Denis Noble: Why talk about replacement of Darwinian evolution theory, not extension?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 23, 2016

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In new book on the Royal Society’s Public Evolution Summit, Oxford’s Denis Noble explains,

The reasons I think we are 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 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 adirect intention of those who formulated the modern synthesis to exclude the inheritance of acquired characteristics. (p. 25)

That’s why the fat’s in the fire and smoking hot. Darwinism (or whatever the term du jour is) has been a totalistic system, enforced as such. But the evidence today simply doesn’t support it.

Reading Mazur’s book, I was struck by two things:

The genuinely interesting nature of alternative evolution proposals contrasts sharply with the science media release where fairly dull researchers have come up with a casuistical explanation of how Darwinism can account for various phenomena. And one realizes that for those individuals, that is evolution. That is science. Science is about reaffirming and finding evidence for the teachings of the Great One. And deploring or attacking anyone who doubts his teachings, irrespective of the state of the evidence.

The new approach is not exclusive or totalistic. It does not behave, as Darwinism does, as a metaphysic. Among many assemblies of evidence, some will naturally prevail, as more persuasive than others. But for once, evidence exists to understand living things better rather than to understand Darwin better.

Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets. This’ll be fun.

See also: What to expect from the Royal Society’s public evolution summit November 7-9

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Thanks for the link at 8, ba77. Noble misrepresents the history:
Noble states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory,
No, Mendel's paper was rediscovered, but it was seen as an argument against Darwinian evolution.
... And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’.
The modern synthesis was just about completed by 1940 - Fisher started in 1915, and published The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection in 1930. Haldane published The Causes of Evolution in 1932.
So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976.
This certainly mis-represents Dawkins' aims: he was writing about an extension of The Modern Synthesis, where the effects of individuals on the fitness of other organisms could be analysed. I listened a bit further, but it just got worse: Noble doesn't seem to understand the difference between a mutation and the rate of mutation (the former can be random whilst the latter is under control).Bob O'H_{October 24, 2016
October
10
Oct
24
24
2016
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

Ray Comfort is premiairing his latest film in the hull of a land bound boat, that if put on water would sink. He is doing this in the company of an Ozzy who built said boat. Said Australian also has a museum with a Triceriatops with a saddle, 'like olden times'. In this museum we learn that kangaroos hopped to Australia from Arrarat, and none died on the way, hence only fossil kangaroos in Australia. Ken and Ray are made for each other. This is a straightforward and honest question. I am not trying to be smart or dismissive; 'Do you really want the ID movement associated with these people?' 'Q' I'm glad we agree that the immortalization of Comfort on youtube is embarassing. We can quibble over whether my natural evolved aversion to eating members of my own species, is equivalent to the utter scientific incompetance of a smiling, imbecile. Apparently, Ray and Ken contend (give me strength), the video shows knock down questions to atheists who are stumped by the logic and genius of said questions. Why am I never confronted by this rock solid evidence for God, all I get is you lot. Assertion, hearsay, mis-quotation, 'I saw the eyes of the statue weep blood' etc, and research from dubious sites at best.rvb8_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Not true, rvb8. The video looks pretty good from what I've seen of it. But if you're going to bring up Ray Comfort's past, we may as well ask you about your past refusal to answer my question about your ridiculous dietary restrictions on eating certain types of highly nutritious animal protein based on atheistic "moral grounds." I'd say that was at least as embarrassing as Ray Comfort's the banana bit. -QQuerius_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

Only BA77 would link to a Ray Comfort (ashamedly, a fellow countryman), as if it merrited viewing. You do know BA about the youtube Ray Comfort/ Kirk Cameron, banana embarassment? He said, to paraphrase, 'God is real because the banana fits the human hand, and is easy to peal'. Honestly, he said that! You can see yourself on your own research tool, youtube! Have you ever seen a chimpanzee peal a banana? Don't, they do it as dextorously as we do; perhaps by this evidence God is a Chimp! I have a question for Mr Comfort, and Kirk; 'What was God thinking when he invented the coconut?' As to the post; Coyne is abrasive and cantankorous, but with a decent sense of humour, something soundly lacking in the posters here.rvb8_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Only Seversky would think that the 'illusion of Coyne's' bluff and bluster carries any weight here on UD:
"What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant:,,) Read more here: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0 "The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak." [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide To Reality, Ch.9] Atheist Philosopher Thinks "We Never Have Direct Access To Our Thoughts" - Michael Egnor July 20, 2016 Excerpt: Materialist theories of the mind border on the insane. If a man walks into a doctor's office and says "I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view," the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others. If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/07/atheist_philoso103010.html
Note to Seversky, illusions, by definition, are not to be taken seriously! Much less is a person who claims that he really is an illusion to be taken seriously!bornagain77_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Since no one else here will do it, in spite of paying lip service to science, let's see what an evolutionary biologist like Jerry Coyne thinks of physiologist Dennis Noble's criticism of evolution:
I’m writing this post in a bit of anger, as Noble’s attacks on the modern synthesis are both poorly informed and clearly motivated by his ambition to make physiology a central part of evolutionary biology. Although he’s an FRS and famous, he wants more: he wants his field to be central to evolution. But such misguided hubris is not the way science is supposed to be done. And physiology is already important in evolutionary biology. It’s the reason why we look at the effects of a gene substitution, for example, not as a simple one-gene-produces-one-trait issue, but as a the gene’s overall effect on reproductive output through its effects ramifying through the complexities of development. Noble says that evolutionists are guilty of this “one-gene-one-trait” error, but he’s just wrong: I don’t know a single person in my field who holds this simplistic view. None of the arguments that Noble makes are new: they’re virtual tropes among those people, like James Shapiro and Lynn Margulis, who embarked, at the end of their careers, on a misguided crusade to topple the modern theory of evolution. However famous Noble may be in physiology, he’s a blundering tyro when it comes to evolutionary biology. He might try discussing his ideas with other evolutionists and listening to their responses. He obviously hasn’t done that, and yet travels the world trading on his expertise in physiology to show that the edifice of modern evolutionary biology is rotten. And he writes papers to that effect, including the dreadful piece referenced below. But what’s really rotten is Noble’s knowledge of the field and his claim that virtually every assumption of neo-Darwinian evolution is wrong. In fact, his arguments are so rotten that they stink like old herring. They’re not even wrong.
Seversky_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

