Mazur: Zoologists hog Royal Society stage

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 1, 2016

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

In an attempt to frustrate rethinking evolution.

Six months after announcing the November 2016 Royal Society evolution meeting on this page and a half dozen or so stories later, over one-third of the seats for the event still remain vacant — and the tickets are free! But that’s easily explained, because the zoologists ultimately decided to “hog” the show.

It didn’t have to be so. A lineup of speakers who truly represent the paradigm shift underway in evolution science would have quickly filled up the house. Instead, organizers went with essentially an evo-devo reunion on plasticity and niche construction — rehashed themes of Altenberg! from eight years ago minus most of the stars of that conference. And they made sure to exclude, for instance, experts on viruses — the largest part of the biosphere — at a time when Zika continues to prove it can downsize the human brain in a flash and could have done the reverse at some point in evolutionary time. So how can the November proceedings possibly be considered a credible meeting on the latest “trends” in evolutionary science?

Aside from some of the organizers and Jim Shapiro and Doug Futuyma — there’s no big-name recognition. A number of prominent scientists I’ve spoken with who have not been asked to present but hope to get a word in edgewise have told me they nevertheless still plan to attend.

Other irritations are that the meeting is largely another Anglo-Amercian affair and there’s an absence of women who are stars in science, aside from Eva Jablonka and she’s considered somewhat at the conservative end of the discussion. More.

Yes, it’s a disappointment. I am not sure it is a defeat.

The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin' — Who to watch

Frightened crats will soon discover is that it is much easier to unstuff the genie than to restuff it.

Just admitting that there is something wrong is disastrous for entrenched timeservers.

I remember back when I started this beat about 15 years ago. Royal Society would never have dreamed of admitting that anything was wrong. One guy (2008) got over-balconied just for trying to defend Darwinism (it was not then thought to need any defense). Even to suggest that it did was dangerously wrong.

Now they are dipping their tippy toes into the water. Eventually, they will need to take the plunge, but let’s keep the bath sheets, robes, hot drinks, and crying towels handy in the meantime.

See also: Royal Society announces guest list for Extended Synthesis meet

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Apparently UB's comments in a previous thread on this same topic were prophetically correct:
I would be cautious about expecting too much from this. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/royal-society-announces-guest-list-for-extended-synthesis-meet/#comment-611828
Regarding UB's second statement:
But as we know, every inch counts — and this meeting, and each of those similar meetings to come, are all ultimately necessary.
Perhaps in this case 'necessary' is not as accurate as 'entertaining'. :) For example, see the following related case:
A conversation with Denis Noble and Michael J. Joyner at Experimental Biology 2015. Moderated by David J. Paterson, Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology. At around the 4:30 minutes mark the moderator has setup the framework of the conversation and asks the first question to Dennis Noble: "what is a gene?" and professor Noble's answer couldn't be funnier, though very serious at the same time: "let's be clear - nobody knows." Then he explains his answer. Here's the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/A_q_bOWc8i0
Dionisio_{July 3, 2016
July
07
Jul
3
03
2016
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

rvb8, its been known for quite a while, as Walter Remine relates in this following interview, that sexual reproduction severely limits genetic variability rather than enhances it as Darwinists had originally thought.
Walter ReMine on the Origin of Sexual Reproduction - interview http://kgov.com/ReMine-3
This following study concurs:
Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue - (July 7, 2011) Excerpt: Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU's Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that's not the case.,,, ,,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it's about keeping the genome context -- an organism's complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology -- as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species' identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,, For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring. "In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite," said Heng.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110707161037.htm
Moreover, mutations of genes are not randomly distributed between the parental chromosomes as was presupposed in Darwinian thought:
Duality in the human genome - Nov. 28, 2014 Excerpt: The results show that most genes can occur in many different forms within a population: On average, about 250 different forms of each gene exist. The researchers found around four million different gene forms just in the 400 or so genomes they analysed. This figure is certain to increase as more human genomes are examined. More than 85 percent of all genes have no predominant form which occurs in more than half of all individuals. This enormous diversity means that over half of all genes in an individual, around 9,000 of 17,500, occur uniquely in that one person - and are therefore individual in the truest sense of the word. The gene, as we imagined it, exists only in exceptional cases. "We need to fundamentally rethink the view of genes that every schoolchild has learned since Gregor Mendel's time.,,, According to the researchers, mutations of genes are not randomly distributed between the parental chromosomes. They found that 60 percent of mutations affect the same chromosome set and 40 percent both sets. Scientists refer to these as cis and trans mutations, respectively. Evidently, an organism must have more cis mutations, where the second gene form remains intact. "It's amazing how precisely the 60:40 ratio is maintained. It occurs in the genome of every individual – almost like a magic formula," says Hoehe. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-11-duality-human-genome.html
In fact, "It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works"
"It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns” James Shapiro - Evolution: A View From The 21st Century - (Page 82)
As well, it is now known that it is the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism as Darwinists had falsely presupposed (because of their antiquated reductive materialistic foundation):
Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: humans have a "few thousand" different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,, The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism. In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,, ,,,(then) "genomic equivalence" -- the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA -- became the accepted view. I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html
Simply put, the modern synthesis is, despite desperate attempts by neo-Darwinists to resuscitate its now rotting corpse, dead:
Replace the Modern Synthesis (Neo-Darwinism): An Interview With Denis Noble 07/09/2014 Excerpt: Suzan Mazur: In recent years the modern synthesis has been declared extended by major evolutionary thinkers (e.g., "the Altenberg 16" and others), as well as dead by major evolutionary thinkers, the late Lynn Margulis and Francisco Ayala among them. Ditto for the public discourse on the Internet. My understanding is that you are now calling for the modern synthesis to be replaced. Denis Noble: I would say that it needs replacing. Yes. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html
bornagain77_{July 2, 2016
July
07
Jul
2
02
2016
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Its an anglo-American affair because thats where the intellectual ferment is. Its irrelevant if women are there unless its on purpose. paradigm shifts won't shift with quotas. it gets in the way. in fact its a big problem in academia today. interference with the right people by affirmative action policy and philosophy and instinct. The big point is that there is need of new ideas to replace old ones. its coming from the threat of iD/YEC and so a reaction to show its liberal enough to correct things but hold to the faith. They must be super sensitive and must maintain control over intellectual direction. Its a step forward and is a dip with that step. I think UD is right to promote it.Robert Byers_{July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

Animals have sex. When they do genes are recombined. There are errors in this recombination which are expressed phenotypically. If those new expressions are beneficial they will be inherited, if they are not benficial they will fail to be inherited. If I said this to any of the zoologists, microbiologists, biologists, or whatever, at this conference they would agree. If they did not, I, and the other people at the conferance would be surprised. This process of course leads to variation, and depending upon the environment, selects for the most beneficial variation. Again, if anyone at this conferance disagreed with this I would be surprised. The disagreement resides in the relative importance of each method of evolution, not in evolution itself.rvb8_{July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply