ruined every corner by Ider's. Im real pissed off about this.Your basic problem is that you dont want creationist to catch evolutionist with their pants down by having to admit that they may have been wrong.
I refer you back to my two earlier posts. My disquiet with Themyan's approach is, I think, obvious. However, I am quite happy to allow him to continue demonstrating his cynical and unethical behaviour. It should be educational for others. You may wish to consider reporting one of his posts to draw this to the attention of others in the admin/mod team.
I am trying to work out his real identity, he says he has ID publications out, that he is a secular theorist who questions macroevolution and that he doesn't get on with all of the other creationists. The only guy who comes to mind is Michael Denton, but I don't think it is Denton becuase Denton does not troll forums and get banned like this user admitted to have been on blogs and forums. The other possibility is probably David Swift as the writing style is similar to his blog. He is the author of the following book: Evolution Under the Microscope: A Scientific Critique of the Theory of Evolution - RationalWikiI refer you back to my two earlier posts. My disquiet with Themyan's approach is, I think, obvious. However, I am quite happy to allow him to continue demonstrating his cynical and unethical behaviour. It should be educational for others. You may wish to consider reporting one of his posts to draw this to the attention of others in the admin/mod team.
I retract my previous comment about bans and I only said that becuase it is annoying to see yet again another creationist misrepresent the extended synthesis.
After that comment calling people evolutionist whilst creationists catching them out for being wrong, you can see he is a creationist and anti-evolution.Your basic problem is that you dont want creationist to catch evolutionist with their pants down by having to admit that they may have been wrong.
It will be interesting to observe what Myan has to say and perhaps he can reveal his real identity and his apparent publications on ID which have overturned evolution. Perhaps he can also explain why he exploites the extended synthesis banner in an attempt to try and make out evolution is in crisis, for someone who believes in an intelligent designer isn't this a dishonest thing to do? What does his intelligent designer think about this kind of behavior? I don't think I will post anymore on this thread but it will be interesting to see how it plays out and if any other users have other comments. Thanks.
You are denying macroevolution, and claiming it is based on assumption that is a creationist claim.I have never misrepresented the extended synthesis and if you feel I have then please supply the smoking gun quote and do so in context.
No, many scientists who have criticised neo-Darwinian have no religious agenda at all, but when you start questioning macroevolution or common descent like you have done in this thread that is not what the neo-Darwinism the extended synthesis or non-Darwinian evolution is about, that is creationism.As for your statement that I "Exposed myself"? I think it is you has made my point for me in that anyone who criticizes neo Darwinism has a religious agenda
Theres no lack of empirical evidence. Theres shrouds of empirical evidence for evolution.(yet there still seems to be a lack of empirical evidence)
!!!!!!!!!I believe that Intelligent Design is not the same as biblical creationism and is indeed a viable alternative theory with an even stronger prediction criteria record than the modern synthesis.
thanks for coming out of the box, you are just another intelligent designer exploiting and misrepresenting the extended synthesis for your own religious agenda.I also brought up many other instances of data and theories that were once written off only to be found true many years later. 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.
no my problem is with creationists such as yourself exploiting and lieing and misrepresenting the extended synthesis. MODS?? any comments on this?? Myan i think you should be banned for what you are doing! no wonder the extended synthesis never gets anywhere, its highjacked and ruined every corner by Ider's. Im real pissed off about this.Your basic problem is that you dont want creationist to catch evolutionist with their pants down by having to admit that they may have been wrong.
As I said before, the term "the assumptions of the modern synthesis" is a valid scientific term, in fact I believe you also commented favorably on paper that I cited which also uses this terminology below……
The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis
Michael R Rose1* and Todd H Oakley2
"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" End
As for the current theory not being able to provide a cohesive theoretical framework, again, this is not only a creationist claim, but a claim of many non creationist also. The fact that certain criticisms overlap is no fault of creationist, ID'ers or evolutionary biologist. Yes Im sure that all this dissent and disagreement among evolutionist does appease creationist and ID'ers, but so what? Is this how petty we have become? Do you think pretending that it doesn't exist and or hoping that no one really notices while we quietly slip in this extended synthesis is any less sneaky?
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.
In a college lecture entitled "Do we need a new theory of Evolution" (which you can google) in where a vote is taken among a class full of biology majors and biologist as to whether we need an extended synthesis or not, in where the speaker also speaks of the assumptions of the modern synthesis and includes "macro evolution" as one of those assumptions. 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. Even the most glorious axioms in evolutionary biology in terms of universals common ancestry are based on assumptions.
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. You should be able to question anything in science including macro evolution without being accused of being a scientific heretic. There is no rule in science that you cannot question anything, and who ever told you there was, was lying to you. Secondly I merely stated that macro evolution was an assumption, but I also said that I did and still don't rule out macro evolution. I only said that there was not enough empirical evidence to support it as a fact. If you believe that ID is the same as creationism, this is no fault of mine.
There are many scientist who understand the differences between biblical creationism and ID including atheist philosophers like Bradley Monton and Thomas Nagel who also support ID as an alternative theory. Many former neo Darwinist scientist and or scholars such as the late Anthony Flew who hated creationism finally came to understand this, and became a supporter of ID after he actually took the time to research the subject. This seems to be where you and I differ. I have taken the time to analyze research and correspond with those on both sides, and not just one side. In fact as I said before, I have had my own differences with certain others who also believed in ID and others who were staunch creationist. As for coming out of the box. I never entered a box. So I don't know what your talking about. I use the same name on all these forums. I have nothing to hide. The only problem was that I accidentally left out the letter A when I registered for this cite. The name should read THEMAYAN. I chose that name because it is my ancestry. As for pretending that I'm interested in neo Darwinsm. The fact is, I am very interested in the subject. Why should I have to pretend that I'm not? 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? Or do you feel that it cannot be a rational conversation unless I agree with everything you say?
Again please tell me how am I misrepresenting the facts concerning the modern synthesis or the extended synthesis. Please provide detailed answer. And please don't use the old Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman argument, and keep in mind, it was you who decided to personalize this discussion not me. I was happy simply discussing the subject at hand as well as all of the dynamics involved. It was you who spoke of not wanting to appease the creationist long before I ever mentioned the word atheism in the context that at least some have tried to deify Darwin.
Last edited by THEMYAN; October 12th, 2012 at 01:15 AM.
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? And why are you so concerned with my personel identity when real name is not required on this forum?I am trying to work out his real identity, he says he has ID publications out, that he is a secular theorist who questions macroevolution and that he doesn't get on with all of the other creationists. The only guy who comes to mind is Michael Denton, but I don't think it is Denton becuase Denton does not troll forums and get banned like this user admitted to have been on blogs and forums. The other possibility is probably David Swift as the writing style is similar to his blog. He is the author of the following book: Evolution Under the Microscope: A Scientific Critique of the Theory of Evolution - RationalWikiI refer you back to my two earlier posts. My disquiet with Themyan's approach is, I think, obvious. However, I am quite happy to allow him to continue demonstrating his cynical and unethical behaviour. It should be educational for others. You may wish to consider reporting one of his posts to draw this to the attention of others in the admin/mod team.
I retract my previous comment about bans and I only said that becuase it is annoying to see yet again another creationist misrepresent the extended synthesis.
After that comment calling people evolutionist whilst creationists catching them out for being wrong, you can see he is a creationist and anti-evolution.Your basic problem is that you dont want creationist to catch evolutionist with their pants down by having to admit that they may have been wrong.
It will be interesting to observe what Myan has to say and perhaps he can reveal his real identity and his apparent publications on ID which have overturned evolution. Perhaps he can also explain why he exploites the extended synthesis banner in an attempt to try and make out evolution is in crisis, for someone who believes in an intelligent designer isn't this a dishonest thing to do? What does his intelligent designer think about this kind of behavior? I don't think I will post anymore on this thread but it will be interesting to see how it plays out and if any other users have other comments. Thanks.
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."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" End
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.
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.Yes Im sure that all this dissent and disagreement among evolutionist does appease creationist and ID'ers, but so what?
Please give a cituation for this, looks like creationist quote mining to me and taken out of context.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Again please tell me how am I misrepresenting the facts concerning the modern synthesis or the extended synthesis.
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.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?
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?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.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.
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.
Evolutionary biology in crisis? Really!
Oh, you mean there are uncertainties as to the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. That new mechanisms of evolution have been recognised in the last few decades. That scientists have fallen into conflicting camps debating the significance of these issues. That there still remain serious gaps in our understanding of precisely how any of the evolutionary mechanisms work. That some scientists hold extreme views that reject much of the accepted wisdom. That the accepted wisdom has changed significantly over the last century. That some 'heretics' had to fight for decades to have their evolutionary ideas accepted.
I see. So what you are saying is not that evolutionary biology is in crisis, but that evolutionary biology is a science. Well, it's true, but I think most of us already knew that.
I never claimed that the articles cited were written by people who refuted evolution. I was giving you examples of evolutionist themselves who were honest enough to point out the fact that many of the assumptions of the modern synthesis have been crumbling in light of 21 century data and openly asking the question as to what the future evolutionary framework will be, since no one seems to know yet. I'm not sure why you say that I cannot provide names of scientist who do not support macro evolution since you never asked me to cite them. Would you like me too? and if I did, would it make a difference? I'm sure that if I met that goal post (as I can easily do, you will just change the goal post again. It is actually you that cant seem to answer the simple questions I put forth. This is very typical in that many want answers to all questions asked even if not yet even asked, yet fail to answer questions asked of them. In addition I can aslo cite many peered review articles as published in respected science journals written by ID theorist as well as examples of ID being mentioned favorably by others in their own peer review work.
1. What questions do you want me to answer.many want answers to all questions asked even if not yet even asked, yet fail to answer questions asked of them.
2. Will you answer the central question implicit in my last post.
Quoting out of context is called quote mining. If you read carefully, I was clearly speaking of my "collection of peer review" articles, (as articles in my possession) I did not claim that I wrote them as can be seen below in the entire quote, and in proper context...........
"This is why I now have on file a collection of peer review data that refutes many of the major dogmas and axioms we have been spoon fed for years. I believe that Intelligent Design is not the same as biblical creationism and is indeed a viable alternative theory with an even stronger prediction criteria record than the modern synthesis. I also brought up many other instances of data and theories that were once written off only to be found true many years later. I also have several articles published by ID theorist in respected science journals" Again if you actually read the words even without using the first sentence as a caveat, I was clearly speaking of articles.... "published by ID theorist in respected science journals" I did not say I have published articles in respected science journals. And I have never been blocked from any forum. I was speaking of narrow minded people on their personal blogs including both creationist and Darwinist.
TheMyan, your posts are easily found on any internet search engine under the name of THEMAYAN. I just read quite a few of your posts and noted you have posted on the Christian creationist forum called Carm. Many of your posts are totally anti-evolution, it is clear you have no interest at all in accepting any evidence for evolution due to your religious creationist beliefs.
There are no scientists who deny macroevolution, only creationists deny it. If you had evidence of scientists denying macroevolution you would of listed it by now but it has already been explained to you the extended synthesis is not denying or questioning macroevolution. Peer reviewed Intelligent design articles? If you have these examples then by all means list them because so far you have not listed any evidence at all for your beliefs only misunderstandings and bad quote mines. If you have scientific evidence for your claims then please list these scientists and publications.I'm not sure why you say that I cannot provide names of scientist who do not support macro evolution since you never asked me to cite them. Would you like me too? and if I did, would it make a difference? I'm sure that if I met that goal post (as I can easily do, you will just change the goal post again. It is actually you that cant seem to answer the simple questions I put forth. This is very typical in that many want answers to all questions asked even if not yet even asked, yet fail to answer questions asked of them. In addition I can aslo cite many peered review articles as published in respected science journals written by ID theorist as well as examples of ID being mentioned favorably by others in their own peer review work.
I asked you, if I cited them would it make a difference? You never responded, and instead of simply asking me to cite them. You played it safe by instead insisting that I cannot cite scientist who reject macro evolution, but below is at least a partial list of those that do. I'm sure your next response will be, they don't count, because no real scientist could believe such a thing, which is often referred to as "the no true Scotsman fallacy"
The recently deceased Phillip Skell, Philip S. Skell was an American chemist, emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and since 1977 was a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences
Dean Kenyon, Dean H. Kenyon is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University
Charles Thaxton a doctorate in physical chemistry from Iowa State University.
A E. Wilder Smith Royal Society of Chemistry
- Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
- Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
- Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
- Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
- Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
- Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
- Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
- Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
- Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
- Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
- Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
- Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
- Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
- Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
- Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
- Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
- Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
- Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
- Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
- Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
- Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
- Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
- Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
- Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
- Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
- Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
- Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
- Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
- Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
- Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
- Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
- Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging........
CONT......
- Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
- Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
- Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
- Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
- Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
- Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
- Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
- Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
- Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
- Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
- Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
- Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
- Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
- Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
- Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
- Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
- Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
- Dr. Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry
- Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
- Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
- Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
- Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
- Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
- Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
- Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
- Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
- Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
- Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
- Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
- Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
- Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
- Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
- Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
- Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
- Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
- Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
- Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
- Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
- Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
- Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
- Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
- Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
- Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
- Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
- Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
- Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
- Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
- George T. Javor, Biochemistry
- Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
- Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
- Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
- Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
CONT...
- Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
- Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
- Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
- Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
- Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
- Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
- Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
- Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
- Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
- Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
- Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
- Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
- Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
- Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
- Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
- Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
- Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
- Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
- Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
- Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
- Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
- Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
- Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
- Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
- Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
- Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
- Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
- Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
- Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
- Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
- Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
- Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, Physician
- Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
- Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
- Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
- Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
- Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
- Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
- Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
- Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
- Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
- Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
- Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
- Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
- Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
- Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
- Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
- Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
- Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
- Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
- Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
- Prof. Richard Porter
- Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
- Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
- Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
- Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
- Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
- Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
- Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
- Dr. Kenneth Royal, Psychometrics
- Dr. Joachim Scheven, Palaeontologist
- Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
- Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
- Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
- Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
- Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
- Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
- Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
- Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
- George S. Smith, M.S., Chemistry
- Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
- Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
- Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
- Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
- Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
- Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
- Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
- Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
- Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
- Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
- Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
- Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
- Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
- Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
- Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
- Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
- Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
- Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
- Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
- Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
- Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
- Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
- Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
- Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
- Dr. Gordon Wilson, Environmental Science and Public Policy
- Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
- Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
- Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
- Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
- Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
- Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
- Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
- Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
- Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
And your list (including engineers and at least one dentist comes from where? And your evidence that they reject macro-evolution is based upon what exactly?
By the way, much of the time, I reject macroevolution, since all there is is microevolution going on for quite a while. Do you want to add me to the list?
If you are a scientist who rejects macro evolution, then sure why not? And yes I included many of the earth sciences.
That's the most pointless list of random names I have seen posted here since ... well, oddly, since the previous anti-evolution rant (by "forests").
Nope, he is not with those organizations. That has been exposed here: The unexpected promotion of Phil Skell - The Panda's ThumbThe recently deceased Phillip Skell, Philip S. Skell was an American chemist, emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and since 1977 was a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences
One of the founders of the intelligent design movement, he is also a devout Christian.Dean Kenyon, Dean H. Kenyon is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University
Another founder of the intelligent design movement, is a devout Christian who has been exposed here The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories - RationalWikiCharles Thaxton a doctorate in physical chemistry from Iowa State University.
A Christian young earth creationist who believed Jesus was riding on dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden.A E. Wilder Smith Royal Society of Chemistry
There was no need to continue. Firstly you were asked for non-creationist scientists who do not believe in macroevolution, but all you can list is Christian creationists. This just proves the only people who reject evolution are mostly religious types.CONT...
It seems you have also pulled most of your list from a Christian young earth creationist website, see the section "Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation". Creation scientists and other biographies of interest
Amazon.com: Customer Discussions: Both creationists and Darwinists are wrong, only non-Darwinian evolution is correctThat's the most pointless list of random names I have seen posted here since ... well, oddly, since the previous anti-evolution rant (by "forests").
I recently debated a user called "forests" on amazon. He is not anti-evolution. Could be the same person.
Here is "THEMAYAN" he is anti-evolution. He has done many posts supporting creationism, see here: THEMAYAN his anti-evolution rants can also be found on Christian forums such as this: "A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"
Probably the same guy - sounds bitter enough to be him. He was "anti-evolution" in the sense that he was anti-science; any idea about evolution, however crazy (1), was OK with him as long as it contradicted Darwin in some way.
(1) ID/Creationism? Why not. Transcendental forces? Hell yeah. Alien interventions? Of course. No evidence? Don't worry, just put "non-Darwinian" in the title and forests was all over it.
TheMayan you have been asked for your list of scientists (non-creationists) who reject macroevolution. Your young earth creationist list from Answering Genesis does not count. You have claimed you have this evidence so please put it up if you have it, I am interested in seeing it. If not then probably time to finish the discussion on this thread.
That's the most pointless list of random names I have seen posted here since ... well, oddly, since the previous anti-evolution rant (by "forests").
It may be pointless to you, and maybe so, since you were not even a apart of the conversation) however, it is a list I have been challenged to provide, and the names are not random. They are specific, and even if they were random, it means nothing since randomness was not the issue.
Again as for being pointless, this is also the question I asked when I was challenged to provide list. In fact I specifically asked, would if make a difference if I did provide these names? I got no response and instead I was only further accused of not being able to provide list of scientist that challenged macro evolution.
No, you asked for a list of scientist. You said..."There are no scientists who deny macroevolution, only creationists deny it" What you are basically saying, is that you cant be a creationist and a scientist at the same time, but this is historically inaccurate, since some of the greatest discoveries in science were discovered by theologians scientist, creationist scientist and theist. In addition, there are many IDer's who also challenge macro evolution and I can provide their names as well.
Again this is called the "no true Scotsman fallacy" and I correctly predicted that you would use this argument. In other words, no real scientist would believe this. Again is a logical fallacy. The question of young vs old earth was not a caveat or qualifier and had nothing to do with the question of those who challenge macro evolution. As I said before, the old ever changing goal post strikes again.
It is the obligation of those who adhere to macro evolution to provide the evidence. I cannot prove a negative. There is not one piece of so called evidence that does not have a valid alternative explanation or explanations as in plural.
If you which to get technical, then please do so. Please provide your best piece of scientific evidence. All I ask is that you understand the subject well enough to explain it in your own words.
About a year ago I went onto the evolution fairytale forum and asked over 30 creationists there if they could list be a single atheist who does not believe in evolution, guess what happened? They could not list a single scientist, none.No, you asked for a list of scientist. You said..."There are no scientists who deny macroevolution, only creationists deny it" What you are basically saying, is that you cant be a creationist and a scientist at the same time, but this is historically inaccurate, since some of the greatest discoveries in science were discovered by theologians scientist, creationist scientist and theist. In addition, there are many IDer's who also challenge macro evolution and I can provide their names as well.
Why is it, that the only scientists who reject macroevolution are religious? Why do we not see atheists or agnostics denying macroevolution? The reason is because it is down to religious beliefs/ or personal beliefs. Are you honest enough to see this? Can you see the link?
All those scientists you listed (most were not biologists) from the Answering Genesis young earth creationist website start their assumptions with the Bible, they are not interested in empirical science. They have a religious bias. If religious texts had not been written these creationists would not have a problem with accepting the evidence for evolution. I have already seen your posts on two Christian forums. There is nothing wrong with accepting theism and evolution, why not do that? If you do not believe in macroevolution then what is your scientific alternative?
First off, I already told you I have been on many different forums including Christian forums. However the one you spoke of had more atheist than Christians and the topics I spoke of was the same as what I'm speaking of here.
I even said that I have debated narrow minded creationist as well as narrow minded Darwinist. I have little concern for your conversation with others. I cannot speak for them and they cannot speak for me. Secondly just as I predicted you would, you have added an extra goal post after the fact since the question was one of scientist who challenge macro evolution, and not that the all had to be biologist. Again this ia a classic goal post change and oh so predictable.
David Berlinski has challenged macro evolution several times and he is a non religious non practicing Jew. Again Brad Monton and Thomas Nagel support ID as an alternative theory and they are atheist. You also said that ID was creationism. OK lets entertain this notion of yours for a second, and now let me ask you, why you think over a thousand scientistic from major universities and National Academies throughout the world (including many who are in fact atheist and agnostics, along with theist) have supported the the Discovery Institute by publicly and willingly signing on to the dissenfromdarwin list? Why would someone who didn't challenge or at least have doubt of the current theory which includes the assumptions of macro evolution agree to be a cosigner? Again according to your 'birds of a feather' logic, why would anyone who is supports the Discovery Institute (which according to you are a bunch of creationist) do so, when they are either atheist or agnostic? Did you ever stop and think that maybe it is because of the observable evidence that these people made their choice, just as Einstein, Hoyle, Kenyon, Thaxton, Frank Tipler or a whole host of many others, including scholar and ex champion of atheism Anthony Flew did? By the way, Flew made an intellectual conversion to Deism based on the observable evidence.
Again, if you're implying that scientist who believe in God are somehow trying to push an agenda, or are letting their personal views get in the way of science, then please provide the specific evidence. Dont just make assumptions. It seems by this logic of yours, atheist scientist must also be dismissed since there are many political and militant atheist groups out there with their own social political agendas and views which they proudly post on their websites. According to this logic, only agnostics with no personel stake in this argument can be trusted.
Furthermore, as far as biologist are concerned, I pointed out that in addition to ID'ers and creationist, some of the most vocal who also challenge the modern synthesis as well as regard macro evolution as an assumption, are in fact evolution development biologist/evo devo, and it is these same men and women who actually specialize in evolutionary theory.
All you have is philosophers associated with the Discovery institute:
David Berlinski - RationalWikiDavid Berlinski has challenged macro evolution several times and he is a non religious non practicing Jew.
He claims to be a secular Jew and agnostic, and denies that he is an advocate of intelligent design but rather claims to be a skeptic on the matter of evolution. However, his articles and books are filled with religiously-based creationist arguments. Although he officially refuses to speculate about the origins of life, critics argue that he is pretty obviously a shill for intelligent design.Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design - RationalWikiBrad Monton
Closet Theist? There is no real evidence that Monton is an atheist. He likes to pretend so to sell more copies of his book, but it is quite clear from the book and his internet posts that he is a theist who believes in God and intelligent design. Monton has also supported William A. Dembski and has claimed the books of Dembski are pro-science. Dembski and many members of the Discovery Institute have endorsed Monton's book and it has also been supported by religious creationists.
That's true Nagel is an atheist but he does not advocate intelligent design, he has supported it in some cases as an interesting discussion in philosophy and claims it should not be dismissed from the debate, but when you read his books he admits he accepts evolution. His book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False claims neo-Darwinism is false, but not evolution.Thomas Nagel support ID as an alternative theory and they are atheist.
Why are you randomly dropping these names of philosophers? You were asked for scientists, and then you moan about goal posts being moved. Yes philosophy is sometimes interesting, but where are these non-creationist biologists who are skeptical of macroevolution? You have not been able to list a single one!
Listen I have personally been through the entire dissent from darwin list and 98% of them are religious creationists! A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - RationalWiki as you can see the editors at rationalwiki have personally investigated all of the scientists on the list, many of them are young earth creationists with degrees from churches and religious christian colleges or from creationist organizations or from the Discovery Institute. It is very rare to find a scientist on that list who actually accepts evolution. Once again there is no problem with someone being skeptical of Darwinism as long as you are not anti-evolution but sadly most of that list are anti-evolution who confuse Darwinism with evolution. They are mostly religious creationists.publicly and willingly signing on to the dissenfromdarwin list?
Einstein where did he come from?Einstein, Hoyle, Kenyon, Thaxton, Frank Tipler
Fred Hoyle accepted all the evidence for biological evolution and fully accepted macroevolution, he just believed it was driven by viruses from space. Once again a scientist who accepted the FACT of evolution, and was only debating the mechanisms. Yet dishonest religious creationists always quote mine him and misrepresent his views.
Thaxton, already exposed, hes a devout Christian creationist. Frank Tipler is also a Christian creationist who believes that all of humanity are going to enter a computer simulation at the second coming.
No they are not. This again is serious creationist dishonesty and confusion. Scientists involved in evo/devo are not challenging macroevolution they are just debating certain mechanisms within evolution that is all.some of the most vocal who also challenge the modern synthesis as well as regard macro evolution as an assumption, are in fact evolution development biologist/evo devo, and it is these same men and women who actually specialize in evolutionary theory.
There is nothing wrong with religious/theistic scientists, many scientists believe in evolution and God/s. The problem is with creationists who reject empirical science based on their religious beliefs.
Where are these non-creationist scientists who are skeptical of evolution? You have still not listed any apart from intelligent design philosophers.
Let's clear the air here a moment. Themayan would you be good enough to define macroevolution.
Would you also be good enough to give me one mainstream science, non-biological fact that you are confident is likely correct. I'm not trying to trick you, but I believe I can develop an argument that will convince you that part of your argument is faulty.
RATIONAL WIKI. Is there really such an animal? You might as well cite the National Enquire? You will not find non biased answers at Rational wiki or Talk Origins.
"No they are not" What? Are you saying that evo devo are not challenging the limitations and or many of the tenants of the modern synthesis? Are you saying that they dont view macro evolution from a common ancestor as an "assumption"? I even provided key notes from Altenberg that said the same, as well as a college course lecture where macro evolution is clearly cited as an "assumption of the modern synthesis" And of course there is nothing wrong with theistic evolutionist scientist, just as along as they agree with you. You asked me to provide list of scientist who challenged macro evolution and I did.
You have to be able to read and think for yourself. I'm getting a little tired of having to read my sentences back to you. I included Hoyle and Einstein ( per context of paragraph) among those who came to an intelectual conclusion based on the observable evidence that there was a universal architect/ a God head. If you indeed "know" that 98% of the those who signed dissent list did so because they were dishonest. Then please provide detailed examples. Please cite the evidence to back up this assertion. Don't just blurt something without evidence. As for Monton, again you resort to the no true Scotsman fallacy. You see, as I said before, this is a very typical and predictable response. With this kind of reasoning any example given can be written off. You may be fooling your buddies, but your not fooling me. As I said before, this is the oldest game in town. I have never heard Berlinski use creationism to make his point. Again why cant you cite evidence when making claims? When did I ever say Nagel did not support evolution. I said that he supported ID as an alternative theory and also credits ID with causing Darwinist to getting off their backsides and start trying to produce empirical data rather than just assume.
As for Tipler always being a Christian (so therefore according to your logic, he cant be trusted) Please read below....
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it." I have no reason to believe you will answer any of these questions soon and instead you will continue to add in more goal post after the fact. This is why I specifically asked you that if I could provide a list the same list you have been challenging me to produce, would it make a difference? You couldn't muster up the cojones to answer.
Last edited by THEMYAN; October 16th, 2012 at 11:38 PM.
I dont really need a list of proponents. There are many creationists and Darwinists and I don't believe in either.
Fossil evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution and the genetic evidence locks down common descent tightly.
Random chaos can not and does not cause functional, living, reproducing beings. And selection doesnt change that fact.
Interesting discussion, but a little too heavy on the personal attacks. Calm down folks. People disagree.
Welcome to the forum.
Now please provide evidence to justify your assertion that Random chaos can not and does not cause functional, living, reproducing beings. And selection doesnt change that fact.
Are you saying that evo devo are not challenging the limitations and or many of the tenants of the modern synthesis? Are you saying that they dont view macro evolution from a common ancestor as an "assumption"? I even provided key notes from Altenberg that said the same, as well as a college course lecture where macro evolution is clearly cited as an "assumption of the modern synthesis" And of course there is nothing wrong with theistic evolutionist scientist, just as along as they agree with you. You asked me to provide list of scientist who challenged macro evolution and I did.
evo devo is challenging some tenants of the modern synthesis yes this has been explained to you. It is not challenging macroevolution or common descent like you claim though, that is a dishonest creationist claim. You have misunderstood the Altenberg. You have been provided with the links which explained what it was but you ignore that.
You are on the border of actually trolling. You have been asked for scientists who are skeptical of macroevolution and you cannot list a single one so move goal posts and put up no evidence. Fred Hoyle did not believe in God (see his biography published after his death) he was an atheist. Einstein was a pantheist. What do there religious/ or lack of religious beliefs have anything to do with anything on this thread? You are dropping random names and misrepresenting scientists and making an idiot of yourself.I included Hoyle and Einstein
Evolution is a fact, stop denying it based on your religious beliefs and and perhaps you could learn something about science.
October 17th, 2012, 11:48 PM
Smells like rats jumping from a sinking ship each time a Darwinist backpeddles, but the latest mantra is that, although evolution experiments are showing decidedly anti-Darwnian adaptation, we are told that we still must maintain the "framework" of Darwinism.
Why? This so-called "Modern Synthesis" has never made a lick of sense and has been discredited as mathematically insane since it first arose. There isnt the slightest validity to it and it needs to be discarded, not extended. Darwinism couldnt create a hand crank canopener and it is, in fact, the most destructive force imaginable, not a magic perpetual creation machine.
This hoax called Darwinism holds that Luck is the brilliant answer for a planet load of ever-improving, thinking beings. In no branch of science could accidental luck be more poorly applied than to "explain" intelligence. Randomness is the very definition of disorder and destruction of order. Entropic chaos is efficient, merciless and thorough. Even if we started with the fully functional biota of today, if Darwinism ever applied, we wouldn't last a single generation. Fortunately, no aspect intrinsic to life, least of all genetics, is random. Materialists have never explained a single one of trillions upon trillions of functional forms, purposeful movements or intelligent thoughts. Why does anyone still take them seriously?
Worse yet are those pseudo Darwinians who assert that the magic of selection exempts them from doing their math homework. Selection cant cause evolution because it happens after the evolving has taken place, whether in giant leaps or baby steps. Selectiion is a result, not a cause. It is stasis, the opposite of evolution. It is merely a subtractive death filter that can only either kill or stay out of the way of evolution. Like any subtractive filter, it can never create, but at best, can only not kill what already exists in the first place. But lack-of-death doesnt cause life and death of the unfit is not an explanation for the fit. Selection does not change the fact that Darwinism is 100% dependent on luck.
Selection is often foolishly used as a circular tautology, as in "if something exists that is more suited to survive in its environment, then it is more likely to survive". Tautologies are always true but useless, and this is no exception. Then again, why wouldnt those who claim that chaos causes order be claiming that death causes life?
We may as well "extend" spontaneous generation. Darwinism needs to be diced up, burned and buried, not extended. You dont extend a "theory" that is 100% crap. You dont polish a turd.
You flush it.
Do you have any arguments or evidence, or are you all just hot air. I have asked you once to justify your assertion that Random chaos can not and does not cause functional, living, reproducing beings. And selection doesnt change that fact. Please do so now. If I wanted empty rhetoric I could go to EvolutionFairytale.com.
I want to remind you that this is a science discussion forum. Bald assertions that remain unsubtantiated are not welcome, nor are emotive rants plying an agenda.
I am in agreement with this comment but can you list these experiments for non-Darwinian adaptation? Would be interested to see what research you have got.although evolution experiments are showing decidedly anti-Darwnian adaptation, we are told that we still must maintain the "framework" of Darwinism.
Cituations needed. Provide some scientific papers etc for those claims.Why? This so-called "Modern Synthesis" has never made a lick of sense and has been discredited as mathematically insane since it first arose. There isnt the slightest validity to it and it needs to be discarded, not extended. Darwinism couldnt create a hand crank canopener and it is, in fact, the most destructive force imaginable, not a magic perpetual creation machine.
I was assuming good faith until I saw this comment. So your actual problem is with materialism not really Darwinism is it? You are obviously driven by your metaphysical views. You do realise science only deals with the physical yes? So what it comes down to is your actual criticism is of science for not advocating metaphysics?Materialists have never explained a single one of trillions upon trillions of functional forms, purposeful movements or intelligent thoughts. Why does anyone still take them seriously?
It seems that your criticism is not of "Darwinism" but it is actually of evolution for being physical. You do realise that all evolutionary mechanisms in science (Darwinian or non-Darwinian) are physical right? So you reject the physical. Just be truthful and admit if you are an intelligent designer, no need to try and hide it if that is what you really believe.
Obviously by "Darwinism" you mean evolution by natural selection. So if you do not advocate natural selection as a process in evolution which other evolutionary mechanisms do you advocate? And let's see some scientific references etc to back up your claims but I doubt you can find any considering that you oppose anything that is physical.We may as well "extend" spontaneous generation. Darwinism needs to be diced up, burned and buried, not extended. You dont extend a "theory" that is 100% crap. You dont polish a turd.
You flush it.
Last edited by nsbm ranger; October 18th, 2012 at 10:11 AM.
Please note IntelligentAnimation is an intelligent designer:
Here is some of his recent posts on an intelligent design website:
http://telicthoughts.com/no-designer...er-build-that/
and here:
Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design |
That is more open minded than I usually see IntelligentAnimation. Most IDer's with the Discovery Institute claim the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God.Scientists do generally admit what they don’t know but Materialists do not so much. In my state in public schools it is banned by law to criticize the belief that a lucky mix of chemicals is the answer for all functional forms, activities and thoughts. There is a specific clause in the law that states that this is settled science and that there are no alternative theories, essentially trying to squelch critical thinking and inquisitiveness.
I need to point out clearly that ID does NOT posit a deity, as you say it does. We claim that there is intelligence as a cause of life, the most certain fact in all science in my opinion. We admit what we don’t know, which is the “who” question in intelligent agency, and we get lambasted by both sides for making this scientifically correct delineation. We DO know it is intelligence. We do NOT know it is God, at least not through scientific evidence.
Here are more of IntelligentAnimation's comments:
Creationism and Intelligent Design make Stealth Appearances in Louisiana and Tennessee Science Classrooms
Interestingly IntelligentAnimation accepts common descent (which is good to see):Intelligent evolution is the only theory that fits all evidence and it is the most widely accepted origins theory, but it is against the law to teach it. Bacterial experimentation with known stimulus-response evolution to a changed environment has dispelled all reasonable doubt against intelligent genetics.
Selection? Seriously? Selection has nothing to do with evolution. It is, in fact, the opposite of evolution. Selection is stasis or staying the same while evolution is change. Selection can only select what already exists, so it is nonsensical to claim that it CAUSES new traits or species.
The selection filter, like all filters, is subtractive only, so it can only kill or get out of the way. Thats fine if you are trying to explain absence or death, but Darwin’s fiction wasn’t called “Extinction of Species”. You may as well credit an arsonist for building your condo because he didnt burn it down.
Theistic Evolution is Not a Form of Intelligent Design – EvolutionBlog
Sadly most intelligent designers IntelligentAnimation do not accept common descent.I should add that ID is also NOT anti-evolution, as was stated both in the article and many of the comments. I am an evolutionist who believes in common descent, yet the true definition of intelligent design is clearly factually correct.
Very interesting you are anti-materialist but claim ID operates through the scientific method? How can we empirically test the non-physical with the scientific method?ID is also not anti-science, but work entirely through the scientific method, mathematics and observational data.
I am staunchly Anti-Darwinian, anti-materialist, anti-TE, anti-Creationism and anti-Accidentalism. I also strongly oppose concepts of “intervention” as if only momentary adjustments are needed for life. Intelligence is needed for every moment of every living thing or else death ensues immediately.
Life is the intelligent animation of matter. Intelligence is the base root of all life, including first life, evolution and every aspect of life we see today, including all formations, all purposeful movements and all thoughts and instincts.
I noticed in the above link, both TheMayan and IntelligentAnimation are both arguing with Jerry Coyne and others. I don't think they are the same person though as it appears TheMayan denies common descent.
Further edit: It appears IntelligentAnimation is anti-evolution and denies common descent (see below). IntelligentAnimation may be a sock of TheMayan.
Last edited by nsbm ranger; October 18th, 2012 at 10:38 AM. Reason: found out intelligentanimation is anti-evolution
!!!!!!!!!! EXPOSED CREATIONIST ALERT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IntelligentAnimation = Joe G (a creationist) here is his blog:
Intelligent Reasoning
Here is his description of his blog:
Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups.
"exposing the theory of evolution as nonsense" and calling people "evotards". Obviously IntelligentAnimation is anti-evolution. It's funny in his other posts how he says he accepts common descent. Is this the latest trend now for IDer's and creationists to go on some blog and pretend they accept common descent but on others criticise evolution? What is this some kind of stealth tactic to try and make intelligent design more mainstream?
C'mon guys just be honest, you are anti-evolution. If you really accepted common descent you wouldn't be calling people "evotards", defending creationist arguments or claiming the theory of evolution is "nonsense". IntelligentAnimation you are another dishonest Ider, perhaps you can explain why you think evolution is "nonsense" yet on other posts claim to accept common descent to try and make out intelligent design is more open minded than creationism when in reality you are anti-evolution and do not accept common descent.
nsbm, I certainly appreciate the effort you have put in to identifying possible biases and agenda driven attitudes. However, this comes dangerously close to personal attacks on another member. Please confine your posts to addressing the facts relating to the thread topic, the extended evolutionary synthesis. By all means challenge statements that are outside the mainstream, or to a degree tangential to the thread. Let's just be very careful about posts relating to character or motiviation. This goes for everyone else participating on this thread. Thank you all.
nsbm ranger, most of the quotes you found of me certainly do look like my writing, but your most recent post calling me someone else and attributing their comments to me is a low blow. I remember spending some time on a site run by a guy who calls people evotards and I believe his handle was Joe, but we actually fought over his use of the term.
How odd to assume someone is someone else (who they were debating with) and then act shocked that the opinions are completely opposite. Thats dishonest.
All quotes prior to that BS post of yours I do believe are my statements and typical of my posts. I'll give you credit for taking the time to research all of that, and save me the time to clarify my position. Still, you took it too far and starting lying like a child.
If I say I am against Materialism, then I am against Materialism. This is not "admitting" some deep dark secret or I wouldn't have stated it so clearly. Living organisms are intelligently controlled just as they appear to be. There is no reason to get our panties in a wad over the obvious.