"For the three-thousandth time, if Darwin has written a book titled, “The Origin of Adaptations,” no one would have quibbled so much." Maybe a bit of quibbling with "Origin of Adaptations", PaV? Take the Peppered Moth for example. The lighter colored moth already existed in the population. Only after its darker brothers were eaten would the lighter peppered version proliferate. The camouflage design/ability was already in place. No origin of the adaption in the moth. How about "Origin of the Easiest Meal"?ppolish_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Dr. Noble's critique of the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism is pretty devastating as far as it goes,,,
Rocking the foundations of biology - video http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184
,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. Of note: Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.
"Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology": Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin March 31, 2015 Excerpt: Noble doesn't mince words: "It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved." Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that "genetic change is random," (2) that "genetic change is gradual," (3) that "following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population," and (4) that "inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible." He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,, He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the "Integrative Synthesis," where genes don't run the show and all parts of an organism -- the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything -- is integrated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/physiology_is_r094821.html
As I said, and as is obvious from the preceding article by Casey Luskin, Dr. Noble's critique of the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism is pretty devastating as far as it goes. Where his critique does not go far enough, in my honest opinion, is that Dr. Nobel still holds onto the notion that there is some type of gradual pathway for unguided material processes to traverse between species, i.e. universal common descent. That belief that there is still some type of gradual pathway for unguided material processes to traverse between species is simply false. The best way to point this fact out is with alternative splicing codes. Although the protein coding regions between species are unexpectedly similar between species, (and indeed Darwinists try to use the approx. 80% thru 98% genetic similarity, according to varying estimates, between chimps and humans as knock down proof that humans evolved from some type of chimp-like ancestor), alternative splicing codes are found to be 'species specific'. That is to say, alternative splicing codes, (which are regulatory codes that tell which genes when and where to turn on and off in an organism), are codes which are unique, i.e. tailor-made if you will, for each 'kind' of species.
Evolution by Splicing - Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. - Ruth Williams - December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F Alternative splicing of RNA rewires signaling in different tissues, may contribute to species differences - December 21, 2012 Excerpt: After analyzing vast amounts of genetic data, the researchers found that the same genes are expressed in the same tissue types, such as liver or heart, across mammalian species. However, alternative splicing patterns—which determine the segments of those genes included or excluded—vary from species to species.,,, The results from the alternative splicing pattern comparison were very different. Instead of clustering by tissue, the patterns clustered mostly by species. "Different tissues from the cow look more like the other cow tissues, in terms of splicing, than they do like the corresponding tissue in mouse or rat or rhesus," Burge says. Because splicing patterns are more specific to each species, it appears that splicing may contribute preferentially to differences between those species, Burge says,,, Excerpt of Abstract: To assess tissue-specific transcriptome variation across mammals, we sequenced complementary DNA from nine tissues from four mammals and one bird in biological triplicate, at unprecedented depth. We find that while tissue-specific gene expression programs are largely conserved, alternative splicing is well conserved in only a subset of tissues and is frequently lineage-specific. Thousands of previously unknown, lineage-specific, and conserved alternative exons were identified; per physorg Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes, previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA (messenger RNA) expression levels.,,, per science daily
The following papers help drive the point home as to just how devastating 'species specific' alternative splicing codes are for any attempted gradual explanations:
Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing - 2016 In Brief Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,, Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013). http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/publications/Yang_Cell_OMIM_2016.pdf Frequent Alternative Splicing of Human Genes – 1999 Excerpt: Alternative splicing can produce variant proteins and expression patterns as different as the products of different genes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC310997/
Of related interest to the 'strikingly different interaction profiles' for the up to a million unique polypeptides generated by alternative splicing, is Behe’s vindicated limit for the 'Edge of Evolution'. A limit for what evolutionary processes can accomplish. A limit which is put at generating just 2 new protein-protein binding sites by unguided Darwinian processes. i.e. 1 in 10^40,,,
Kenneth Miller Steps on Darwin’s Achilles Heel – Michael Behe – January 17, 2015 Excerpt: Miller grants for purposes of discussion that the likelihood of developing a new protein binding site is 1 in 10^20. Now, suppose that, in order to acquire some new, useful property, not just one but two new protein-binding sites had to develop. In that case the odds would be the multiple of the two separate events — about 1 in 10^40, which is somewhat more than the number of cells that have existed on earth in the history of life. That seems like a reasonable place to set the likely limit to Darwinism, to draw the edge of evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/kenneth_miller_1092771.html Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA
In what should be needless to say, since Darwinian evolution presupposes the unlimited plasticity of organisms, then this finding of inflexible, yet radically different, alternative splicing patterns between even supposedly closely related species is exactly the opposite finding for what would have been expected by Darwinists. If Darwinian evolution were a normal science that was subject to rigorous testing like other sciences, instead of being basically the unfalsifiable pseudo-science/religion that it is, this finding, by itself, should have been more than enough to falsify Darwinian evolution outright and consign it forever to the dust bin of failed scientific theories. But alas, evidence does not, and never did, really ever matter for die-hard Darwinists. Only their rejection of God truly matters for them. Don't believe me? Well if rebellion against God is not central to hard core Darwinian thought then why has Darwinian literature always been so dependent on bad liberal theology in order to try to make its case for Darwinian evolution?
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. per ENV Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, per ENV Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
If you are shocked that Darwinian evolution would be so dependent of bad liberal theology, then perhaps it time for you to seriously question just exactly what it is that hard core Darwinists are really trying to sell you?bornagain77_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge wrote that they were in the Reich bunker in Berlin while the soviet army was around the corner, the American and British armies had taken over most west/south Germany but the Fuhrer and a few of his closest comrades still believed their Reich (built to last 1000 years) was invincible. History repeats. Pathetically bizarre.Dionisio_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Clearly, the Royal Society will not be discussing- "Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture -- TrueOrigin Archive." https://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.phpmw_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

