Darwinism Epigenetics Evolution horizontal gene transfer

Denis Noble: Evolution needs replacement, not extension

Spread the love

The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin' In The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing “the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin,” Oxford’s Denis Noble explains to Suzan Mazur why our understanding of evolution needs to be replaced, not merely extended:

The reasons I think we’re talking about replacement rather than extension are several. The first is that the exclusion of any form of acquired characteristics being inherited was a central feature of the modern synthesis. IN other words, to exclude any form of inheritance that was non-Mendelian, that was Lamarckian-like, was an essential part of the modern synthesis. What we are now discovering is that there are mechanisms by which some acquired characteristics can be inherited, and inherited robustly. So it;s a bit odd to describe adding something like that to the synthesis (i.e., extending the synthesis). A more honest statement is that the synthesis needs to be replaced.

By “replacement” I don’t mean to say that the mechanism of random change followed by selection does not exist as a possible mechanism. But it becomes one mechanism amongst many others, and those mechanisms must interact. So my argument for saying this is a matter of replacement rather than extension is simply that it was a direct intention of those who formulated the modern synthesis to exclude the inheritance of acquired characteristics. (p. 27)

He goes on to say that the modern synthesis is a “gene-centric” view that has got causality in biology wrong.

Once Darwinism (random change followed by selection) is evaluated on the basis of probability, an entire metaphysic is going to collapse. That’s what Darwin’s followers have fought so hard to prevent.

See also: How will rethinking Darwin affect the ID community?

Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more

and

Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Denis Noble: Evolution needs replacement, not extension

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    Its a bif claim to say acquired traits can be passed on to kids by breeding.
    I don’t think its easy. There must first be a mechanism to make the acquired trait be acquired.
    I think human colour is case in point that it can be done. likewise human hair on the skin. All these acquired sudden;y and ever since passed on. The gear shifted and stays that way until its shifted again.
    Yes. There is a innate triggering mechanism that is the actual origin of biological change.
    Not natural selection. Not the other ideas either.

  2. 2

    Still the paradigm shifters do not have a grand theory to replace natural selection with. They have a hodge podge collection of mechanisms but no big idea.

    The DNA worlds theory states that the DNA system is a world in it’s own right, similar to how human imagination, or a 3D computer world are worlds in their own right.

    It is speculation based on the finding that the mathematical ordering of the physical universe is the same as that of biology. (4 bases CTGA in DNA, 4 parameters mass, time, space and charge in physics etc.)

    It explains development of an organism to adulthood, guided by a 3D representation of the finished product in the DNA world. That seems to be the only reasonable theory of how development can be managed that there is. It also explains design of the organism by intelligent design inside this DNA world.

    And we already know such a world can exist in nature, by the existence of human imagination. Isn’t our human imaginiation based on the DNA world?

    That is a substantial theory, it explains much, it’s a big idea.

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    #1
    Actually natural selection is said by some/many evolutionist thinkers to be a minor mechanism in evolution. They are forced to need have others.

  4. 4
    Sledgehammer says:

    mohammadnursyamsu, it is NOT required that you have a replacement theory before you are allowed to criticise the existing theory. Sorry, but I find the remainder of your argument to be well beyond a big idea…

Leave a Reply