Darwinism

From Wim Hordijk at the Evolution Institute: Evolution is still all too often (but wrongly) downplayed as “just a theory” in public discussions. This is partly due to an unfortunate misunderstanding of what a theory means in science, as opposed to its common language meaning. Evolution by natural selection is much more than just a hypothesis, and is as much a valid and well-accepted scientific theory as the theory of gravitation. What Darwin did for biology is on par with what Newton did for physics — and mathematics plays an important role in both theories. More. How come no physicist ever said, gravity is as real as evolution? Note: The ‘Evolution Institute’ sounds like a dodgy outfit, “Applying evolutionary science Read More ›

From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views: However, a forthcoming book by biologist J. Scott Turner, Purpose & Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It, is a real shot across the bow. Dr. Turner’s last book, from Harvard University Press, was The Tinkerer’s Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself. The new book, from HarperOne, is aimed not at an academic audience but straight at the broadest thoughtful reading public. Turner is a delightful, clear, and highly engaging writer, and he sets out his argument against smug Darwinism forthrightly. As he shows, biology itself is in crisis, having failed to grapple with the enigma of what life really is. More. J. Scott Read More ›

  Did Darwin really explain the origin of species?   My quote of the month is now up on my blog. This is an interesting one as it comes from an evolutionary biologist and critic of ID. I also focus on comments of a similar nature that have been made in more recent years. Surprise, surprise, Darwin’s work isn’t all it is cracked up to be.                                                H. Allen Orr on Darwin’s Failure    

Recently I had a lengthy discussion with an acquaintance about evolution and the various concepts and claims that we find under the heading of the word “evolution.”  At one point I brought up the origin of life and he promptly insisted: “that’s not part of evolution.” “Perhaps,” I offered, “but consider that the origin of life is generally included under the heading of ‘evolution’ in biology textbooks, complete with optimistic discussions about the famous experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey.” “Furthermore,” I continued, “researchers have long talked about ‘chemical evolution’ in relation to the origin of life.  What do they mean by ‘evolution’ in that context, if the origin of life is not part of evolution?”  Indeed, although Darwin Read More ›

One mutation at a time. No need for simultaneous mutations (since the mathematics verges on impossibility). But, maybe, by gosh, we do need those “simultaneous mutations.” Here’s the abstract from Nature of an article where MCT (micro-computed tomography) reveals the ‘innards’ of a primary fossil. Just read it, and you’ll get the notion of how modern science is simply eviscerating Darwinism. Phylogenetic analysis of early tetrapod evolution has resulted in a consensus across diverse data sets in which the tetrapod stem group is a relatively homogenous collection of medium- to large-sized animals showing a progressive loss of ‘fish’ characters as they become increasingly terrestrial, whereas the crown group demonstrates marked morphological diversity and disparity. The oldest fossil attributed to the Read More ›

Despite decades of public relations. From Chase Nelson at Inference Review: Haldane, one of the founders (along with Ronald Fisher and Sewall Wright) of mathematical population genetics, was the first to quantify such a limit on the speed of adaptive evolution. He concluded that the cost of selection “defines one of the factors, perhaps the main one, determining the speed of evolution.” Cost was the main reason Motoo Kimura proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Many others cite its importance. Nelson’s point is that “In general, the number of individuals combining several specific characteristics decreases exponentially with each additional requirement.” For one thing, the requirements must all work together in the same live body. For example, a beagle has Read More ›

Start your day with fun and the rest will be easier. From possible joke site, regarding Jonathan Wells and his new book Zombie Science, this item: We hope this makes it clear that there is no room in objective reality science for nutjobs, like Jonathan Wells, who refuse to March for Science. Bill Nye is the science guy – trust him. More. Funny anyone would pick Bill Nye the [content warning!] guy, a grand marshall (except he’s too white ) of the pussyhat march for science (who must have skipped civics in high school) to be some kind of stellar figure to oppose Wells. But it is after all a joke site. Unfortunately, most of Wells’s critics in this matter feature Read More ›

From Andrew Masterson at Cosmos: In 1972 the eminent palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge proposed an idea about the way evolution worked and, in so doing, sparked a fight of almighty proportions. No, it was not really an “almighty” row. It was a vulgar, vicious row between tenured Darwinists and an early group of evidence-seekers who were soon whipped into shape to support the party line. New modelling revealed by Michael Landis and Joshua Schraiber of Temple University in Pennsylvania, US, however, adds considerable extra weight to their case. They had better watch their step if they want to remain employed. Gould and Eldredge sought to explain so-called gaps in the palaeontological record – missing fossils Read More ›

From Ed Yong at the Atlantic: What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? Three Stanford scientists have proposed a provocative new way of thinking about genetic variants, and how they affect people’s bodies and health. In 1999, a group of scientists scoured the genomes of around 150 pairs of siblings in an attempt to find genes that are involved in autism. They came up empty. They reasoned that this was because the risk of autism is not governed by a small number of powerful genes, which their study would have uncovered. Instead, it’s likely affected by a large number of genes that each have a small effect. Perhaps, they wrote, there might be 15 such genes or more. Two Read More ›

Again. In his new book Zombie Science, biologist Jonathan Wells asks a simple question: If the icons of evolution were just innocent textbook errors, why do so many of them still persist? Wells gave a presentation about Zombie Science at the book’s national launch party recently in Seattle. Watch as Wells explores a new wave of icons walking the halls of science while putting some familiar corpses back in the grave. New topics include DNA, the human eye, vestigial organs, antibiotic resistance, and cancer. Looking past the current zombie outbreak, Wells offers a hopeful vision of science free from the clutches of materialist dogma. Wells himself is something of an iconoclast, railing against the tyranny of science’s Darwin-only advocates. His Read More ›

Here. Biological Theory, June 2017, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 67–71 Three Modes of Evolution by Natural Selection and Drift: A New or an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis? Marion Blute First Online: 07 April 2017 DOI: 10.1007/s13752-017-0264-8 Cite this article as: Blute, M. Biol Theory (2017) 12: 67. doi:10.1007/s13752-017-0264-8 Abstract According to sources both in print and at a recent meeting, evolutionary theory is currently undergoing change which some would characterize as a New Synthesis, and others as an Extended Synthesis. This article argues that the important changes involve recognizing that there are three means by which evolutionary change can be initiated (genetically, ecologically, and developmentally) and three corresponding modes of evolutionary drift. It compares the three and goes on to discuss Read More ›

Where are those people who said no one believes classical Darwinism any more? How be: Qiaoying Lu Pierrick Bourrat, Br J Philos Sci axw035. The Evolutionary Gene and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axw035 20 April 2017: Abstract: Advocates of an ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’ have claimed that standard evolutionary theory fails to accommodate epigenetic inheritance. The opponents of the extended synthesis argue that the evidence for epigenetic inheritance causing adaptive evolution in nature is insufficient. We suggest that the ambiguity surrounding the conception of the gene represents a background semantic issue in the debate. Starting from Haig’s gene-selectionist framework and Griffiths and Neumann-Held’s notion of the evolutionary gene, we define senses of ‘gene’, ‘environment’, and ‘phenotype’ in a way that makes Read More ›

Researchers: This system is exceptional in terms of the rates of evolutionary change and adaptive divergence, and it is likely that this may be due to the uncommon circumstances posed by the isolated and fragmented Galápagos landscape. At Molecular Ecology: Abstract: Beak shape in Darwin’s ground finches (Geospiza) is emblematic of natural selection and adaptive radiation, yet our understanding of the genetic basis of beak shape variation, and thus the genetic target of natural selection, is still evolving. Here we reveal the genomic architecture of beak shape variation using genomewide comparisons of four closely related and hybridizing species across 13 islands subject to parallel natural selection. Pairwise contrasts among species were used to identify a large number of genomic loci Read More ›

From ScienceDaily: Evolutionary biologists have long assumed that when an individual of a species wanders into a different environment than it is adapted to, it will be at a competitive disadvantage compared to natives of the same species which are adapted to that environment. Studying fish in Canada, scientists found the opposite. … Evolutionary theory suggests that taking the fish that are adapted to the lake environment and placing them into the stream would put them at a competitive disadvantage compared with the residents. In the dog-eat-dog world of natural selection, outsiders are often poorly adapted to a new environment and less likely to survive or pass on their genes. In the case of the sticklebacks, that’s because the lake-adapted Read More ›

From ENV: Kin selectionists think that natural selection favors genes of related individuals. The idea, also called inclusive fitness, purports to explain self-sacrifice in animals and humans — why worker ants serve the queen without reproducing themselves, and why humans put themselves in danger for their families. Some of their genes, presumably, will be passed on through their kin. Kin selection theory was given a mathematical formulation by W. H. Hamilton in 1964, to the relief of many Darwinians eager to find an explanation for altruism. It was promoted by E.O. Wilson, father of sociobiology (which led to evolutionary psychology), Richard Dawkins, father of Selfish Gene theory, Jerry Coyne, and many other Darwinians. But when E.O. Wilson jumped ship in Read More ›