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 adirect intention of those who formulated the modern synthesis to exclude the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Darwin proposed that evolution was via natural selection + the inheritance of acquired characteristics + numerous other mechanisms. If including the inheritance of acquired characteristics is a replacement of the Modern Synthesis, then was the Modern Synthesis a replacement for Darwin's theory when it excluded the inheritance of acquired characteristics? And if re-including the inheritance of acquired characteristics is a replacement of the Modern Synthesis, then aren't we replacing the Modern Synthesis with something more akin to Darwin's theory? Using Denis's logic it would make more sense to make the title of this OP "Replacement of the Modern Synthesis with Darwinian evolution theory".goodusername_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

BA77, Thank you for posting the reference to that interesting video. @5:20 they say that genes give instructions to the cell. That does not seem quite accurate, does it?Dionisio_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

That's an odd argument by Noble, and I'm not sure if it's even historically correct. The modern synthesis was developed to combine Darwin's ideas with the data from genetics that had been developed. And even if he is historically correct, so what? The architects of the modern synthesis are long dead, so why do we have to follow their agenda? as far as the science goes, Noble seems to be suggesting that evolutionary biology should be Mendelian genetics plus epigenetics, i.e. in practice he's suggesting that we extend evolutionary biology by adding inheritance of acquired characteristics. Which would be very interesting (I've seen a couple of theoretical papers on this, but more is definitely needed). The nice thing is that we are gathering the empirical evidence to show that acquired characteristics can be inherited, so our models will be better informed: this isn't just pie in the sky.Bob O'H_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Noble rightly points to the exclusion of non-Mendelian forms of inheritance, such as epigenetics, as the problem spot for neo-Darwinism, or, the Modern Synthesis. I posted here about a type of non-Mendelian inheritance that works independently of epigenetics and is now seen to work on scale previously unimaginable. So there are severe problems for neo-Darwinism. It has competitors. And we all know that competition fuels the "survival of the fittest." But what Noble isn't saying, or perhaps, doesn't choose to look at presently, is that both epigenetics and the new double-stranded RNA modes of inheritance are really about 'adaptation.' For the three-thousandth time, if Darwin has written a book titled, "The Origin of Adaptations," no one would have quibbled so much. Let's face it: neo-Darwinism (pure population genetics), epigenetics, and even ds-RNA inheritance, isn't going to explain new "species." [What are called new "species" today really should be simply called "varieties." According to Darwin, an "incipient species", his word for "varieties", moves in a new and separate direction from the past. We don't see this happening; and, so, this whole notion of "new species" is nothing but rhetoric.] ID is the only plausible mechanism we know of that can accomplish a new, 'integrated,' whole we would call a "new species."PaV_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Off Topic: Ray Comfort's new movie "The Atheist Delusion" is finally up on YouTube The Atheist Delusion Movie (2016) HD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM Of note: The movie leans heavily on Intelligent Design inspired argumentsbornagain77_{October 23, 2016
October
10
Oct
23
23
2016
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply