Not just the Third Way or ID: The floodgates are opening against Darwinism

rvb8 is confused. ID makes testable claims and can be tested whereas evolutionism doesn't make testable claims and cannot be tested. But that is what happens when one is a scientifically illiterate troll. ET

TWSYF @15, yes, soon Darwinism will be gone, and ID will take its rightful, untestable, theological place. rvb8

Indeed, the floodgates are opening against Darwinism. Good to see. Truth Will Set You Free

the paper in PDF format at Royal Society by Gerd Muller and Konrad Lorenz expounds on current issues, arguments, and what Extended Evolutionary Synthesis incorporates and consequences of moving ahead with a new framework, leading to Modern Synthesis decline. Why an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is Necessary Is a welcome and very good read on many levels as it exposes the weakness of standard evolutionary theory as explanatory mechanism for macro-evolution and arise of novel forms. As a creative force. To start, I'll quote one paragraph in particular from the paper.

For instance, the theory(current evolution theory) largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences.

Again, Current Evolution Theory, "largely avoids the question of how organizations of organismal structure, physiology, or behavior... actually arise." That's a stunning statement. This confirms what ID scientist have been saying now for decades. So for 80 years according to Darwinist, neo-Darwinist, we had the answers. Turns out those answers did not exist. This extended synthesis is actually a replacement...

A renewed and extended theoretical synthesis, advocated by several authors in this issue, aims to unite pertinent concepts that emerge from the novel fields with elements of the standard theory. The resulting theoretical framework differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities. Whereas the MS(Modern Synthesis) theory and its various amendments concentrate on genetic and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasizes the role of constructive processes, ecological interactions and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity as well as its social and cultural conditions. Single-level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation. Among other consequences, the extended framework overcomes many of the limitations of traditional gene-centric explanation and entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process. All these features stimulate research into new areas of evolutionary biology.

The Extended Synthesis "differs" from "standard theory" in it's "core logic." This is not just some add-ons as we shall see. And not "somewhat" moved on. It's a critical, radical rethink of "core logic" that has failed to account for macro-evolutionary events. The authors remind us how Dogma works with a key quote from Albert Einstein, and current orthodoxy today from their introduction...

1. Introduction A century ago, it was noted in the domain of physics that ‘concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus, they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought”, “a priori givens”, etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors.’ [1]. Evolutionary biology finds itself in a similar situation today. A well-established paradigm that has its roots in a major theoretical integration that took place approximately eight decades ago, traditionally labelled the modern synthesis (MS) or Synthetic Theory, still dominates evolutionary thought today. In the meantime, the biological sciences have progressed extensively. The material basis of inheritance has been unravelled and entire new fields of research have arisen, such as molecular genetics, evolutionary developmental biology and systems biology. In addition, new evolutionarily relevant factors have been described, including non-genetic inheritance, developmental bias, niche construction, genomic evolution and others. Clearly, our understanding of evolution has significantly expanded, and it would be surprising if these empirical and conceptual advances had no theoretical consequences, so that in the midst of a substantial growth of knowledge, the central theory uniting the different fields of biology remained unaltered.

1. Einstein A. 1916 Ernst Mach. Physikalische Zeitschrift 17, 101– 104. What's happening? There's a revolution taking place evolution theory. Those holding on to old dogma, content, conservative are fighting it out with the progressives in new fields. Even though they call it Extended Synthesis, it's replacement of core logic long held, dogmatically for the last 80 years. They go on to say...

In fact, our theoretical understanding of biological evolution has not remained unaltered. Slight modifications and adjustments to the received theory are recognized even in the most traditional quarters. But in the past decade, without much notice by general audiences, a more wide-ranging debate has arisen from different areas of biology as well as from history and philosophy of science, about whether and in which ways evolutionary theory is affected, challenged or changed by the advances in biology and other fields. As usual in such cases, more conservative perspectives and more progressive ones are in conflict with each other, with differences ranging from minor to intense. A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution [2–14], indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.

To highlight again, "A rising number of publications argue for a major revision, or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution" Yep, it's "moved on somewhat" to the point of scientist calling for major changes to core logic or it's replacement. Question is, why a replacement and not just an Extension? Due to "core logic" changes based upon new discoveries leaving antiquated theory behind. Skipping down the paper to Consequences of EES - Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, the authors note this is not just add-ons or having "moved on somewhat" but a rethink of core logic and replacement.

5. Consequences The EES is not a simple, unfounded call for a new theory but has become an ongoing project for integrating the theoretically relevant concepts that have arisen from multiple fields of evolutionary biology. Although the EES recognizes the fundaments of the classical MS(modern synthesis) theory, it differs in its interpretation of the role of some of its elements and integrates new components, such as constructive processes of development, multiple inheritance mechanisms, niche reciprocity, as well as behavioural and cultural elements (on which this overview did not dwell much, but see other contributions to this issue). It is unavoidable to notice that an integration of these concepts means not a simple add-on of a few peripheral notions to the MS model without any effects on its core logic. Rather, the EES establishes a new structure of the theoretical evolutionary framework that goes beyond the reductionist and gene-centred perspective of the past.

Yes, it's a major shift, not somewhat, not just add-ons. As they review usual opposition arguments against change..

A subtler version of the this-has-been-said-before argument used to deflect any challenges to the received view is to pull the issue into the never ending micro-versus-macroevolution debate. Whereas ‘microevolution’ is regarded as the continuous change of allele frequencies within a species or population [109], the ill-defined macroevolution concept [36], amalgamates the issue of speciation and the origin of ‘higher taxa’ with so-called ‘major phenotypic change’ or new constructional types. Usually, a cursory acknowledgement of the problem of the origin of phenotypic characters quickly becomes a discussion of population genetic arguments about speciation, often linked to the maligned punctuated equilibria concept [9], in order to finally dismiss any necessity for theory change. The problem of phenotypic complexity thus becomes (in)elegantly bypassed. Inevitably, the conclusion is reached that microevolutionary mechanisms are consistent with macroevolutionary phenomena [36], even though this has very little to do with the structure and predictions of the EES. The real issue is that genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity, not only of something vaguely termed ‘macroevolution’. Hence, the micro–macro distinction only serves to obscure the important issues that emerge from the current challenges to the standard theory. It should not be used in discussion of the EES, which rarely makes any allusions to macroevolution, although it is sometimes forced to do so. Interestingly, a third class of responses to the EES is this: the proposed modifications are not radical enough, a much more fundamental change is required [107]. Also, here we beg to differ. Quite evidently, the MS theory has become too narrow in several regards, but this does not mean that all its elements have been invalidated. Nevertheless, the differences in structure and consequences are substantial enough to require a new designation, because to continue using ‘MS’ evokes a wholly different set of assumptions and predictions. The classical theory cannot keep its label and at the same time make different predictions. The term ‘EES’ used here and elsewhere [4,5,9,14,15,27,28,49] is not meant as a simple extension of the MS, as sometimes wrongly implied, but to indicate a comprehensive new synthesis. Whether eventually that new framework will be called EES or a different name is not important. What is important is that a different theory structure is necessary to accommodate the new concepts that are in everyday use and have become part of the current toolkit of evolutionary biology. Therefore, a theory change is not a future goal, but we are in the midst of it, with the EES attempting to provide a structure for the present state of evolutionary thought. This is an exciting period in evolutionary biology. The principal Darwinian research tradition is upheld, but the specifics of evolutionary theory structure are undergoing ferment, including the revision of some of its traditional elements and the incorporation of new elements. Instead of privileging selected mechanisms such as random variation, genetic control and natural selection, the multitude of factors that dynamically interact in the evolutionary process will be better expounded by a pluralistic theory framework. Current evolutionary research already reflects this pluralism, and as many of its underlying concepts have drifted from the standard theoretical paradigm, an adjusted evolutionary framework that adequately synthesizes the multitude of new theoretical elements has become a necessity. The EES represents one possibility for such integration.

Yes, exciting times we live in. To see so much change taking place in our life time to what was once consider untouchable as settled science, being uprooted, extended, core logic replaced. And to see ID scientist vindicated, they were correct in many respects for decades in their critiques. DATCG

Wrong. He indicates there's a revolution taking place far and away from Darwin and neo-Darwinism. He's saying much more than "moved on somewhat" as documented in his review. As are many other scientist at Third Way, ID and many more. Your ridicule of "luminaries" needing to be educated on history of evolution is a snide attempt at downplaying what is happening in the field. Minimizing the debate, the split and the revolution taking place. Darwin and neo-Darwinism have failed to explain macro-evolution. He uses extreme words to get his point across about unimagined, shocking and revolutionary finding that overturn the Tree of Life and leave Modern Synthesis being superseded. The challenges to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are real. The debates taking place now openly are whether to Extend or Replace. You're attempt to downplay the current split within evolutionary biology is to borrow a word, "somewhat" misleading. There's more of course from Royal Society Meeting and papers presented by scientist like Gerd Muller, Department of Theoretical Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria and Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research, Klosterneuburg, Austria Lets review what Koonin states again... "Since then, the landscape of evolutionary biology (borrowing the phrase from the title of the 2009 Cold Spring Harbor Symposium) has changed completely owing to three distinct and non-contemporaneous but interlocked revolutions: molecular, microbiological and genomic." "changed completely" is not "moved on somewhat" Those are two different and wide interpretations of the current state of affairs of Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and Evolutionism as viewed by scientist on leading edge of these debates. There's a revolution taking place, that is overturning Darwinism, not supporting it, and neo-Darwinism could not save it. Next he points out.. "However, there are also major problems with prokaryotes, which fundamentally differ from eukaryotes, in that they do not engage in regular sex but do exchange genes promiscuously, so species cannot be meaningfully defined10, – and the concept of species was at the center of both the first, Darwinian, and the second, modern, syntheses of evolutionary biology. He's stating the central concept of species put forth by Darwinism and neo-Darwinism "cannot be meaningfully defined" That's not "moving on somewhat" as we shall see, it tears down Darwinism's Tree of Life as was taught for hundreds of years in schools and university systems. It's trunk is cut off, it's fallen. Horizontal Gene Transfer paints a much more radical picture of prokaryotes in the past than imagined by Darwinism and neo-Darwinist. Koonin states the findings are a "far cry from" the vision of Darwin and creators of Modern Synthesis... "The biological universe seen through the lens of genomics is a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the Modern Synthesis. The biosphere is dominated, in terms of both physical abundance and genetic diversity, by ‘primitive’ life forms, prokaryotes and viruses. This was not foreseen by classical evolutionary biology. He uses the word "unimaginable" to show the scope of what was missed by Darwin and neo-Darwinist. "These ubiquitous organisms evolve in ways unimaginable and unforeseen in classical evolutionary biology. Above all, it is an extremely dynamic world where horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is not a rarity but the regular way of existence, and mobile genetic elements that are vehicles of HGT (viruses, plasmids, transposons and more) are ubiquitous7, 12. We now think of the entire world of prokaryotes as a single, huge network of interconnected gene pools, and the notion of the prokaryotic pangenome is definitely here to stay13, 14. Although HGT is partially curtailed in eukaryotes, especially, the multicellular plants and animals, multiple endosymbioses accompanied by massive gene transfer were key to the evolution and indeed the very origin of eukaryotes. Moreover, most eukaryotic genomes teem with mobile elements which make them no less dynamic than the prokaryotic pangenome. The discovery of the all-encompassing genomic mobility puts to rest the traditional concept of the Tree of Life that has to be replaced by a network of vertical and horizontal gene fluxes. It There you go, "puts to rest the traditional concept of the Tree of Life" that must be replaced. This is a radical rethink, a far cry from and a revolutionary time for evolutionary science. "Moved on somewhat" is not what Koonin is stating. As any reader can see. It's moved on massively in "unimaginable" ways "unforseen" by Darwinist and neo-Darwinist. DATCG

In other words, Koonin is saying what I said earlier about evolutionary biology having moved on somewhat since 1859. He just says it at much greater length and from the perspective of genomics and molecular biology. Seversky

A reflection and question on "The Origin at 150" by Eugene Koonin; one of the scientist at Third Way. Koonin is:

Senior Investigator National Center for Biotechnology Information(NCBI) National Library of Medicine (NLM) National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Updated Link: Koonin's Evolutoinary Genomics Research Group at NCBI He writes on the subject... The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? It's a quick review of current state of affairs in evolution since Origin at 150. Written in 2009 of Darwin and failure of Modern Synthesis, along with other relevant information across time since Darwin. Prior and since it's publication, more publications calling for extended synthesis has grown and debate still continues. Some block quotes of Eugene Koonin's quick review published 2009, Trends in Genetics...