I will grant you that many, possibly even most, IDists oppose common descent and evolution. For this reason I find ID to be too wide an umbrella. I do not want to be under the same umbrella with anyone who denies evolution. You will see that I often refer to "intelligent agency", "intelligent evolution" or "intelligent genetics" while downplaying the term "intelligent design". I agree with the premise of ID, but I dont really even care for the term "design" as it misleadingly implies a remote designer at a drawing board. The intelligence could be more innate (at the organismal level) than that and I tend to lean toward multiple intelligent agents, not singular.
I use a consistent handle on evolution blogs. Keep researching if you like, but don't apply anyone else's words to me. Thank you, moderator, for giving nmsb ranger that warning. That was a cheap shot.
nmsb ranger, no, I do not agree that science only studies the physical. There are clearly forces in the universe that are not made of anything material, such as gravity and the nuclear forces. The life force is just another immaterial force of nature. You cant apply definitions like "metaphysical" or "supernatural" to it just for the purpose of claiming it doesnt exist. The only questions to ask are what does the evidence say or what can we calculate through mathematics, not "can we fit this in a category that we refuse to discuss?".
Remember, so-called "methodological naturalism" did not arrive at its exclusionary policies through methodology. It is nothing more than a religious belief trying to censor science.
We test the non-physical through its effects on the physical. We can test electromagnetic fields, not by putting a sampling of immaterial magnetic force in a test tube, but by observing the magnetic field's effect on ionized materials. We can measure gravitational pull in near space by weighing objects of a known terrestrial weight and doing the math.
The intelligence in life is overwhelmingly obvious and although we cant see it, we certainly see its effects. There is not a single reason to deny it.
October 19th, 2012, 08:03 PM
"IntelligentAnimation" that is interesting becuase we find the following quote on a blog you were arguing with someone on:
And theres also this:As expected, Joe on his blog has used his new sockpuppet ‘IntelligentAnimation’ to declare Joe the winner and to sing Joe’s praises for such good answers.
On a side note, Joe has now silently banned me from posting on his blog – no warning, just none of my posts have appeared for the last week or so.
Intelligent Design is Anti-evolution (Support Opening) | Cassandra's Tears
It seems you create fake accounts to back yourself up on different blogs / and forums and this has been well documented by others. As we can see on this thread sadly the people who misunderstood the extended synthesis are all IDer's or creationists such as yourself exploiting it for your own agenda. It has been explained the extended synthesis is not anti-evolution. I will not post on this forum anymore, I only came for this thread and it was highjacked by creationists after a few days. Good luck with your intelligent design research.Just a heads up – Joe G has created a rather obvious sockpuppet, “IntelligentAnimation”, to pat himself on the back over at his own blog. Just who he thinks he’s fooling is beyond me but hey – it’s Joe G. Nothing he does makes sense to any honest, normal person.
Expect “IntelligentAnimation” to make an appearance here any time now.
Moderator Warning:
OK. I did not make myself clear. That is my fault which I shall now rectify. I do not wish any further discussion on who anyone is or is not. I don't give a flying conjugal union who anyone is. I am interested in, and this forum is for, discussion about scientific subjects. If either of you wish to be suspended for a period of time you can take one of the following actions.
1. Reply explicitly or implicitly to this mod note on this or any other thread.
2. Introduce any further discussion of who either of you is or what you have said on other forums.
3. Make anything that even looks like a third rate sketch of a personal remark.
If you need clarification of any of that, send me a pm.
If you have issues with any of this pm me directly, or any member of the admin team, or report this post.
Thank you.
John Galt, the way you go about proving something did NOT happen millions of years ago is to prove it impossible or illogical or to show that it doesnt explain what we actually CAN observe today. All of this has been levied against Darwinism ad nauseum, but that doesnt faze those with religious convictions favoring materialism.
My preference actually is to observe modern day examples of evolution, especially induced evolution that does not involve radaiation or toxic chemicals that interfere with the natural adaptive processes. We can now create evolution on demand and clearly see that Darwinism is not taking place. This fact that does not conclusively prove that darwinism didnt create evolution millions of years ago, but Occam's razor is cutting Darwinism deeply these days. We dont need it.
Still, for conclusive proof that darwinism CAN'T and didn't cause evolution, we can show that it is both mathematically flawed and logically flawed. In the interest of expediency, which part of my quoted assertions do you object to? The mathematical impossibility of chaos causing ever-improving order; or the logic fallacy that claims that selection causes evolution or improves those hopeless odds? Which pillar of Darwin's house of cards do you think has substance?
What are you suggesting happened at the Ordovician-Silurian boundary, Permian-Triassic boundary and Cretaceous-Paleocene bondary, if not evolution as outlined by the Theory of Evolution?
I.A., Palaeo's question will serve as my response to my last post for the moment. That will avoid you trying to handle questions and attacks from multiple posters, which can become wearing.
John Galt, two or more questions at once is fine and I still owe you an answer to your question. I often get dozens of them flying at me on a site generally hostile to my views and that is too much, really. The problem here is that I work too many double shifts and cant log on every day. I do think it important to establish what we stand for before setting about supporting our positions, so I'm glad you dont mind me answering Paleoichneum first.
Paleoichneum, I believe all evolution, including micro, macro and multi-species events, happened the same way we observe evolution happening today. All of it, with the exception of some micro-evolution, happens in large leaps, as genetic information forms intelligently in sequences sometimes dozens of bits of information long are activated by master genes only when full features, such as a new tooth, or full new species, are genetically ready to form. Note that Darwinian selection cannot take place on most evolutionary development because most of the time it is not yet expressed phenotypically.
Often, the activation of these lengthy sequences of information seem to be triggered by environmental changes, according to observational data of today, therefore I think it likely that mass speciation events correlate with significant environmental changes.
You referenced "the theory of evolution", an often misapplied term, used as stealth Darwinism. If you define the TOE as Darwinian luck and death, then no, I do not see any hope for that destructive mess to create anything functionaal whatsoever.
October 22nd, 2012, 01:08 PM
One more post to establish my position before moving on to explain why I see things as I do. I am both anti-Darwinian AND anti-Materialism, which should not be seen as a conflict since Darwinism and Materialism cover much tangential ground. I realize there are anti-Darwinists who still attempt to find non-Darwinian yet material answers to evolution and I wish them luck. They'll need it.
In the meantime, I have yet to see anything remotely approaching a material answer to evolution. In fact, after years in college as a Biology/math major and decades afterward trying to make materialism work, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that nothing whatsoever in any aspect of life can be explained by matter-only concepts. This includes first life, evolution and all aspects of life we see today, including all functional formations, all purposeful movement and all thoughts, including self-aware consciousness, inherited learning, free will and instinct. Nothing whatsoever can be explained without intelligent cause.
This means that I do not accept the concept of intelligence "intervening" with sporatic tinkering on an otherwise automatically functioning chemical chain reaction. Intelligence is needed every moment in every living thing or else immediate death will ensue without it. Likewise, nothing has ever reproduced without intelligence. Life, then, is the intelligent animation of matter. The idea of a lucky mix of chemicals is childish hogwash.
Intelligence and God are not synonyms. Religion isnt science and we can neither falsify nor prove God with what we know scientifically. Intelligence is natural, observable, testable and the most certain fact in all science. If what we understand about how life works and what forms it does or does not fit your (or my) religious belief, then so be it. This isnt a religion forum.
Methodological naturalism is a religion, without so much as a hint of methodology backing it. It opposes all observational data and all empirical evidence and uses Nazi-like censorship to oppress legitimate scientific dissent. It is nothing but a bizarre religious cult using our taxpayer dollars to build their churches (schools).
Hopefully, I have made my position clear.
Nonsense. Presumptuous nonsense.
Even though it was experimentally proven that a system containing an approximation of the Earth's early atmosphere could yield the basic elements of life given time and application of energy. That's a hell of a lot more work than you put into your "Everything needs intelligence" argument.
Mr Galt, I stated in my first post that "Random chaos can not and does not cause functional, living, reproducing beings. And selection doesnt change that fact." and you politely and rightly asked me for justification for that position. Thank you for your patience (or at least faking patience well lol).
One problem is that there are some darwinists who understand their theory and are aware that luck is their only supposed creative force. Others see selection as a sort of exemption from all mathematical principles. (It isnt.) I hate getting too deeply into mathematical proof that Darwinism is hopelessly impossible only to be dismissed because of the selection fallacy, so it helps to know which point of view I am dealing with.
I suppose it is best to spell out what Darwinism is and wait to see if all agree or if I get my head cut off first. In a nutshell, Darwinism is random chance and what he called selection. Darwin also posited gradual change over time, but most agree he was wrong on that as well, since evolution appears to be rapid when it happens but spaced apart by long periods of relative stasis. Still, the chance and selection part doesnt need gradualism.
Ask a Darwinist how a giraffe got a long neck and they will tell you confidently "because all the short necked ones died". At first this sounds so simple you feel foolish for even asking, but after a couple of minutes thought and a cup of coffee, you realize they never really explained the existence of long necked giraffes nor the existence of giraffes at all. They merely explained how any short-necked ones would have died if they ever existed. Death of the unfit doesnt cause the fit, so they still need a cause of long-necked giraffes. That cause, once you can get them to stop expounding upon the supposed brilliance of selection, is rank luck.
Do we have general agreement here that Darwinism's sole creative force is 100% a Luck Theory? Or are there some present who credit selection as a creative force of some kind? Or perhaps that selection improves the odds of evolution improving organisms somehow?
To say evolution was caused by chance and selection is the same as saying evolution was caused by chance period because selection is not constructive so it adds nothing. Selection and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee, but then so will a dollar by itself. Selection is no help. Agree so far or no?
Moreover, selection happens chronologically after a new trait or species evolves, so it cant cause those traits or species. Not ever. You cant select that which doesnt exist yet. Disagree?
Flick, if its nonsense that ought to be easy to demonstrate or prove. I'll wait....
It ALWAYS takes more work to try to push upstream against the facts, but when you follow the evidence everything falls into place rather easily. Degree of difficulty doesnt determine correctness either way, however. I'm not particularly impressed with your "Luck did it" theory either, but I suppose if you dont like doing your math homework you can always make unsupported assertions.
OF COURSE all of the basic elements needed for life existed when life began, otherwise life wouldn't have begun, now would it? Unless you have a means for those basic elements to band together forming molecules that never exist in non-biotic nature and then begin functionally MOVING so that they can create new versions of themselves, your theory has no idea how life started, nor how it evolved.
ALL theories have the same elements existing. The trick is to get them to functionally form and purposefully move, repeatedly. Good luck with that.
And what evidence do you have of this assertion? This is not what has been empirically observed in modern speciation and is not what is seen in the fossil record.
Not really. You don't say what you think "luck" means. You appear to be using it as a loaded term to handwave away the standard description of evolution. It isn't clear from what you write if this is just because you don't know about it or are deliberately fudging it. Either way it seems rather intellectually dishonest.
I was going to attempt a rather more accurate description but I'm not sure I can be bothered right now. I'm sure someone else will. I will just say that you appear to be ignoring the importance of population diversity, transcription errors, and many other factors. Never mind the fact that we see new species arising based on well-understood mechanisms.
Just saying, "it can't happen because it is 'luck'" is not very compelling.
Let's clarify a point of nomenclature first. If by Darwinist you mean someone who currently accepts the most probable explanation for evolution is common descent via mutations which are environmentally selected for, then I'm happy to use the term Darwinist. If you mean anything else different or more restrictive then we need to sort that out first.
On that basis I would not be impressed by any Dariwnist who thought luck was the only creative force. While the variation upon which selection can operate is largely random, the environmental changes introduce a powerful creative drive towards diversity, efficiency and change.
Produce a mathematical proof that Darwinism is false and if I find it convincing I shall buy you dinner.
No. It's more than that.
Side issue, but punctuated equilibrium seems to be a minority view.
I get the impression you are talking to idiots not Darwinists.
Firstly, there are short necked giraffes. We call these okapi. They have only been known of for about one century.
Secondly, the long necked giraffes evolved because mutations gave them longer necks which proved beneficial in tapping food sources unavailable to most other ungulates.
My hand is raised.
Totally disagree. It was the paints selected by van Gogh and the positions he selected on the canvas to place them that represented his creativity. Selection is the heart of the creative process.
That's not how it works.
You don't get to say something silly like "nothing has ever reproduced without intelligence" and then put the onus on me as to proving you wrong.
I think there are unicorns. Therefore, unicorns must exist until you prove they don't. Not very scientific, right?
The burden is on you to prove to me that evolution requires a mechanism you attribute to "intelligence".
I have seen the experiment which deduced that basic building blocks of life could form randomly given the right atmosphere and application of energy. What I have yet to see is this idea of intelligence in evolution that you purport.
Paleoichneum, this absolutely IS what is observed today AND what the fossil record indicates. Long sequences of genetic information ARE activated by master genes when needed, as needed and only when needed and as needed. The fossil record shows very long periods of stasis follwed by large leaps of genetic information change. What part of all of this do you see differently and why?And what evidence do you have of this assertion? This is not what has been empirically observed in modern speciation and is not what is seen in the fossil record.
Flick, no, there is no "default truism". We BOTH must support our position and/or disprove the other. You have not demonstrated a mechanism.That's not how it works.
You don't get to say something silly like "nothing has ever reproduced without intelligence" and then put the onus on me as to proving you wrong.
I think there are unicorns. Therefore, unicorns must exist until you prove they don't. Not very scientific, right?
The burden is on you to prove to me that evolution requires a mechanism you attribute to "intelligence".
I have seen the experiment which deduced that basic building blocks of life could form randomly given the right atmosphere and application of energy. What I have yet to see is this idea of intelligence in evolution that you purport.
Even if you could form all of the building blocks necessary for life, and you can't, they would never animate, so you would never get a reproduction, just as modern day Frankensteins always fail so hideously to create life. They create little clumps of matter that sit there lifeless, doing nothing, unless in vitro.
No, DNA, RNA and most of the proteins needed for life do NOT exist in non-biotic nature. They are too complex and dissolve quite rapidly in water. Yet they are exceedingly commonplace in living organisms.
I've never seen a unicorn either. Apparently you believe in lots of fairy tales.
Strange, there is ZERO importance in transcription errors. How could an error be important? If it is doing something important, then what makes you so certain it is an "error"? How important are errors to your job? No, I mean in a good way, not a destructive way. How indispensible are errors in your driving? Your writing?Not really. You don't say what you think "luck" means. You appear to be using it as a loaded term to handwave away the standard description of evolution. It isn't clear from what you write if this is just because you don't know about it or are deliberately fudging it. Either way it seems rather intellectually dishonest.
I was going to attempt a rather more accurate description but I'm not sure I can be bothered right now. I'm sure someone else will. I will just say that you appear to be ignoring the importance of population diversity, transcription errors, and many other factors. Never mind the fact that we see new species arising based on well-understood mechanisms.
Just saying, "it can't happen because it is 'luck'" is not very compelling.
Come to think of it, errors just aren't very constructive things, now are they? In fact, there really is nothing more destructive than errors.
Please explain how "population diversity" takes away your need for LUCK to create a world load of functional beings. What, precisely, does it do to create a functional trait that had not existed before? Saying "well understood mechanisms" is my first sign that you dont have any gas in your tank. Name the "mechanism" and then we can discuss how well understood it is.
I dont say what I think luck means? It means random chance happenstance. Chaos and disorder. A useless ambiguous mess.... you, know.... errors.
John Galt says: "Let's clarify a point of nomenclature first. If by Darwinist you mean someone who currently accepts the most probable explanation for evolution is common descent via mutations which are environmentally selected for, then I'm happy to use the term Darwinist. If you mean anything else different or more restrictive then we need to sort that out first."
By your definition, I could even be a Darwinist. Common descent is true. Mutations happen. Selection happens. Its useless, but it happens.\
Darwin claimed random happenstance variation, later updated by Neo-Darwinists to genetic "errors". The crux of the failure of Darwinism versus intelligent genetics is whether or not genetic upgrades are caused by chance or by intelligent cause. We do need to clarify this. Are the beneficial mutations luck or not?
JG: "I would not be impressed by any Dariwnist who thought luck was the only creative force. While the variation upon which selection can operate is largely random, the environmental changes introduce a powerful creative drive towards diversity, efficiency and change."
In what way does an environmental change produce a creative drive of any sort? Are you agreeing with ID that genetic changes are a stimulus-response to a changed environment? Or are you saying that mutations happen with or without environmental changes, then the environmental changes select the best phenotypical changes? I believe the latter is Darwinism, no? So if the environment gets colder, does it create a powerful drive toward efficiency? How?
Now, as to your "largely random" reference. If it is not entirely random, then what are the non-random parts? And how are they non-random? Again, I certainly agree that genetics are non-random, if that is your position, but that isnt Darwinism.
JG: "Produce a mathematical proof that Darwinism is false and if I find it convincing I shall buy you dinner."
Though dinner is tempting, only those who crunched the numbers deserve it. I think you can see at this point why I dont delve too deeply into the staggering mathematical impossibility of Darwinism, when all a Darwinist has to say is "selection" and then he foolishly thinks he has a get out of math homework card. You raised your hand in claiming that selection improves your odds, so we need to address that fallacy first.
Chronologically, selection cant cause evolution because any new trait or species must evolve before it can be selected. The evolution happens first, THEN selection. Think about it. Can selection select that which doesnt even exist yet? Selection can only keep it or get rid of it, but it can NOT create it. Only luck can do that in the Darwinian world.
JG: "Firstly, there are short necked giraffes. We call these okapi. They have only been known of for about one century.
Secondly, the long necked giraffes evolved because mutations gave them longer necks which proved beneficial in tapping food sources unavailable to most other ungulates."
While not actually a giraffe themselves, okapi are indeed related to their taller cousins, and I fully agree with your explanation here. The question, of course, is where we differ: How did they happen to get such a clearly beneficial genetic change? Were the mutations random or non-random? How many nucleotides would need to change to go from an okapi-sized creature to a modern day giraffe? And how many disastrous or useless but non-lethal other genetic outcomes could have happened to the short giraffe? This isnt a roll of the dice where there is only 6 possible outcomes, nor even the lottery with 13 million or so. Wouldnt there be trillions of other genetic change possibilities in a 3 billion base pair code?
Personally, I have more respect for a Darwinist who comes right out and admits they have a Luck Theory.
Repeating an assertion with no support does nothing to demonstrate the validity of the assertion.
Engineers are increasingly using software that employs the selection mechanism to produce improved designs. No intelligence is present. All the program has to do is to randomly make changes to the design then select those which work better in the intended environment. This alone disproves your assertion that selection is useless, but does serve to demonstrate that your argument is useless.
It establishes different selection pressures. different selection pressures favour different traits and so push the breeding population in new directions.In what way does an environmental change produce a creative drive of any sort?
No. They are a consequence of a changed environment acting upon the available genome, which is a product of heredity and random mutations.Are you agreeing with ID that genetic changes are a stimulus-response to a changed environment?
I am saying the latter. If the environment gets colder it creates a powerful drive toward efficiency in that environment. Efficiency is equally relevant regardless of the temperature. I am saying that the selection pressures on a population when it gets colder favour those changes that will make the organism better able to survive and reproduce in the colder environment. Fitter in this context is equivalent to more efficient. If the climate got hotter, there would again be a powerful drive towards adapting to those hotter conditions through the process of selecting for appropriate genes.Or are you saying that mutations happen with or without environmental changes, then the environmental changes select the best phenotypical changes? I believe the latter is Darwinism, no? So if the environment gets colder, does it create a powerful drive toward efficiency? How?
Luck is not a scientific word. It is a casual, everyday word, carrying with it a baggage quite inappropriate for a serious scientific discussion.Are the beneficial mutations luck or not?
I've deigned to use it in my prior post out of politeness to you. In future I shall restrict myself to the words chance and random, where appropriate.
Some environmental changes will increase mutation rates. I have also read of research suggesting some organisms show increased mutations when subjected to environmental stress. These are a couple of examples. I put the qualifier in because I did not wish the discussion railroaded by someone saying, "Ah, but it's not always random."If it is not entirely random, then what are the non-random parts?
Are you being deliberately obtuse (or worse)? Evolution is a process, not an event. Singling out one step of the process and calling it evolution is dumb.Chronologically, selection cant cause evolution because any new trait or species must evolve before it can be selected. The evolution happens first, THEN selection. Think about it. Can selection select that which doesnt even exist yet? Selection can only keep it or get rid of it, but it can NOT create it.
Existing Population >> Mutations Occur >> New Population >> Selection applied to new population >> Further population rinse and repeat
That, in toto, is evolution, not any single step. If you wish to argue that I'll buy you a wall instead of a dinner. You can talk to it.
I'm not looking for your respect. At present I would consider it a badge of honour not to have it.Personally, I have more respect for a Darwinist who comes right out and admits they have a Luck Theory.
It is one of the main sources of genetic diversity. Diversity is what selection operates on.
Errors/mutations can be negative, neutral or beneficial. The vast majority are neutral (partly because of the redundancy in the genetic system). The ones that are harmful reduce the ability of the organism to survive or reproduce (that is what "harmful" means). The ones that are beneficial improve the ability of the organism to survive or reproduce (that is what "beneficial" means). What do we call that process? Natural selection.Come to think of it, errors just aren't very constructive things, now are they? In fact, there really is nothing more destructive than errors.
The neutral ones contribute to increased diversity ion the gene pool. This may be important if conditions change (which may then give some members of the population a relative advantage or disadvantage).
[Given the title of the thread, I guess I should say that the above is a highly simplified description of one aspect of the process. But as IntelligentAnimation doesn#t seem to understand the basics ...]
Exactly. A loaded term full of negative connotations. No substance.I dont say what I think luck means? It means random chance happenstance. Chaos and disorder. A useless ambiguous mess.... you, know.... errors.
What is your physical testable evidence that this happens? It is certainly not a conclusion that one can draw from the fossil record, where DNA is not preserved, and where as one gets closer to the present the changes get more and more frequent with the completer record that is preserved.Paleoichneum, this absolutely IS what is observed today AND what the fossil record indicates. Long sequences of genetic information ARE activated by master genes when needed, as needed and only when needed and as needed. The fossil record shows very long periods of stasis follwed by large leaps of genetic information change. What part of all of this do you see differently and why?And what evidence do you have of this assertion? This is not what has been empirically observed in modern speciation and is not what is seen in the fossil record.
Bollocks.Come to think of it, errors just aren't very constructive things, now are they? In fact, there really is nothing more destructive than errors.
Leaving samples that became exposed to penicillin mould was an error and it led to a potent antibiotic.
Allowing subordinates to make minor errors in a controlled setting can greatly improve their decision making skills.
Trial and error is a well proven technique for acquiring skills or advancing knowledge.
| « Evolutionarily stable strategies | Life Expectancy » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
33Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
