Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is cell biologist James Shapiro a heretic? Or is this the year Darwinism collapsed?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Evolution: A View from the 21st CenturyLook what University of Chicago’s James Shapiro is saying,

New research has shown that a novel way of looking at evolution is needed. Cells are sensitive and communicative information processing entities. Novelty in evolution comes in part from genome changes that are the result of regulated cellular activity. The next step in the understanding of evolution is emerging since the Modern Synthesis of Darwinism and Mendelism and the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA in the middle of the last century. Vid also. Slides here.

He says the new way is informatics. And it’s okay for an establishment guy to just say this stuff?:

Disentangling basic issues in evolutionary debates

1. Origin of life & the first cells – still on the fringes of serious scientific discussion

[ James A. Shapiro ]2. Descent with modification of related living organisms – more convincing with each new technological advance (e.g. detailed protein and genome phylogenies)

– but more complicated than simple vertical inheritance

3. The actual processes of evolutionary change over time – an ever growing number of distinct documented cellular and molecular events different from conventional predictions

– novel molecular possibilities of genome reorganization as we learn more about how cells interact and control genome structure

and (besides the part about non-Darwinian biologists)

Four kinds of rapid, multi-character changes Darwin could not have imagined• Horizontal DNA transfer in evolution;

• Multiple cell types and cell fusions (symbiogenesis) in evolution;

• Genome doublings at key steps of eukaryotic evolution;

• Built-in mechanisms of genome restructuring = natural genetic engineering

His new book, Evolution in the 21st century here.

Follow UD News for breaking news on the design controversy.

Comments
#6 Mung Hardly the “parsimonious” picture being proclaimed here by the advocates for evolutionary theory. Personally I think parsimony is overrated as a reason for believing a theory. A designer of undefined motives and powers is about the most parsimonious explanation you can have for anything. It explains anything and everything with just a single cause. The problems lie elsewhere.markf
June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
If the next "development" of Darwinism is that novelties are not randomly generated, but rather "naturally engineered" (whatever that means) that does not "move Darwinism onto another stage", that destroys it.uoflcard
June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
markf:
“Darwinism” is a loose term for a developing set of theories about evolution which originated with Darwin but have become more diverse and detailed as biologists have learned more.
A set of theories. Hardly the "parsimonious" picture being proclaimed here by the advocates for evolutionary theory. ID advocates seem to have a better picture of the actual state of affairs in evolutionary theory than do the proponents of those theories.Mung
June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
markf, what natural explanation is there for rapid genome-wide "engineering" resulting in "complex novelties"? Your comment seems quite remarkable to me, so I won't comment any further. P.S. to all: Does anyone know of video/audio of the lecture that accompanies that slide show?uoflcard
June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
From that last slide of that Shapiro presentation:
A 21st Century View of Evolution 1. Ecological disruption ==> changes in biota, food sources, adaptive needs & organismal behavior; 2. Macroevolution triggered by cell fusions & interspeci?c hybridizations (WGDs) leading to massive episodes of horizontal transfer, genome rearrangements; 3. Establishment of new cellular and genome system architectures; complex novelties arising from WGD and network exaptation; 4. Survival and proliferation of organisms with useful adaptive traits in depleted ecology; elimination of nonfunctional architectures; selection largely purifying; 5. Microevolution by localized natural genetic engineering after ecological niches occupied (immune system model).
I'm sorry, but how does any of that allow the continued acceptance that Darwinian mechanisms are responsible for all/most of biology? "Massive episodes of genome rearrangements" leading to "complex novelties"? And if we know anything about biology, it's that when it is complex, it is REALLY complex, more so than human technology.uoflcard
June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
"Darwinism" is a loose term for a developing set of theories about evolution which originated with Darwin but have become more diverse and detailed as biologists have learned more. Schapiro's work seems to be some interesting hypotheses which might move "Darwinism" onto another stage. The impact for ID is disastrous. Scientists such as Schapiro and Margulis show how there are many, many possible non-teleological explanations of the diversity of life. So arguments about the supposed weakness of one natural explanation are not arguments for a teleological explanation. If you want an ID explanation to be true then you should be depressed by the likes of Schapiro.markf
June 15, 2011
June
06
Jun
15
15
2011
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
Darwinian orthodoxy cannot possibly survive in the information age. It's really quite simple: Computer programs can't and don't write themselves, but this is what Darwinists would have us believe. It was a nice try until the discovery in the latter half of the 20th century that life is fundamentally based on information-processing systems, and not mindless, materialistic, stochastic mechanisms. In the 21st century Darwinists are in the unenviable position of attempting to defend the equivalent phlogiston theory and geocentrism.GilDodgen
June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
Here's a quote:
As many professional and popular press articles attest, the accidental, stochastic nature of mutations is still the prevailing and widely accepted wisdom on the subject. In the context of earlier ideological debates about evolution, this insistence on randomness and accident is not surprising. It springs from a determination in the 19th and 20th Centuries by biologists to reject the role of a supernatural agent in religious accounts of how diverse living organisms originated. While that determination fits with the naturalistic boundaries of science, the contined insistence on the random nature of genetic change by evolutionists should be surprising for one simple reason: empirical studies of the mutational process have inevitably discovered patterns, environmental influences, and specific biological activities at the roots of novel genetic structure and altered DNA sequences. The perceived need to reject supernatural intervention unfortunately led the pioneers of evolutionary theory to erect an a priori philosophical distinction between the "blind" processes of hereditary variation and all other adaptive functions. But the capacity to change is itself adaptive. Over time, conditions inevitably change, and the organisms that can best acquire novel inherited functions have the greatest potential to survive. The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable. Our current ideas about evolution have to incorporate this basic fact of life. . . . . Today, instead, we endeavor to understand how complex vital capacities arose in the course of evoluton and contributed to the ability of myriad orgaims to survive, proliferate, diversify, and reorganize their environment in the course of at least 3.5 billion tumultous years of Earth history. How did evolutionary inventions help shape the biosphere and influence the nature of the organisms that inhabit it today?
PaV
June 14, 2011
June
06
Jun
14
14
2011
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply