Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Denis Noble on physiology “rocking” evolutionary biology


In case you didn’t know it was free, here’s Denis Noble:

The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection. Any role of physiological function in influencing genetic inheritance was excluded. The organism became a mere carrier of the real objects of selection, its genes. We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual. Molecular genetics and genome sequencing have deconstructed this unnecessarily restrictive view of evolution in a way that reintroduces physiological function and interactions with the environment as factors influencing the speed and nature of inherited change. Acquired characteristics can be inherited, and in a few but growing number of cases that inheritance has nowbeen shown to be robust formany generations. The 21st century can look forward to a new synthesis that will reintegrate physiology with evolutionary biology.

One guesses that many, many Darwinists will be waiting a long time at the bus stop.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Wow! Interesting! Denis Noble's website, by the way, is http://musicoflife.co.uk/ He clearly is much more aligned with Shapiro and "the Third Way" than he is with ID. That said, he is adding yet another huge layer of complexity onto the top of the simple genetic model that theoretically explains it all. He clearly presents that there is no current explanation for all manner of experimental data. I think the "third way" bunch is going to rewrite our biological textbooks. I also think that it will be much easier to envision that biology is too complex to have "just happened" when this rewrite takes place. bFast
Evolutionism has not welcomed acquired traits leading to inheritence by the kids. they fight it. the point here for creationism is that other mechanisms can lead to new traits. its too easy say creatures acquire traits by walking around. very unlikely. rather its from innate mechanisms. How di people acquire their looks like in skin colour? thats the big example. i say it was instantly upon migrations after the flood. no selection involved . does this mean all that SCIENCE of the old school evos was wrong? nOt science? It was open to critics?! i bet there is more error.. Robert Byers

Leave a Reply