Thread: Non-Darwinian evolution is on the rise

Just some of the scientists who have shown that natural selection is not the whole picture of evolution:

James A. Shapiro,
Herbert Graham Cannon,
Eva Jablonka,
Lev Berg,
Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger,
Michael Denton,
Michael Pitman,
Periannan Senapathy,
Chandra Wickramasighe,
Murray Eden,
Stanly Salthe,
Christian Schwabe,
Gerald Kerkut,
Lime-De-Faria,
Pierre Grasse,
Soren Lovtrop,
Fred Hoyle,
Stuart Pivar,
Guy Berthault,
Roberto Fondi,
Giuseppe Sermonti,
Edward Sisson,
Richard Sternberg,
Brian Goodwin,
Peter Saunders,
Richard Milton,
Robert Wesson,
Francis Hitching,
Frank Ryan,
Gordon Rattray Taylor,
James Lovelock,
Lynn Margulis,
Rhawn Joseph,
Henry Fairfield Osborn,
Charles Otis Whitman,
Austin Hobart Clark,
Theodor Eimer,
Erwin Schrödinger,
Hans Dreisch,
John Scott Haldane,
James Le Fanu,
Johannes Reinke,
Guy Coburn Robson,
Rupert Sheldrake,
Robert Broom,
Thomas Hunt Morgan,
William Bateson,
Edward Drinker Cope,
Richard Owen,
George Henslow,
Carl Von Nageli,
Karl Von Baer,
Wilhelm Haacke,
William Lang,
Hans Prizibram,
Otto Schindewolf,
Daniel de Rosa,
Paul Davies,
Robert Lanza,
George Greenstein,
Mae-Wan Ho,
JohnJoe McFadden,
Bruce Lipton,
Ervin Lazlo,
Amit Goswami,
Hubert Yockey,
David Stove,
Jerry Fodor,
James N. Gardner,
Jean Staune,
Lee Spetner,
Gordon Rattray Taylor,
Francis Hitching,
Norman Macbeth,
Alfred Russel Wallace,
James Le Fanu,

+ Hundreds more.

Key non-Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists in the 20th Century

• William Bateson (1861-1926) & Hugo de Vries (1848-1935): abrupt variation as a source of evolutionary novelty

• Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958): altering developmental processes as a source of rapid evolutionary novelty (“hopeful monsters” and Evo-Devo)

• Barbara McClintock (1902-1992): genetic change as a biological response to danger and evolutionary novelty through genome restructuring resulting from “shocks”

• G Ledyard Stebbins (1906-2000): hybridization between species as a source of evolutionary novelty

• Carl Woese (1928- ): molecular phylogeny and the existence of at least three distinct cell kingdoms

• Lynn Margulis (1938- ): cell mergers/symbiogenesis as a source of evolutionary novelty



21st Century Non-Darwinian evolutionists to look out for, would be:

* Bruce Lipton author of The Biology of Belief and more recent books, his latest book came out in 2009, he has criticised neo-Darwinism and the gene centric view of evolution – he claims that genes and DNA do not control biology, instead DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell.

* Rupert Sheldrake author of A New Science of Life and more recent books – claims a process known as morphic resonance: the past forms and behaviors of organisms, influence organisms in the present through direct connections across time and space. Strong critic of reductionism and neo-Darwinism.

* Stuart Pivar author of On the Origin of Form: Evolution by Self-Organization and more recent books (even publishing a new book in 2012)- claims the body form of all organisms is not in genes, genetic code, or DNA but is encoded in the Urform a universal “archtype” substance which Pivar identifies as a primordial germ plasm. His theory rejects natural selection, instead complex biological forms arise through self-organization of embryological processes.

* Antonio Lima-de-Faria author of Evolution without Selection Form and Function by Autoevolution and more recent books. – Claims evolution occurs due to internal physico-chemical factors and not natural selection.

So with this post you are saying that you are willing to consider any alternative, no matter how ridiculous, as long as it is not evolution. Is that it?

the past forms and behaviors of organisms, influence organisms in the present through direct connections across time and space.

You can't be for real, can you?

Just some of the scientists who have shown that natural selection is not the whole picture of evolution:

Guess what: I think you will find that the vast majority of biologists will agree that natural selection is not the whole picture. It is just the largest driver as far as we know.

Natural selection is scientific fact, and well supported by modern genetics :

Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So with this post you are saying that you are willing to consider any alternative, no matter how ridiculous, as long as it is not evolution. Is that it?

crazy? What made you type that? This thread is about evolution, I have made it clear elsewhere I am an evolutionist. All those scientists on the list are evolutionists. They are trying to improve evolution and come up with a new mechanism, natural selection does not explain the whole picture. The main mechanism for evolution is still a mystery.

You can't be for real, can you?

These are the claims of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake do you want to tell him he is not for real? He has spent his life developing the theory of morphogenetic fields. Nice how you cherry pick the post, all silent about the work of Margulis, McClintock and Stebbins I see who have all admitted that the modern sythnesis (neodarwinism) is wrong.

I think you will find that the vast majority of biologists will agree that natural selection is not the whole picture.

Would you like to cite some of these scientists apart from the ones already listed on this thread.

Natural selection is scientific fact, and well supported by modern genetics :

Yes all scientists accept selection occurs in nature, but theres no evidence it causes any kind of major evolution novelty, variation within a species maybe, but nothing above the species level. In other words its not the driving force of evolution.

Originally Posted by forests

Yes all scientists accept selection occurs in nature, but theres no evidence it causes any kind of major evolution novelty, variation within a species maybe, but nothing above the species level. In other words its not the driving force of evolution.

Yes it is. Genetic variation + natural selection within the gene pools of a species is evolution, when taken across several generations. You seem to always forget about the "across several generations" bit.

Your thread is a non-issue. As has been pointed out no reputable biologist would declare that natural selection was solely responsible for evolution.

Also you move the goal posts from an opening of Darwinian evolution, to one where we are discussing the Modern Synthesis. I think you will find the Modern Synthesis is itself so modified by discoveries in the last half century that a "New Modern Synthesis" exists: it just lacks the Simpsons and the Dhobzhanskys to elucidate it.

crazy? What made you type that? This thread is about evolution, I have made it clear elsewhere I am an evolutionist. All those scientists on the list are evolutionists. They are trying to improve evolution and come up with a new mechanism, natural selection does not explain the whole picture. The main mechanism for evolution is still a mystery.

Let's get something clear: evolution is decent with modification. Natural selection is the main driver, but there are other drivers as well. This is the position of nearly ALL evolutionary biologists (I am sure there must be a kook or two who disagree). That is the mainstream position of evolution theory. There is no controversy about that.

These are the claims of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake do you want to tell him he is not for real? He has spent his life developing the theory of morphogenetic fields. Nice how you cherry pick the post, all silent about the work of Margulis, McClintock and Stebbins I see who have all admitted that the modern sythnesis (neodarwinism) is wrong.

Oh come off it. I asked you if you are for real for seriously considering such nonsense. Sheldrake is a kook and has virtually no support for his nonsense. And no, I did not cherry pick. Rupert Sheldrake is a kook all on his own and I highlighted him. I did not distort anything by doing that.

Now, you don't seem to know much about evolution and the "modern synthesis" at all. Nobody imagines natural selection to be the only driver. Simply read the Wiki page on evolution and you'll see. Haven't you even done that before making this thread?

Let me ask you: how do you think science works? Do you think that the publishing of books is enough? No sir. You have to present your ideas for peer review and you must have some support for it other than having it spring from your imagination. You must conduct experiments and you must be able to demonstrate your hypothesis and have others be able to test it for themselves. Why do you think these people are not met with more enthusiasm from the larger evolution science community? No, it is not dogma or bias (which inevitably is the claim of the "fringe'), it is because they don't have much evidentiary support for their claims.

Yes all scientists accept selection occurs in nature, but theres no evidence it causes any kind of major evolution novelty, variation within a species maybe, but nothing above the species level. In other words its not the driving force of evolution.

Nonsense. This sounds pretty much exactly like creationist propaganda. Tell me what do you get after a long series of small changes? One big change? There you go.

Originally Posted by forests

Just some of the scientists who have shown that natural selection is not the whole picture of evolution:

That is an utterly pointless list of names. Who are these people? What is their expertise? What are their ideas on evolution?

I don't recognize many of these names. Of the few I recognize, few are biologists and most have, errmm ... "unusual" ideas in their own area of expertise. Some are out and out crackpots.

Rupert Sheldrake,

Sorry, I thought you said "scientists". I'm afraid the credibility of this thread has just gone negative.

But, duh! Obviously, there is more to evolution that Darwin could have known. He didn't know about genetics, never mind the complexities of gene expression, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer and the many other mechanisms that can influence evolution.

So what?

Originally Posted by forests

but theres no evidence it causes any kind of major evolution novelty, variation within a species maybe, but nothing above the species level. In other words its not the driving force of evolution.

What's that you say? You don't know about it so it can't exist?

Oh you want some examples of new species arising by evolution? Ones we can really see? Gosh, how hard is that to find I wonder ...
Observed Instances of Speciation

Furthermore, the barriers between species are largely arbitrary and are merely used by biologists to classify organisms in terms of how interrelated they are. There is no clear dividing line in nature, hence no real barrier to speciation. It is a false problem in the minds of creationists and the like.

For instance, what barriers would there be for a common ancestor to develop into both modern Felidae and Canidae families? Just look at how similar they are. A hyena is more cat-like than Canid-like, but you would not have guessed as much, would you? How about rats and mice? Did you know they are genetically further apart than chimpanzees and humans?

Originally Posted by forests

So with this post you are saying that you are willing to consider any alternative, no matter how ridiculous, as long as it is not evolution. Is that it?

crazy? What made you type that?

He didn't. You are the only one that used the word crazy...

I must be very bored...

Originally Posted by forests

Just some of the scientists who have shown that natural selection is not the whole picture of evolution:
...
Alfred Russel Wallace

Hang on a minute! Did you even look at this list before you posted it? Where did it come from?

How come Wallace is there? He developed his own version of evolution by natural selection (i.e. "Darwinian" evolution) and was one of the key people involved in getting Darwin's work accepted.

You give the impression of not being very familiar with the subject you are commenting on.

And skimming for more familiar names:

• Paul Davies? The cosmologist? Really? Has he ever said anything about evolution? And, as he is not a biologist, why would it be relevant?
• James A. Shapiro? The geneticist? Has he ever said anything contradicting the role of natural selection? I somehow doubt it.
• John Scott Haldane? Are you sure that isn't mean to be John Burdon Sanderson Haldane? But he developed a mathematical descrption of natural selection so wouldn't seem to be opposed to Darwinian evolution.
• Edward Sisson? Not a scientist so shouldn't be on your list.
• Eva Jablonka? Never opposed natural selection, as far as I know.

So your list seems to be a random mixture of scientists, no-scientists, crackpots, supporters of evolution and, for all I know, stand up comedians.

What was your point again?

Originally Posted by Strange

I must be very bored...

Originally Posted by forests

Just some of the scientists who have shown that natural selection is not the whole picture of evolution:
...
Alfred Russel Wallace

Hang on a minute! Did you even look at this list before you posted it? Where did it come from?

How come Wallace is there? He developed his own version of evolution by natural selection (i.e. "Darwinian" evolution) and was one of the key people involved in getting Darwin's work accepted.

You give the impression of not being very familiar with the subject you are commenting on.

And skimming for more familiar names:

• Paul Davies? The cosmologist? Really? Has he ever said anything about evolution? And, as he is not a biologist, why would it be relevant?
• James A. Shapiro? The geneticist? Has he ever said anything contradicting the role of natural selection? I somehow doubt it.
• John Scott Haldane? Are you sure that isn't mean to be John Burdon Sanderson Haldane? But he developed a mathematical descrption of natural selection so wouldn't seem to be opposed to Darwinian evolution.
• Edward Sisson? Not a scientist so shouldn't be on your list.
• Eva Jablonka? Never opposed natural selection, as far as I know.

So your list seems to be a random mixture of scientists, no-scientists, crackpots, supporters of evolution and, for all I know, stand up comedians.

What was your point again?

Lmao... not to be rude but you really do read like a broken record. I have sent this list to other Darwinists and they always go mad over Wallace and ignore the rest.

The truth is, Wallace in his later years came to reject natural selection on the human being.

Wallace is known for his non-Darwinian directed theory of evolution in opposition to Darwins, Wallace was non-Darwinian evolutionist because he discovered that evolution was not random. You wouldn't know this though becuase you don't wish to look beyond wikipedia and you refuse to look at what Wallace really wrote on the matter, this always happens with the Darwinists.

Wallace invented the theory of natural selection, his publication came out before Darwins, it was becuase of Wallace that Darwin stole the concept of natural selection, Darwin would never of come across natural selection if it was not becuase of Wallace. Wallace started writing letters to him. Darwin then fell out with Wallace.

Wallace after his publication of natural selection became to realise that natural selection was not what he first thought it was, after further investigation and observations especially with native peoples who by the theory of natural selection they should have small brains but this was proven otherwise, he became to discover that natural selection has no impact on the human being and natural selection could not explain mans brain or upright posture. He wrote a book before his death in which he wrote that natural selection could not explain consciousness or intelligence of the human brain etc and that a non-random evolutionary force must explain this. He developed his own non-Darwinian evolution theory called "Intelligent evolution". You can read about this theory and his views in his books:

Alfred Wallace - World of life
Alred Wallace - Modern Spiritualism and Miracles

Wallace later became a spiritualist. His evolution theory was titled - "a manifestation of creative power, directive mind and ultimate purpose". You might want to close your eyes to this evidence that you don't want to see.

Wallace believed that evolution was directed and not random. There is nothing more anti-Darwinian than that. Please do your research. Read the books of Wallace

James A. Shapiro? The geneticist? Has he ever said anything contradicting the role of natural selection? I somehow doubt it.

Now heres the kicker - THE BOTTOM LIST IN MY POST WAS COMPILED BY JAMES A. SHAPIRO!! James Shapiro I email him all the time, see his presentation on Non-Darwinian evolution that he delivered to other 200 scientists:

From the University of Chicago’s James Shapiros 2010 Works of the Mind lecture, “A 21st Century View of Evolution":

Shapiro is a critic of natural selection, he describes himself as a Non-Darwinian have you not read his book? Seriously?

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2010.WorksOfTheMind.pdf

Eva Jablonka

Lets not even go there, you have not read her books have you? BIGGEST critic of neo-Darwian evolution currently going !see her work on trying to update Lamarck. Believes evolution is directed.

Paul Davies? The cosmologist

Has been critical of neo-Darwinism, il post up some of his comments from one of his books soon, I don't have a copy on me right now, I will locate it.

John Scott Haldane

Yes its this man not his son. Scott Haldane was a stauch critic of neo-Darwinism, he treated the organism as fundamental, he was an organicist. He wrote two books in opposition to some of the Darwinian interpretation of evolution. Yet his son was a staunch Darwinian.

Edward Sisson

Fair play on this one and Richard Milton aswell - they are engineers not exactly biologists but have written decent publications pointing out flaws with Darwinism, neither are creationists though.

So your list seems to be a random mixture of scientists, no-scientists, crackpots, supporters of evolution and, for all I know, stand up comedians.

You have embarressed yourself, and you are not educated about these guys works I am afraid!

Originally Posted by forests

Lmao... not to be rude but you really do read like a broken record. I have sent this list to other Darwinists and they always go mad over Wallace and ignore the rest.

What is a "Darwinist"?

The truth is, Wallace in his later years came to reject natural selection on the human being.

So what? As he got older he came to believe all sorts of wacky things. That has nothing to do with science.

Wallace invented the theory of natural selection, his publication came out before Darwins, it was becuase of Wallace that Darwin stole the concept of natural selection, Darwin would never of come across natural selection if it was not becuase of Wallace.

That is just not historically accurate.

Now heres the kicker - THE BOTTOM LIST IN MY POST WAS COMPILED BY JAMES A. SHAPIRO!!

This highlights the confusion in your posting. I assumed from what you wrote that this was about natural selection. But you seem to be lumping together any advances in science that Darwin could not have known about as somehow being "anti-evolution". All the people in this presentation are working on the science of evolution.

There is not a single dogmatic theory of evolution. There are many different people, with different ideas, exploring different processes and mechanisms. That is how progress is made. Some of them will be right (because they produce evidence to support their ideas) and some will turn out to be wrong (contradicted by the evidence). That is how science works. Instead you seem to making some sort of "argument from authority".

Even if some of them think natural selection is not relevant, so what. Most evidence contradicts them. If the balance of evidence changes that, then so be it.

I really don't see what your point is.

James Shapiro I email him all the time

Does he ever reply

Shapiro is a critic of natural selection, he describes himself as a Non-Darwinian

So what?

If you had just listed some of the biologists working in the area and said, "look how much our understanding of evolution has expanded since Darwin" it could have been an interesting and useful thread.

However, by mixing in lawyers, cosmologists, and crackpots, you have just muddied the water.

So, in a sentence, what is the point you are tying to make? And what evidence (not lists of names) do you have to support it?

Strange, I think forests point is that while evolution occurs, natural selection is not the principal driving force. While practically all evolutionary biologists would agree that natural selection is not the only factor controlling evolution, few would argue that it is not the principal one. This is what forest seems to be arguing against.

Now, to a degree, I can go along with this. Not too far, but a little way. For example I am with Margulis and Lovelock in that the impact of cooperation on evolution is profound. I think we have been somewhat sidetracked by phrases such as 'survival of the fittest' and 'Nature red in tooth and claw'. They have blinded us to the fact that cooperation and competition are both elements of evolution and arguably equally important. Now natural selection is still the mechanism at work, but it is not always expressed through A outpacing B, but often by A and B in concert outpacing their environment.

However, I doubt Margulis and Lovelock have actually declared they think natural selection is secondary. I stand ready to be corrected on this point by forests or anyone else. But that needs to be by specific citation, not broad, unsubstantiated declarations.

That is reasonable. It is pretty clear that selection is a, if not the, major factor for most species. It is equally obvious that it is not the major factor for others. So, yeah, "Darwin was wrong". Not.

All you need to do is read shattering the myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton. Milton is not a scientist but his book was a review of what the neo-Darwinists have being saying over the years, compared to the actual non-Darwinian view.

Darwinism/Darwinist/neo-Darwinism/modern synthesis = dogmatic on natural selection, they put a primary role for ns, ns is a "creative force" for them and the main evolutionary mechanism.

non Darwinian evolutionist = any scientist who downplays ns, claims it is a minor mechanism, or in some cases completey rejects it. And others such as Lamarckists or proponents of orthogenesis who believe evolution is directed.

Here is a review of Miltons book, the relevant parts for now.

Milton next writes that Darwin arrived at the idea of struggle of existence after reading Thomas Malthus’s 1798 essay on population and that natural selection is not a biological theory. Sadly the view of struggle of existence is still advocated by the Darwinist crowd today even though observations of the natural world show otherwise (in upcoming reviews I will touch on this). Milton on the next few pages writes that natural selection “sheds no light on the mechanism of evolution and is only another way of saying some animals live and breed while others die out”. In other words natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, Milton does not deny that it exists but, as he points out, it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution of species, therefore it is not a force of evolution as the neo-Darwinists claim.

Milton’s next takes on some of the claimed examples of natural selection. He is quick to show that very few examples exist. The one most frequently cited involves industrial melanism of moths which has been cited by the Darwinists as “natural selection in action.” But as Milton points out: “all the light moths were eaten, leaving only the dark ones. Far from being an example of evolution or even natural selection, the peppered moth is an example of a shift in population”. This cannot be claimed as an example of neo-Darwinism as no new genetic novelty has been created and the shift in population is doing nothing for evolution. The example does not show natural selection to be an evolutionary mechanism.

In the next chapter Milton claims that selective breeding experiments with fruit flies such as the Drosophilae have all failed and all the lines became sterile and the flies died out. This is not evidence for evolution at all, he writes. He then claims there is a limit to genetic variability in a species due to a natural barrier; he cites scientists who have openly admitted this. He writes that all scientists know this but for some reason Darwinists will not openly admit it. Then he writes that the central theme of neo-Darwinism is that “bears can become whales, or microbes become elephants by means of random mutation and natural selection." This is a fairytale, he says. Most scientists secretly do not buy into it but this is what they claim and teach in schools and Universities. That, he says, is his biggest problem with neo-Darwinism.

Near the end of the chapter Milton writes that natural selection cannot create new genetic novelty (he is correct here and biologists such as Lynn Margulis have admitted this) so the only mechanism the Darwinists have left is random mutations, but Milton in the next chapter shows how mutations in the neo-Darwinian model could not have driven evolution. Milton makes it clear that variation has been observed in species but no new genetic material has ever been observed to be created in the genome.

----

Lynn Margulis downplayed natural selection and so have others such as Brian Goodwin, she admitted that it exists but it can not create any new genetic novelty, instead symbiosis for her does that, I will dig up her exact quotes, I have been fond of her work. As Milton said natural selection “sheds no light on the mechanism of evolution and is only another way of saying some animals live and breed while others die out”. Margulis even defined neo-Darwinism as a religion. That is what the modern synthesis has become.

Also see this link http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html

All you need to do is read shattering the myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton

*Sigh*
Should I or should I not ?
Ah what the heck, here is the quote, and yes, it's from Wikipedia :

"The Facts of Life aroused intense controversy and was met with both high praise and intense criticism. Reviewing it in New Statesman, Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins described it as "twaddle that betrays, on almost every page, complete and total pig-ignorance of the subject at hand".^[6]
Milton's claims have been criticised as pseudoscience by philosophy professor Robert Carroll.^[7] Milton appeared on The Mysterious Origins of Man, a television special arguing that mankind has lived on the Earth for tens of millions of years, and that mainstream scientists have suppressed supporting evidence.^[8]
Milton's claims on the age of mankind have also been criticised for scientific inaccuracy.^[9] Milton's "Best of Enemies" [Page 167] quotes David Irving as a source on Hitler, despite the fact that Irving was jailed for Holocaust denial, and is no longer generally regarded as a reliable source by Holocaust scholars.
"

Originally Posted by forests

All you need to do is read shattering the myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton

No thanks. I'll stick to scientists rather than crackpot journalists who don't understand the science they are writing about.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

All you need to do is read shattering the myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton

*Sigh*
Should I or should I not ?
Ah what the heck, here is the quote, and yes, it's from Wikipedia :

"The Facts of Life aroused intense controversy and was met with both high praise and intense criticism. Reviewing it in New Statesman, Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins described it as "twaddle that betrays, on almost every page, complete and total pig-ignorance of the subject at hand".^[6]
Milton's claims have been criticised as pseudoscience by philosophy professor Robert Carroll.^[7] Milton appeared on The Mysterious Origins of Man, a television special arguing that mankind has lived on the Earth for tens of millions of years, and that mainstream scientists have suppressed supporting evidence.^[8]
Milton's claims on the age of mankind have also been criticised for scientific inaccuracy.^[9] Milton's "Best of Enemies" [Page 167] quotes David Irving as a source on Hitler, despite the fact that Irving was jailed for Holocaust denial, and is no longer generally regarded as a reliable source by Holocaust scholars.
"

lol how did I know your were gonna do that??

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forests

All you need to do is read shattering the myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton

No thanks. I'll stick to scientists rather than crackpot journalists who don't understand the science they are writing about.

But the book is (the back half) quotes from Mayr, Simpson, Gould, Dawkins etc etc.. then he compares it to the Non-Darwinian view of Michael Denton, and Ted Steele etc etc... he has reported on these matters quite well. I recently emailed Milton and he told me the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism) is junk science as it is based on things we can not observe, he compared it to astrology.

Originally Posted by forests

lol how did I know your were gonna do that??

Coz I'm lazy
Why trawl through hundreds of Google hits when there is a perfectly good summary on Wikipedia ??
For most introductory and summary purposes, WP is a perfectly good source. Once can then go and do further research if needed.

lol how did I know your were gonna do that??

Ok, so, what do you have to say about it? In fact, when are you going to actually discuss the problems highlighted about your nonsense, instead of telling us to read this and that? You have not demonstrated having even a passing understanding of the subjects you try to rubbish. Again, no surprise there.

Originally Posted by forests

lol how did I know your were gonna do that??

But you did notice, I hope, that all those statements have references so if you don't trust Wikipedia (and on this, I think we can) you can go and check the sources yourself. And hence find out what an unreliable source you are citing. Again.

You seem to have trouble separating science from pseudo-science. Why else would you put someone like Sheldrake, say, in the same list as scientists like Davies, Margulis, Shapiro, et al.

Originally Posted by forests

Darwinism/Darwinist/neo-Darwinism/modern synthesis = dogmatic on natural selection, they put a primary role for ns, ns is a "creative force" for them and the main evolutionary mechanism.

non Darwinian evolutionist = any scientist who downplays ns, claims it is a minor mechanism, or in some cases completey rejects it. And others such as Lamarckists or proponents of orthogenesis who believe evolution is directed.

Nothing to argue with here, but some clarification is in order. Firstly there are damned few non-Darwinian evolutionists and most of the reputable ones would appear to be in the camp who wish to give less emphasis to natural selection. You can put me in that camp. Otherwise I wouldn't have been playing around for the last few years with the skeleton of a book on the role of cooperration at every level from the biosphere, down to the biochemical. But all that's doing is amending the Modern Synthesis.

To some extent you seem to be arguing against a strawman. I suspect few evolutionists are as committed to the exclusivity of NS as you believe. On the other hand, the more extreme views, suchas the rejection of NS in toto, appear to come from questionable sources.

Originally Posted by forests

Milton next writes that Darwin arrived at the idea of struggle of existence after reading Thomas Malthus’s 1798 essay on population and that natural selection is not a biological theory. Sadly the view of struggle of existence is still advocated by the Darwinist crowd today even though observations of the natural world show otherwise (in upcoming reviews I will touch on this). Milton on the next few pages writes that natural selection “sheds no light on the mechanism of evolution and is only another way of saying some animals live and breed while others die out”. In other words natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, Milton does not deny that it exists but, as he points out, it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution of species, therefore it is not a force of evolution as the neo-Darwinists claim.

This is just silly. Milton is apparently overlooking two key facts. First, as Darwin pointed out and as was central to his hypothesis, populations vary in their heritable chracteristics. Therefore, since only some individuals survive to breed, those with characteristics favouring survival in that environment will flourish in comparison with others. As to novelty, that was a problem for Darwin and it took the recognition of mutations to explain how novelty could enter the game. There is no mystery here, except the mysteryof how an educated man could misunderstand somethng so badly.


Frankly, the rest of his arguments, as reported are either simply worng or are attacks on a strawman. For example, find me a university where it is taught that a bear could become a whale! This is either ignorance - which can be excuse - or deliberately misleading, which is unethical.

Originally Posted by forests

Darwinism/Darwinist/neo-Darwinism/modern synthesis = dogmatic on natural selection, they put a primary role for ns, ns is a "creative force" for them and the main evolutionary mechanism.

non Darwinian evolutionist = any scientist who downplays ns, claims it is a minor mechanism, or in some cases completey rejects it. And others such as Lamarckists or proponents of orthogenesis who believe evolution is directed.

I would have thought that anyone who sticks dogmatically to either of those extremes is probably misguided. For most species, natural selection is the dominant process. For others it isn't.

Even Lamarckian evolution, which has been thoroughly falsified, is a model for some process that occur.

And, loosely connected, came across this recently: Nature: Prions are a common mechanism for phenotypic inheritance in wild yeasts
This provides a new mechanism for phenotype modification and it is, to some extent, driven by the environment (i.e. not purely by selection). Interesting stuff.

There is a paper here:

Paper Title: Darwinism Design and Purpose: A European PerspectiveAuthor: Jean Staune

Institutional Affiliation: General Secretary, Université Interdiciplinare de Paris

http://www.metanexus.net/archive/con...pdf/staune.pdf

The paper explains non-Darwinian evolution. May be useful for some of the users here.

“The Strong Darwinians”

Those similar to Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins, who are gradualists andadaptionists. They have made the assessment that: “Nature does not makejumps” and they consider that if a given structure exists in Nature, it is becauseit corresponds to an adaptation of the organism, which it was a part of. It issomehow useful to that organism. For Dennett, however, adaptionism is thefundamental Darwinian mechanism.

- “

The Weak Darwinians”

Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin or Niels Eldredge are all clearlyDarwinians. However, they contextualis gradualism and adaptationism. In afamous article, Gould and Lewontin (1) denounce the ”Adaptionism” as aPanglossian program. For them, many structures do not actually have a reasonfor being but rather they have appeared as by-products of other structures,which were useful for the organism.

- The “Weak non-Darwinians”

In their view, the mechanisms of evolution are the same as those advocated byDarwinians. However, they have certain constraints, which impede upon andradically change the image that the Darwinians give us of evolution. ForChristian

de Duve and Simon Conway Morris, if evolution were to begin anew,it will lead to conscious beings more or less like us which is an unacceptableclaim for the Strong or Weak Darwinians who agree on one point: evolution is acontingent phenomenon, it will therefore never produce two identical results.For Francisco Varela or Stuart Kauffman, these are self-organizationphenomena, which complete and modify the Darwinian vision of evolution.

-

The “Strong non-Darwinians”

Whether they are members of the self-organization school, or they alignthemselves with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s ideas, they all consider that theDarwinian factors explain micro-evolution (the transition of one species of dogto another) but not macro-evolution (the transition from one genus to another).Similar to the “Mentonians” of Pluto (Michael Denton is a part of the StrongNon-Darwinian group). The phenomena responsible for evolution overextensive periods of time are not, in their opinion, the same as those that areresponsible for small evolutionary changes than the ones we see begin before our eyes.

The paper also lists many other non-Darwinians such as Brian Goodwin and Pierre-Paul Grassé.

First, you are arguing against a strawman since you seem to be equating Dawrinism with the Modern Synthesis. To call Conway Morris a non-Darwinian is to totally misunderstand his position. Frankly it is little different from that of Dawkins. Where he differs is in his perception of the effect of the constraints imposed on solutions by the character of the environments the organisms involve in. He sees these as tighter than conventionally seen.

In my view any conclusion to that deabte is premature. You will have to find specific instances from their work that would convince me that weak non-Darwinians were opposed to the Modern Synthesis. Do they wish to modify and improve it? Of course they do. That proves nothing.

First, you are arguing against a strawman since you seem to be equating Dawrinism with the Modern Synthesis

It is not a strawman arguement, they are the same thing. You might want to read this newspaper article by Simon Conway Morris, how many times does he use the word "Darwinism".

Neo-Darwinism, Darwinism and the modern synthesis are all the same. Name me one scientist who is a non-Darwinian who considers to be part of the modern synthesis? They don't want to be part of it. The modern synthesis was coined by Huxley a Darwinist and was just a new name for Darwinism. 100% the same thing, but has been updated with new genetical mechanisms still 100% dogmatic on Darwins gradualism and natural selection. There is nothing non-Darwinian about the modern synthesis, this is why you never find a proponent of the modern synthesis criticising Darwin in any way shape or form.

Simon Conway Morris: Darwin was right. Up to a point | guardian.co.uk

Simon Conway Morris:

Nevertheless, evolution is evidently following more fundamental rules. Scientific certainly, but ones that transcend Darwinism. What! Darwinism not a total explanation? Why should it be? It is after all only a mechanism, but if evolution is predictive, indeed possesses a logic, then evidently it is being governed by deeper principles. Come to think about it so are all sciences; why should Darwinism be any exception?

To reiterate: when physicists speak of not only a strange universe, but one even stranger than we can possibly imagine, they articulate a sense of unfinished business that most neo-Darwinians don't even want to think about.

It seems that Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, modern synthesis are all used interchangeably. David Dennett an orthodox neo-Darwinian uses Darwinism and modern synthesis throughout his books.

It is quite clear from the article Conway Morris is a weak non-Darwinian. As I understand it, he also has theistic evolution leanings. Jerry Coyne an orthodox Darwinist and proponent of the modern synthesis has on his blog called Conway Morris a creationist!

This would not be the first, the Darwinist crowd usually call the non-Darwinians "creationists" as an attack. Brian Goodwin was called a creationist by die hard defenders of the modern synthesis. Crazy.

Note how Conway morris was attacked by the die hard cult of the modern synthesis for saying "Darwin was right, up to a point". Lol... you can not even say Darwin made any mistakes at all to these people, they are mad dogmatic Darwinists. They seem to think Darwin is immune from criticism, it reminds me of the creationists and Jesus.

Originally Posted by forests

This would not be the first, the Darwinist crowd usually call the non-Darwinians "creationists" as an attack. Brian Goodwin was called a creationist by die hard defenders of the modern synthesis. Crazy.

You seem to think that anyone you regard as a "non Darwinist" is beyond criticism while you are happy to throw insults at anyone you label a "Darwinist". Crazy.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forests

This would not be the first, the Darwinist crowd usually call the non-Darwinians "creationists" as an attack. Brian Goodwin was called a creationist by die hard defenders of the modern synthesis. Crazy.

You seem to think that anyone you regard as a "non Darwinist" is beyond criticism while you are happy to throw insults at anyone you label a "Darwinist". Crazy.

Nope, I dont think that! Pierre Teilhard de Chardins non-Darwinian theory and his ideas about the omega point are stupid to me but they are the complete opposite of everything that Darwin said and I have criticised them in the past, not all non-Darwinans have it correct and I certainly have criticised some of them, many other non-Darwinians such as richard goldschmidt attempted to replace Darwins theories but put some stupid ideas in the gap, who has ever observed a macro-mutation? Yet he thought that was the main driving force for evolution, he was wrong, and he has been criticised, these folk are not beyond criticism however Sheldrake gets my full support and so does Margulis. Sheldrake is the man!

Simon Conway Morris:

Nevertheless, evolution is evidently following more fundamental rules. Scientific certainly, but ones that transcend Darwinism. What! Darwinism not a total explanation? Why should it be? It is after all only a mechanism, but if evolution is predictive, indeed possesses a logic, then evidently it is being governed by deeper principles. Come to think about it so are all sciences; why should Darwinism be any exception?

Whats this? Simon Conway Morris using the word Darwinism interchangeably for the modern synthesis? It would only be fair now that John Galt phones up Morris and to say to him that he is using strawman arguements, are you gonna do that John? Well are you? owned.

Originally Posted by forests

Sheldrake is the man!

Has sheldrake ever produced any evidence for any of his wacky theories? Certainly all those I have looked at are laughable. Perhaps you could point to some solid evidence, preferably in peer reviewed journals. (And no nonsense about a "conspiracy" please. You have precious little credibility left. You don't want to lose it all.)

Has sheldrake ever produced any evidence for any of his wacky theories? Certainly all those I have looked at are laughable. Perhaps you could point to some solid evidence, preferably in peer reviewed journals. (And no nonsense about a "conspiracy" please. You have precious little credibility left. You don't want to lose it all.)

Lots of evidence, I will do a thread about it at some point with some journals cited, I am currently in the process of reading his book "The Science delusion", not a book against science a book showing what dogmas science has become. You may wish to check it out!

Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist

Yes, yes. We know. There is more to evolution than you thought. Well done.

Just noticed that article isn't available on-line to non-subscribers so have you actually read it or were you just attracted by one of New Scientist's famously misleading headlines?

Originally Posted by forests

Simon Conway Morris:

Nevertheless, evolution is evidently following more fundamental rules. Scientific certainly, but ones that transcend Darwinism. What! Darwinism not a total explanation? Why should it be? It is after all only a mechanism, but if evolution is predictive, indeed possesses a logic, then evidently it is being governed by deeper principles. Come to think about it so are all sciences; why should Darwinism be any exception?

Whats this? Simon Conway Morris using the word Darwinism interchangeably for the modern synthesis? It would only be fair now that John Galt phones up Morris and to say to him that he is using strawman arguements, are you gonna do that John? Well are you? owned.

In the passage you quote there is no indication he conflates Darwinism with the modern synthesis. That said, I suspect Conway Morris, while brilliant, is something of a media hog, like Dawkins. He can get more attention (and perhaps more research funding) by being controversial. His atatements seem akin to a geologist saying of plate tectonics that Tuzo Wilsonism is dead: it's too bloody obvious to warrant comment, while being misleadingly flawed on the other.

And while I have no intention of bothering Simon with a trivial phone call, if I ever meet him I shall certainly explain to him why is viewpoint is mistaken. (If it is as you have represented it.)

Can I just say I don't like the terms "Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinism". Why not just name the mechanisms themselves from the get go? Look at all of these posts just about what they are supposed to imply. To me, Darwinism means the mechanisms Darwin named and alluded to in his book, rightly or wrongly. Whatever that was should not have any impact on the "modern synthesis" of evolution, which contains natural selection as the main driver along with a host of other processes that drive evolution.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Can I just say I don't like the terms "Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinism". Why not just name the mechanisms themselves from the get go?

I heartily agree. I've always believed that the use of such terms is often motivated partly by an attempt to separate the concept from the domain of science, and thence to attack it. We don't refer to relativity theory as "Einsteinism," for example, or quantum theory as, say, "Schrodingerism." So, why "Darwinism?"

Like "Liberal" and "Conservative" wheras most people are, well, just people with a wide diversity of views. Labels are designed to pigeonhole (sorry pigeons) people into categories you can then bash.

Originally Posted by tk421

I heartily agree. I've always believed that the use of such terms is often motivated partly by an attempt to separate the concept from the domain of science, and thence to attack it. We don't refer to relativity theory as "Einsteinism," for example, or quantum theory as, say, "Schrodingerism." So, why "Darwinism?"

Exactly. There seems to be a trend among anti-science types(1) to focus on individuals, whether it is Einstein or Darwin, and either attack them as individuals or claim that people only believe the theories because of those individuals. It is, of course, nothing to do with them. It is the accumulation of evidence before and after them that makes it science.

(1) Yes, forests, that does include you. For obvious reasons.

Can I just say I don't like the terms "Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinism".

I do not like them either, but mainstream scientists (mostly advocates of the modern synthesis) are still using these terms to describe the modern synthesis and themselves. In collection of essays the Darwinist David Dennett wrote regarding natural selection:

""This is the fundamental truth of Darwinism, and, as I have tried to show in my own work, there are no stable intermediate positions; either you shun Darwinism evolution altogether and cling to an Aristotelian or Abrahamic vision of God as Prime Mover or Creator, or you turn that traditional universe upside down ..."

You still don't think Darwinism is dogmatic?

(1) Yes, forests, that does include you. For obvious reasons.

What evidence have you got that I am anti-science?

What is the real anti-science? I think you will find it is the cult of Darwinism.

This is what Darwin wrote:

It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye with a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference by presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with spaces filled with fluid, and with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further, as we must suppose that there is a power, represented by natural selection or survival of the fittest, always intently watching each slight alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully preserving each which, under varied circumstances, in any way or in any degree, tends to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a better one is produced, and then the old ones to be all destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man! The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (6th Edition), Chapter 6, "Difficulties of the Theory", Section on "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication", final paragraph.)

Note that Darwin states, "... we must suppose that there is a power, represented by natural selection or survival of the fittest, always intently watching each slight alteration in the transparent layers ..."

Natural selection/survival of the fittest is the action of God, according to Darwin.

Is that scientific? Sounds like theistic crankery to me and yet that is what Darwinists such as yourself embrace.

Has sheldrake ever produced any evidence for any of his wacky theories?

What evidence do you have that any of the theories of Sheldrake are wacky?

Darwin sounds wacky to me:

The Origin of Species Page 368: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."

Please note reference to "the Creator". According to Darwin, the ultimate origin of species is the Creator.

So you will call Sheldrake theories wacky? But embrace Darwins idea that a "creator" has created species?

Originally Posted by forests

I do not like them either, but mainstream scientists (mostly advocates of the modern synthesis) are still using these terms to describe the modern synthesis and themselves. In collection of essays the Darwinist David Dennett wrote regarding natural selection:

If you don't like the term, stop using it!

You still don't think Darwinism is dogmatic?

Dennett may be being dogmatic but I don't see how an "ism" can be dogmatic. Although, I suspect you may be misrepresenting him from that tiny quote but I really don't know. I have never read anything by him and I doubt I ever will (because he is a philosopher).

What evidence have you got that I am anti-science?

Mainly your bizarre desire to try and prove Darwin was wrong on any basis at all. Your constant attacks on a straw man of "Darwinism". The fact that you are not interested in the evidence for or against any aspect of evolution, you just like quoting people who criticize (or that you can interpret as criticizing) "Darwinism". The fact that you use stupid insults against anyone you suspect of being a "Darwinist".

Need I go on?

I think you will find it is the cult of Darwinism.

You see. You prove my point again.

This is what Darwin wrote:

Who gives a **** what Darwin wrote? How is that relevant to anything. Only someone who is at best uninterested in science and, more likely, anti-science would say something like that.

Natural selection/survival of the fittest is the action of God, according to Darwin.

And yet, many other people accuse it of being an immoral, atheist philosophy.

But, again, what has that got to do with science?

You are just confirming, once again, that the only thing you are interested in is finding some way of bashing Darwin. You are not interested in science. In fact, you want to twist and distort the science so you can use it to attack Darwin. I don't know why you want to do that. And I don't care why. I don't care what you think of Darwin. It doesn't matter. It is irrelevant.

The point is: it is not science.

Sounds like theistic crankery to me and yet that is what Darwinists such as yourself embrace.

I have no idea where you get the idea that I agree with any of that. I don't care what Darwin thought. It may well be "theistic crankery" for all I know. I don't care. I have never read anything written by Darwin other than a few short quotes. Why would I?

Originally Posted by forests

What evidence do you have that any of the theories of Sheldrake are wacky?

Why do I need evidence to say that his claim, unsupported by any evidence, that dogs are telepathic is weird? It obviously is.

But I see you sidestepped the question of providing any evidence for his claims.

But embrace Darwins idea that a "creator" has created species?

As far as I can see from that quote he doesn't say that a created created species. And, even if he did, so what? What makes you think I share any of his religious or philosophical views?

I don't care what Darwin thought

You don't care what Darwin thought but go mad at any scientist who challenges his ideas or natural selection? The problem is, is that too many people do care, they turned the man into some kind of shrine! They have a statue of him in the British Museum, where is the statue of Lamarck?? Or any of the others... Wallace? Nope there are none. Note how Darwin is taught in the class room in most schools. No the "modern synthesis" is not taught nothing is taught about that in the class room, I learned about Darwin 2 years ago in college, not evolution! It is just about Darwin, we spent a month learning about his life and his discovery of natural selection, nothing else! We even had to go on a trip and visit his house!

Nothing about Lamarck, Goethe, Buffon etc in the lessons - men who had discovered evolution before Darwin. Darwin is a charlatan and his ideas should be shunned.

Last month in University guess what? They were teaching evolution again and guess how many lectures were spent discussing Darwins theory of natural selection, 3 lectures! But natural selection was not his theory, it came from Wallace and others! No mention of them though Nothing about any of the other scientists, nothing about the "modern synthesis" nothing at all! Just garbage about Darwin!, nothing about Lamarck, Margulis, Sheldrake, or any of the real interesting evolutionary scientists! Nope.. just more Darwin brainwashing!

I do not like them either, but mainstream scientists (mostly advocates of the modern synthesis) are still using these terms to describe the modern synthesis and themselves. In collection of essays the Darwinist David Dennett wrote regarding natural selection:

""This is the fundamental truth of Darwinism, and, as I have tried to show in my own work, there are no stable intermediate positions; either you shun Darwinism evolution altogether and cling to an Aristotelian or Abrahamic vision of God as Prime Mover or Creator, or you turn that traditional universe upside down ..."

And I don't like it when they do, because then people like you come along with some kind of chip on his shoulder or on some weird ignoramus crusade that get all pissy when the scientists don't jump all over the place and give credence to every nonsense idea someone comes up with. That's when you just love to throw that moniker around like it is some cult or something. If you read your quote, it looks to me like he is talking about the clear separation between science and the supernatural, the way it should be.

Despite what you may think and despite all the nonsense you decide to copy and paste here, there is no unambiguous evidence compelling enough to make a real blimp, no matter how many books on all kinds of nonsense gets published and eaten up by people like you. Darwin lived, made some keen observations, wrote a good book about it, came up with some proposed mechanisms and died. That was a long time ago. Forget about him. Today we have huge volumes of evidence and a variety of mechanisms that illuminate the process of evolution and it expands daily. There is no fixed dogma, only that which has the best evidentiary support behind it. But nothing is written in stone.

You come on this forum and paste an endless stream of copied text and show no sign of having any idea of what you are talking about. You quote people like Sheldrake, you think that because someone like Margulis made a contribution in evolution research, that whatever they say besides that is supposed to be on equal footing and is only not accepted due to an adherence to an imagined dogma. Surprise, people can talk sense one minute and total nonsense the next. Even scientists do that. But no matter how respected they might have been before, they still have to submit to peer review. A stack of books does not amount to sound scientific method.

You still don't think Darwinism is dogmatic

The strawman you so laboriously attack sure is. Modern evolutionary theory isn't. Abandon your crusade and actually study the subject and how the scientific methods works for a second. Please.

You come on this forum and paste an endless stream of copied text and show no sign of having any idea of what you are talking about.

Darwinism/neo-Darwinism and modern synthesis are all the same thing, and there is nothing to understand behind it all, it is gibberish.

There is no understanding becuase there is nothing to understand when it comes to natural selection and random mutation (Darwinism) which is the main driving force for the modern synthesis, as seen on the other thread nobody even knows what they are talking about when it comes to mutations, every scientist has their own pin on it, the figures do not add up. Natural selection theory rests on an essay by Thomas Malthus in which he states how famine, disease, accidents keep the population down - how is this a scientific theory?

The theory of evolution by natural selection is Alfred Russel Wallace and Darwin applying that to the whole of nature and which has now become a dogmatic fact for the "modern synthesis".

Study the subject and how the scientific methods works for a second

The irony.

Survival of the fittest - natural selection was originally an economics theory of Thomas Malthus, where did he use the scientific method?.

Economics is not evolution. Economics is not a science.

If you have really read the modern synthesis then you would understand that natural selection is "survival of the fittest" such a stupid idea, a tautology even, how could "fitness" even be measured, this is the theory that is taught around the globe today, it is an economical theory.

It's a principle of preservation. That's all. Natural selection is just a principle of preservation, a theory on population control. There is no evidence that it is a "creative force" or "driving force" for every organism on earth.

"It should have been possible, even before Darwin came around to it, to criticize the whole imagery of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. But if we except Samuel Butler and one or two of the other unheeded critics, everybody preferred 'Nature red in tooth and claw,' and either regretted or rejoiced that it was the only means of making improvements in species. Some obviously feared that if natural selection were discarded evolution would be endangered. They thought the two theories inseparable and foresaw a rebirth of superstition. But dropping natural selection leaves the evidence for evolution untouched. It was not even a question of dropping natural selection, for natural selection is an observed fact. It was a question of seeing - as Darwin came to see - that selection occurs AFTER the useful change has come into being: therefore natural selection can cause nothing but the elimination of the unfit, not the production of the fit. To use ... the analogy of the shotmaker's slide [, which allows only the perfectly round shot to reach the bottom], the perfectly round shot have to be made before they can be selected, and it is nonsense to say that it is their trial on the slide that makes them round."

Jacques Barzun, Darwin - Marx - Wagner - Critique Of A Heritage, p59, 61-2

Malthus's "Principles of Population" states that disease, accidents, war and famine "keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of more civilized peoples." There is no scientific evidence to justify the application of Malthus's controversial exposition to the whole of the animal and vegetable kingdom.
Darwinian evolutionary theory (the modern synthesis is economics theory applied to nature) It is a joke. This is not science.

Robert Broom the South African paleontologist in his 1950 book "Finding the Missing Link" compared natural selection to the religious doctrine of the trinity. Apparently scientists have lost their jobs if they do not publicly admit they support natural selection as the main force for evolution (this has been confirmed many times), but behind closed doors many scientists had doubts Broom reported (again this has been confirmed, go and read the private letters of evolutionists such as William Bateson for example), do you see how dogmatic natural selection has become?

Fred Hoyle on natural selection:

"Is natural selection really the powerful idea it is popularly supposed to be? As long ago as my teens, I found it puzzling that so many people seemed to think so... Surely the rich assembly of plants and animals found on earth cannot have been produced by a truism of this minor order? The spark plug of evolution must lie elsewhere."

I give Hoyle 10/10.

Evolution is a fact. What is not a fact is Neo-Darwinism or now as it's called the Modern evolutionary synthesis. Remember the modern evolutionary synthesis (neo-Darwinism) is not evolution itself, it is just an interpretation of evolution, with proposed mechanisms.

As Gordon Ratttray Taylor put it "The fact that an evolutionary process occurred is not in doubt. It is only the mechanisms which brought it about which is being questioned". and

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection... is crumbling under attack. Biologists are discovering more and more features which it does not seem able to explain." The Great Evolution Mystery

Another problem with the modern synthesis theory is that the fossil evidence shows that evolution has not occured in a sequence of small gradual changes. There are signs of rapid change and the rise of markedly different species which do not fit into the idea of gradualism.

Metamorphosis is also a problem for neo-Darwinism. It is difficult to see how a butterfly arises from a caterpillar from a series of "small changes" or randomly by chance like the Darwinsts would have us believe.

Neo-Darwinism also has difficulty explaining parallel evolution for example mammalian characteristics have occured at the same time in different groups in completely unconnected lands, such as America and Australia.

According to science journalist Richard Milton:

The second problem is -- if possible -- even more fundamental. The word selection means to choose one or a few from a greater number, as in selecting a dish from a menu. Selection is thus inescapably a process that reduces biological diversity. But evolution, as envisaged by Darwinists is inescapably a process that increases biological diversity (Darwin called his book "The origin of species", not "The reduction of species").

It is obvious therefore that no form of selection can be the central engine that drives evolution. Selection may or may not exercise some peripheral effect (as a matter of fact there isn't any evidence that it exercises an effect of any kind) but selection cannot ever be pressed into service as the central mechanism of evolution.

For example, Darwinists claim that camouflage coloring and mimicry (as in leaf insects) is adaptive and will be selected for, yet they also claim that warning coloration (the wasp's stripes) is adaptive and will be selected for. Yet if both propositions are true, any kind of coloration will have some adaptive value, whether it is partly camouflage or partly warning, and will be selected for.

As a theory, natural selection makes no unique predictions but instead is used retrospectively to explain every outcome: and a theory that explains everything in this way, explains nothing.

Natural selection is not a mechanism: it is a rationalisation after the fact.

Atleast some honest biologists have admitted this:

The general principle of natural selection, in fact, merely amounts to the statement that the individuals which leave the most offspring are those which leave the most offspring. It is a tautology." C.H. Waddington in The Strategy of the Genes

Today it is still commonly claimed that Darwin's natural selection is the evolutionary mechanism par excellence However, this assertion is not based on any factual evidence, for nobody has ever demonstrated that natural selection can bring about anything but events that are trivial from an evolutionary perspective. Soren Lovtrup in Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth

Where do you copy and paste this stuff from?

Originally Posted by forests

Darwinism/neo-Darwinism and modern synthesis are all the same thing, and there is nothing to understand behind it all, it is gibberish.

This is simply not true. Talk about gibberish!! (And strawman arguments BTW)

Survival of the fittest - natural selection was originally an economics theory of Thomas Malthus, where did he use the scientific method?.

Economics is not evolution. Economics is not a science.

No kiddding. Then why did YOU bring it up. And why do anti-scientists always use as their target ideas from 3 centuries ago? Perhaps because they are ancient outdated ones, so it's easier to refute than current science?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Where do you copy and paste this stuff from?

90% of it is from me, the rest from a Lamarckist called "Johns" - A man who may publish articles on takeondarwin at some point though that would depend on the owner Shaun and if this guy called Johns wants to get involved or not, I have collected many quotes over the years, many of which can be found in the book by Milton or in the remarkable book "The Great Evolution Mystery" by Gordon Rattray Taylor.

And why do anti-scientists always use as their target ideas from 3 centuries ago? Perhaps because they are ancient outdated ones, so it's easier to refute than current science?

What are you talking about? The religion of natural selection is a theory of economics, that is what it is and where it comes from. That it what the modern synthesis teaches. Of course when it comes to nature we never see it as a "driving force for evolution", it exists in the minds of men. A big fairytale! Economics is not science method! The fittest animals survive and leave the most offspring - that is the driving force for the modern synthesis apparently.

Originally Posted by forests

You don't care what Darwin thought but go mad at any scientist who challenges his ideas or natural selection?

I don't go mad. And I don't care if someone challenges Darwin, his ideas or natural selection. But I will address bad science when I see it. Your uninformed rants against "Darwinism" are classic examples of bad science.

I learned about Darwin 2 years ago in college, not evolution! It is just about Darwin, we spent a month learning about his life and his discovery of natural selection, nothing else! We even had to go on a trip and visit his house!

Oh you poor thing. Such horrendous abuse of our young people.

nothing about Lamarck, Margulis, Sheldrake, or any of the real interesting evolutionary scientists!

Lamarck was wrong in almost every respect so I don't know why you keep bringing him up.
Sheldrake is no longer a scientist so I don't know why you keep bringing him up.

Originally Posted by forests

Darwinism/neo-Darwinism and modern synthesis are all the same thing, and there is nothing to understand behind it all, it is gibberish.

But thanks for confirming that you are not interested in, and know nothing about, the relevant science.

It seems you have some bizarre vendetta based on your educational experience or something. I have no idea and I don't really care.

But at least it is clear that there is no point engaging in any sort of intelligent debate with you. You have an opinions and you are not going to let facts get in the way.

You can't fight teenage angst. Why even try.

Darwinism/neo-Darwinism and modern synthesis are all the same thing, and there is nothing to understand behind it all, it is gibberish.

So basically you are saying to us that you don't actually understand the ideas that you are so vigorously attacking, is that it ?

Originally Posted by forests

90% of it is from me, the rest from a Lamarckist called "Johns"

You do know that the Lamarckian model of evolution was thoroughly falsified (despite being the state "religion", as you like to put it, of Soviet Russia for many years - and causing much damage as a result).

Although we now know there are some mechanisms that allow an organisms environment to affect its offspring for several generations ahead, Lamarck ideas are still wrong.

The fact you desperately want it to be right doesn't change the evidence.

I don't go mad. And I don't care if someone challenges Darwin, his ideas or natural selection. But I will address bad science when I see it. Your uninformed rants against "Darwinism" are classic examples of bad science.

Read my long post above, I have listed loads of scientists who have challenged natural selection, but you ignore it. Robert Broom the South African paleontologist in his 1950 book "Finding the Missing Link" compared natural selection to the religious doctrine of the trinity.

Malthus's "Principles of Population" is what natural selection is, it states that disease, accidents, war and famine "keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of more civilized peoples." There is no scientific evidence to justify the application of Malthus's controversial exposition to the whole of the animal and vegetable kingdom. In nature we simply do not see it. So why do you believe it? Darwinian evolutionary theory (the modern synthesis is economics theory applied to nature) It is a joke. This is not science. So please explain to me why you believe it?

The modern synthesis claims that camouflage coloring and mimicry (as in leaf insects) is adaptive and will be selected for, yet they also claim that warning coloration (the wasp's stripes) is adaptive and will be selected for. Yet if both propositions are true, any kind of coloration will have some adaptive value, whether it is partly camouflage or partly warning, and will be selected for.

As a theory, natural selection makes no unique predictions but instead is used retrospectively to explain every outcome: and a theory that explains everything in this way, explains nothing. Natural selection is not a mechanism: it is a rationalisation after the fact. You understand that right?

Now instead of posting off topic, what actual evidence is there that natural selection is driving evolution. Now you have made clear natural selection is very important for evolution, so the burden is on you to provide evidence for it, yet so far you have not done that.

You also contradict yourself, why then are other scientists such as Margulis, Goodwin, Waddington or Sovtrup (all biologists) saying exactly the same as me? Are all of these scientists "anti-science" as well then? Is anyone who does not comply to your Darwinian natural selection automatically dismissed? Explain.

Robert Broom the South African paleontologist in his 1950 book "Finding the Missing Link" compared natural selection to the religious doctrine of the trinity.

Would that be the same Robert Broom, who, upon being asked how he selected his excavation sites, replied that he was guided by supernatural spirits ?

You do know that the Lamarckian model of evolution was thoroughly falsified (despite being the state "religion", as you like to put it, of Soviet Russia for many years - and causing much damage as a result).

Although we now know there are some mechanisms that allow an organisms environment to affect its offspring for several generations ahead, Lamarck ideas are still wrong.

The fact you desperately want it to be right doesn't change the evidence.

His ideas have not all been falsified. Theres the work of Ted Steele for example, and many examples of a Lamarckian mechanism working in the plant kingdom. Many people have not understood the arguments of Lamarck. Theres more examples which recently in epigenetics are proving Lamarck correct rather than Darwin. See this article for example.

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong | Science | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Robert Broom the South African paleontologist in his 1950 book "Finding the Missing Link" compared natural selection to the religious doctrine of the trinity.

Would that be the same Robert Broom, who, upon being asked how he selected his excavation sites, replied that he was guided by supernatural spirits ?

You got a problem with that?

Originally Posted by forests

Read my long post above, I have listed loads of scientists who have challenged natural selection, but you ignore it.

I have no interest in reading any of your irrational nonsense. I am certainly not going to reread it.

All you provided was a long list of names with no explanation. Most of them aren't even scientists. Of the few who are scientists, most aren't biologists.

But again, you are not looking at the science. You are not looking at the evidence. All you are doing is looking for people who you might be able to present as criticising your mythical "Darwinism" and recruiting them to your irrational crusade.

Originally Posted by forests

You got a problem with that?

Only if you want to talk about science. Which you don't.

Originally Posted by forests

You got a problem with that?

I'll let the readers of this thread be the judge of whether this is a problem or not...

So far as I can see as an outsider not involved in this discussion ( this whole subject is not my area of expertise ), you have so far miserably failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that contradicts Darwinian evolution, and/or natural selection. In fact you have openly admitted that you don't even know much about the subject. The discussion is now just going around in circles !

Would that be the same Robert Broom, who, upon being asked how he selected his excavation sites, replied that he was guided by supernatural spirits ?

Sounds pretty unfair to me, you ignore his criticism of natural selection, so decide to bring up irrelevant things instead and attack the man? Darwin mentioned "the creator" in his books, you all silent there I guess.

I have no interest in reading any of your irrational nonsense.

Then why come to a forum in the first place if you do not wish to read peoples posts, and secondly why keep replying on this thread?

All you provided was a long list of names with no explanation. Most of them aren't even scientists. Of the few who are scientists, most aren't biologists.

You have made it clear you are not a scientist yourself and you certainly are not in education learning. You most likely have never been in nature. As a learning ecologist I am in nature 5 times a week or more. There is no evidence for Malthus's economics in nature, that is what natural selection is, controversial statements about fitness. There no constant competition in nature, and far more cooperation than competition. You are still to provide evidence for natural selection, it sounds like you do not actually understand the things you claim to believe in yourself.

Waddington and Lovtrup were both biologists, they said natural selection is a tautology and nothing more than animals leaving offspring and surviving and others dieing. You would still need to explain how this natural selection is a driving force for your modern synthesis. Now instead of attacking me or the scientists that I cite, perhaps you could provide evidence instead.

See the man at the top of the list James A. Shapiro - I emailed him last month and he told me the "modern synthesis is deeply flawed", he then claimed that random mutation and natural selection are not driving evolution as they never add anything new to the genome, natural selection itself is nothing more than a filter apparently. James A. Shapiro (2011) Evolution: A View from the 21st Century is against gradualism, against random mutations, against natural selection as a creative force. This man himself considers himself a "Non-Darwinian evolutionist".

Please explain Strange.

James A. Shapiro is an American biologist, an expert in bacterial genetics and a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago. - Does not qualify on your listing as a "crank".

Please explain. Thanks.

You call me anti-science, so Shapiro must be as well? A he claims random mutation and natural selection are not evolutionary mechanisms.

Originally Posted by forests

Sounds pretty unfair to me, you ignore his criticism of natural selection, so decide to bring up irrelevant things instead and attack the man? Darwin mentioned "the creator" in his books, you all silent there I guess.

I don't ignore his criticism, I just don't share it.
Yeah, I imagine Darwin would have mentioned a "Creator", since he was a Unitarian himself. So what ? He was also quite explicit in saying that his theory cannot explain the origin of life on Earth in general, only its evolution after it appeared. That's my understanding of things.

So what is your scientific evidence against evolution and natural selection anyway ? Like I said, this isn't my area of expertise, but it would still be interesting to see what you have to say for yourself.

Originally Posted by forests

You call me anti-science, so Shapiro must be as well? A he claims random mutation and natural selection are not evolutionary mechanisms.

He is a scientist and uses evidence to support his views.

You are not and you don't.

I don't know what else to say.

Originally Posted by forests

I have no interest in reading any of your irrational nonsense.

Then why come to a forum in the first place if you do not wish to read peoples posts, and secondly why keep replying on this thread?

Do you have a deficit in reading comprehension? Did I say "I do not wish to read people's posts"?

I will continue to point out when you are spouting irrational nonsense.

Originally Posted by forests

See the man at the top of the list James A. Shapiro - I emailed him last month and he told me the "modern synthesis is deeply flawed", he then claimed that random mutation and natural selection are not driving evolution as they never add anything new to the genome, natural selection itself is nothing more than a filter apparently. James A. Shapiro (2011) Evolution: A View from the 21st Century is against gradualism, against random mutations, against natural selection as a creative force. This man himself considers himself a "Non-Darwinian evolutionist".

Could you post that email you said you received from him in response to your query here on this thread ?

As for Shapiro, here is a good summary / review of the work referenced above :

Evolution: a View from the 21st Century

Here's an excerpt :

It is one thing to establish that certain cellular subsystems do not conform to received dogma. It is quite another to establish that a paradigm shift in thinking is necessary. Every evolutionary biologist knows the field is littered with the corpses of those who once heralded the arrival of the next Kuhnian Messiah. At the end of Part II Shapiro too has failed to convince that the many fascinating molecular phenomena he describes requires a wholesale jettisoning of Darwinian doctrine. Indeed, throwing out basic Darwinian principles (random mutation, heritable variation, and the sieve of natural selection) would seem folly, as they surely predate the evolution of such highly evolved nonconformist subsystems as CRISPR-Cas.

I am still waiting for that evidence I asked you for.
You seem to have very strong opinions on this subject, so I am sure you have the scientific evidence to back those up ?

Originally Posted by forests

See the man at the top of the list James A. Shapiro - I emailed him last month and he told me the "modern synthesis is deeply flawed", he then claimed that random mutation and natural selection are not driving evolution as they never add anything new to the genome, natural selection itself is nothing more than a filter apparently. James A. Shapiro (2011) Evolution: A View from the 21st Century is against gradualism, against random mutations, against natural selection as a creative force. This man himself considers himself a "Non-Darwinian evolutionist".

I have just had a very quick read of some of his papers and articles. Fascinating stuff. Thanks. Of course, only time will tell how much of it is correct or not.

I don't think it is reasonable for you to assume it must be correct because you see it as anti "Darwinism".

Originally Posted by forests

You do know that the Lamarckian model of evolution was thoroughly falsified (despite being the state "religion", as you like to put it, of Soviet Russia for many years - and causing much damage as a result).

Although we now know there are some mechanisms that allow an organisms environment to affect its offspring for several generations ahead, Lamarck ideas are still wrong.

The fact you desperately want it to be right doesn't change the evidence.

His ideas have not all been falsified. Theres the work of Ted Steele for example, and many examples of a Lamarckian mechanism working in the plant kingdom. Many people have not understood the arguments of Lamarck. Theres more examples which recently in epigenetics are proving Lamarck correct rather than Darwin. See this article for example.

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong | Science | The Guardian

Interesting article, but again, nothing really that challenges natural selection for the top mechanism of evolution in at least multi-cellular organisms.

Epigenetics is of course a very interesting topic and area of further research, but epigenetics doesn't challenge natural selection. Epigenetics is about the heritability of gene expression, of phenotype. It doesn't change the base DNA. That is a far cry from Lamarckian evolution, which would need to involve changes in DNA of offspring to be brought on by the life experiences of the parent. This doesn't happen.

I am still waiting for that evidence I asked you for.

Typing it up from scratch is going to take about one day, so I can not post it at the moment but I will do, my arguement if not against evolution, just against natural selection and the idea of fitness.

I don't think it is reasonable for you to assume it must be correct because you see it as anti "Darwinism".

No its not correct at all in my opinion, my point was to show that qualified scientists do challenge Darwins ideas. I do not have his email left sadly, but if you email shapiro he will confirm, you just have to ask his opinions on the modern synthesis, also note he has a presentation online about non-Darwinian evolution, this presentation has become very popular amongst intelligent design proponents but mostly ignored by those within the evolutionist community. I have not read his book but Shaun2000 has read and reviewed the book on his website, I don't think theres any doubt, it clearly is a non-Darwinian book.

Now as the new scientist magazine published those words Darwin was wrong, myers, coyne and Dawkins complained to the new scientist magazine and wanted the title changed! Shows you how nutty Darwinists are, they seem to think their hereo is immune to criticism. This was the one simple point I was trying to make, his name has become a piece of shrine worship to some people, it is very sad indeed. Lamarck and Wallace are forgotten. Do you see my concerns about this?

Originally Posted by forests

His ideas have not all been falsified.

Yes they have. And why do you keep referring to people like Lamarck. Look at the science and, if you must focus on individuals, look at the people who are doing that science now.

Yes, there are fascinating mechanisms in genetics, epigenetics and the modification of the genome by the environment that are being discovered. These are showing us that (as I said) the environment can have a direct effect on the offspring of an organism for one or more generations.

This scientific research was not done by Lamarck. These new mechanisms were not discovered by Lamarck. It is not "Lamarckism". You are insulting all the scientists doing amazing research in these areas by saying that.

Interesting article, but again, nothing really that challenges natural selection for the top mechanism of evolution in at least multi-cellular organisms.

Is there anything at all that you would accept to challenge natural selection?

It doesn't change the base DNA. That is a far cry from Lamarckian evolution, which would need to involve changes in DNA of offspring to be brought on by the life experiences of the parent. This doesn't happen.

I think it might happen, Sheldrake's field theory offers one alternative, theres also the signal theory of Bruce H. Lipton - But both these authors won't go down well with the orthodox thinkers on this forum so lets leave it at that!

Originally Posted by forests

Typing it up from scratch is going to take about one day, so I can not post it at the moment but I will do, my arguement if not against evolution, just against natural selection and the idea of fitness.

I am looking forward to it. Hopefully though this is not just a long list of names again.

Originally Posted by forests

No its not correct at all in my opinion, my point was to show that qualified scientists do challenge Darwins ideas.

Well, duh. Of course they do.

Now as the new scientist magazine published those words Darwin was wrong, myers, coyne and Dawkins complained to the new scientist magazine and wanted the title changed!

The thing is, you posted that cover picture but did you read the article? I suspect not, because the article didn't come to the conclusion that Darwin was wrong. So once again, you are cherry picking quotes to support your irrational quasi-religious ideology.

Originally Posted by forests

I think it might happen, Sheldrake's field theory offers one alternative, theres also the signal theory of Bruce H. Lipton - But both these authors won't go down well with the orthodox thinkers on this forum so lets leave it at that!

Well, this "orthodox thinker" likes evidence.

Sheldrake's hypotheses have no evidence.

I know nothing about Lipton.

Originally Posted by forests

Lamarck and Wallace are forgotten.

That would mainly be because no one was ever able to experimentally verify his idea about the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

Originally Posted by forests

Interesting article, but again, nothing really that challenges natural selection for the top mechanism of evolution in at least multi-cellular organisms.

Is there anything at all that you would accept to challenge natural selection?

I don't know what such a model would look like, but I am always open to convincing alternatives. I care about what is true, irrespective of what the implications of that might be. I don't have any loyalties. These alternatives would need strong evidence in support of it that at the same time excludes natural selection though.

It doesn't change the base DNA. That is a far cry from Lamarckian evolution, which would need to involve changes in DNA of offspring to be brought on by the life experiences of the parent. This doesn't happen.

I think it might happen, Sheldrake's field theory offers one alternative, theres also the signal theory of Bruce H. Lipton - But both these authors won't go down well with the orthodox thinkers on this forum so lets leave it at that!

Well, great. I am sure I could think up something interesting as well. The problem is the absence of good evidence.

Speculation is great. I do it about a range of science topics and even have some of my own ideas, but I am not presumptuous enough to think that my non-expert speculations approach anything even close to rigorous scientific methods. They are fun. That's all for now.

Can you differentiate between good scientific practise and irresponsible declarations of revolution against "dogma"? Because you make the mistake of equating the reluctance of the scientific community to seriously consider all manner of speculations with a cultish adherence to dogma, while it is simply that a high standard for the scientific method exists.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

That would mainly be because no one was ever able to experimentally verify his idea about the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

Well, someone did ... but he cheated.

Originally Posted by Strange

I know nothing about Lipton.

Well know for tea and a chain of grocery stores. Founded the America's cup. Probably a different chap.

I've stumbled upon this forum and thread accidentally and I have to say without mentioning names that the amount of dogmatism lingering is deeply unscientific. Certain factions are dismissing whole books and papers which they clearly haven't read based on the fact that it contradicts their ideology! I'm sorry but whoever is not prepared to challenge their own ideology on a daily basis (and I mean ideology as much as some people would like to call them facts) is on a road to nowhere.

Originally Posted by mowgli

I've stumbled upon this forum and thread accidentally and I have to say without mentioning names that the amount of dogmatism lingering is deeply unscientific. Certain factions are dismissing whole books and papers which they clearly haven't read based on the fact that it contradicts their ideology! I'm sorry but whoever is not prepared to challenge their own ideology on a daily basis (and I mean ideology as much as some people would like to call them facts) is on a road to nowhere.

I could say the same. But we might be talking about different people. Would you care to be specific, rather than making meaningless generalizations.

You might as well join the forum and say, "I agree with some people but I disagree with others."

p.s. welcome to the forum!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by forests

His ideas have not all been falsified.

Yes they have. And why do you keep referring to people like Lamarck. Look at the science and, if you must focus on individuals, look at the people who are doing that science now.

Yes, there are fascinating mechanisms in genetics, epigenetics and the modification of the genome by the environment that are being discovered. These are showing us that (as I said) the environment can have a direct effect on the offspring of an organism for one or more generations.

This scientific research was not done by Lamarck. These new mechanisms were not discovered by Lamarck. It is not "Lamarckism". You are insulting all the scientists doing amazing research in these areas by saying that.

While Lamarck did focus on the experiences of the parents that he believed effected changes in the offspring and now science is discovering that the environment has a direct effect on the offspring, how are these two views different from each other? Parents are included as part of the environment that can effect offspring.

Epigenetics is only an effect on the expression of genes, i.e. the phenotype. Lamarckism requires changes in the genes themselves.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Epigenetics is only an effect on the expression of genes, i.e. the phenotype. Lamarckism requires changes in the genes themselves.

All creatures share many of the same genes and I would think that differences in phenotypes is the result of different expression of those genes in different phenotypes.

ever read Gregory Bateson's work on genetic learning? his "learning 4"
one of his focuses was high altitude adaptation
in south america = barrel chested (large lungs)
in the himalayas = more red blood cells
he claimed that when lowland peoply moved upland, their children adapted to the altitude mimicking the indigenous populations
---
(wild guess)
dormant genes for each adaptation (available when needed)
triggered by the altitude, and the adaptations evident around the organism
...
"evolution achieves learning IV by the combination of phylogenesis with ontogenesis"
.............

What Darwin Got Wrong

Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, in their new book entitled What Darwin Got Wrong, delivers a stunning exposé on the Dawkins’s inane assertion that 1) natural selection is a logical theory, and 2) natural selection is nonrandom.Seasoned by decades of scientific investigation, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini begin by demonstrating that even “Darwin’s theory of natural selection is fatally flawed”. Not only flawed, they view the concept of natural selection is simply an “intensional fallacy”.

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are not lone critics. With over 20 pages of references, the authors demonstrate that the theory of natural selection is no more than circular reasoning: a tautology.

Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini explains: “[T]here is at the heart of adaptations theories of evolution, a confusion between (1) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected and (2) the claim that evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits… Darwinism is committed to inferring (2) from (1)”. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini conclude, “We think this argument, although ubiquitous in the literature, is fallacious.”Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini also address Dawkins’ issue of “nonrandom survival”, by pointing out that nonrandom processes require a mechanism to overcome entropy—randomness. The obvious question is – what is the mechanism that natural selection uses to overcome nature’s tendency towards randomness?To answer this question, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini quotes from Gabriel Dover (2006), the British geneticist that coined the term “molecular drive”: “Selection is not a process as such with predictable outcomes based on fixed, selective ‘powers’ of individual genes controlling aspects of phenotype.”

The evidence demonstrates that natural selection does not deliver “predictable outcomes”. Lack of evidence for a predictable outcome, highlights the fact that natural selection does not have an operational mechanism to overcome randomness to increase complexity—the essence of evolution.

Despite over 150 years of investigation since the publication of The Origin of the Species, no known natural law has been discovered to guarantee natural selection as a nonrandom process. Currently, there are no known natural mechanisms to overcome the general tendency of all nature towards randomness without an intervention. Contrary to Dawkins’ assertion, natural selection is simply a random process.What is the role of natural selection, then? For Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, “We think of natural selection as tuning the piano, not composing the melody.” This is not the nonrandom force of evolution as championed by Dawkins. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, like Richard Dawkins, are evolutionists and “out-right, card-carrying, sign-up, dye-in-the-wool, no-holds barred atheists.” On the subject of natural selection acting as a nonrandom agency, however, the contrasts could not be more acute. Consensus that natural selection cannot possibly be a nonrandom process has reached a tipping point. Mutations are random. Natural selection is random. Dawkins contention of “nonrandom survival of randomly varying hereditary instructions” is now clearly emerging as simply “breathtaking inanity.”

Hi forests, welcome back.

No, not welcome. Goodbye.

I feel we are under siege from people who think we just emerged on earth as fully formed human beings, I think Darwin will be turning in his grave.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I feel we are under siege from people who think we just emerged on earth as fully formed human beings, I think Darwin will be turning in his grave.

Wrong, Darwin was a creationist crackpot, a theology student with no science education or background who stole his theories from others. In his books he used the words "the creator" many times and labeled himself a "christian" in private letters he was not a scientist.

Also you mention Darwin but Darwin did not "invent" evolution he was not the first to discover it, why not mention Goethe, Buffon, Chambers or Lamarck etc? Give credit where it is due.

Please get updated about evolution. The neodarwinists is 50 years old. Get with the times. People on this thread apart from myself are not biologists, ecologists etc, they are not in the field studying the topic. Motoo Kimura discovered that natural selection is not powerful enough to eliminate all mutations at the DNA level. He called these mutations neutral mutations, because they are not affected by selection, positive or negative. He was right. Gabriel Dover has shown many examples where natural selection does not exist in nature, to fill the gap he claims there is a third force in evolution he calls it molecular drive, he has published a number of peer reviews on this mechanism but it currently has not been must heard of.

The late Brian Goodwin has written two books on how Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection fails to explain the forms of organisms because it focuses on inheritance and survival, not on how organisms are generated.

J. Scott Turner has downplayed natural selection and instead focuses on the role of homeostasis. The biologist Eugene Koonin (2011) in his book Logic of Chance, The: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution rejects natural selection and adaptation as the only or even the main mode of evolution.

Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson in a book titled Unto Others. The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior have downplayed the role of natural selection and have talked about the importance of group selection.

The biologist Lynn Margulis rejected random mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for creating new species she wrote that natural selection is never creative. Instead symbiosis (the incorporation of the whole genome of one species by an unrelated species), creates new species, this position is also held by a recent school of biologists who have been challenging darwinian competition and replacing it with cooperation such as Frank Ryan. Darwin was wrong there is no constant competition in nature. There is also lots about horizontal gene transfer which contradicts the standard view of natural selection.

As the thread already shows. James A. Shapiro Evolution: A View from the 21st Century is against gradualism, against random mutations, against natural selection as a creative force etc.

The biologist Wallace Arthur has even been talking about a mechanism called "internal selection" yet no mention of that on this forum. You seriously need to dig into the field to see what mechanisms are out there and what is really going on. Evolution is much more than random mutation or natural selection.

There is also a whole self-organization school of evolution which has downplayed natural selection, see the work of Stuart Pivar or Stuart Kauffman for example and a tonne of others.

I am also a fan of field theories of evolution, see the work of Rupert Sheldrake on morphogenetic fiels or the work on cells by Bruce Lipton etc.

All these scientists have proven that natural selection is not a creative force. Neo-darwinists on this forum are creationists, believing natural selection is creative is creationism, it has never been observed.

James A. Shapiro (2011) Evolution: A View from the 21st Century is against gradualism, against random mutations, against natural selection as a creative force, against the Central Dogma, for rapid change ( whole genome duplication, hybridization, natural genetic engineering) and for adaptive mutation etc), evolution is no longer Darwinian, it is much more complex than you guys believe it is, you have never been in nature, as Lynn Margulis has pointed out there is no constant competition in nature. The Darwinian school of evolution has been wrong about everything, and neo-darwinism is now outdated, the only people who support it are forum users, not actual biologists or ecologists in the field. You need to get updated about evolution.

Originally Posted by Darryl

I am also a fan of field theories of evolution, see the work of Rupert Sheldrake on morphogenetic fiels ...

Personally, I prefer science. But whatever. If you want to fall for his metaphysical nonsense, that is up to you.

Absolute rubbish again. Stop returning as sock puppet's forrets! You are no biologist and are fooling nobody. Banned again and I am closing this thread.