The Origin centennial celebration came at the dramatic time when biology was undergoing its molecular transformation. Since then, the landscape of evolutionary biology (borrowing the phrase from the title of the 2009 Cold Spring Harbor Symposium) has changed completely owing to three distinct and non-contemporaneous but interlocked revolutions: molecular, microbiological and genomic. The molecular revolution came first and culminated, on the one hand, in the neutral theory which asserts that the majority of the mutations that are fixed during evolution are neutral and, accordingly, the purifying selection is more common than positive selection 5, and on the other hand, in the grand molecular tree derived from rRNA comparison 6. The microbiological revolution expanded the domain of evolutionary biology into the world of prokaryotes 7: all the concepts of both Darwin and the architects of the Modern Synthesis applied only to multicellular eukaryotes, primarily, animals (although Darwin did perform some research on microbes, mostly, unbeknownst to microbiologists8). In a way, the addition of prokaryotes to the mold of evolutionary biology came as a triumph because the rRNA tree encompassed the entire scope of cellular life forms and, having revealed the three-domain assortment of organisms (bacteria–archaea–eukaryota), appeared to be the true Tree of Life 9. However, there are also major problems with prokaryotes, which fundamentally differ from eukaryotes, in that they do not engage in regular sex but do exchange genes promiscuously, so species cannot be meaningfully defined10, – and the concept of species was at the center of both the first, Darwinian, and the second, modern, syntheses of evolutionary biology. The third, most recent and, arguably, most momentous, genomic revolution, brought the results of the first two revolutions into a new context and made evolutionary biology ‘a matter of facts’ as it became possible to investigate evolutionary relationships between hundreds of complete genomes from all walks of life 11.The biological universe seen through the lens of genomics is a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the Modern Synthesis. The biosphere is dominated, in terms of both physical abundance and genetic diversity, by ‘primitive’ life forms, prokaryotes and viruses. These ubiquitous organisms evolve in ways unimaginable and unforeseen in classical evolutionary biology. Above all, it is an extremely dynamic world where horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is not a rarity but the regular way of existence, and mobile genetic elements that are vehicles of HGT (viruses, plasmids, transposons and more) are ubiquitous7, 12. We now think of the entire world of prokaryotes as a single, huge network of interconnected gene pools, and the notion of the prokaryotic pangenome is definitely here to stay13, 14. Although HGT is partially curtailed in eukaryotes, especially, the multicellular plants and animals, multiple endosymbioses accompanied by massive gene transfer were key to the evolution and indeed the very origin of eukaryotes. Moreover, most eukaryotic genomes teem with mobile elements which make them no less dynamic than the prokaryotic pangenome. The discovery of the all-encompassing genomic mobility puts to rest the traditional concept of the Tree of Life that has to be replaced by a network of vertical and horizontal gene fluxes. It is important to note, however, that evolution of individual genes still can be represented with trees, and search for trends in the ‘Forest of Life’ comprised of these gene trees could still reveal order in the historic flow of genetic information15.

continued, "... destroys not only the Tree of Life... but also another central tenet..., gradualism"

The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.

He continues, "Equally outdated..." and "shocking"

Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection 16, 17. And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit. The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1).

Interesting take by Koonin. He knows history of evolution theory, modern synthesis and current state of evolution. Scientist at Third Way and Discovery Institute well know the history of evolution theory, it's progress, failures and current state from Darwin to Evo-Devo and more. To state otherwise is misleading, or sarcastic and dismissive at best. There is a split brewing for sometime between different sides and openly the last decade, culminating in meetings at the Royal Society in 2016 and in publications in Nature of each side in 2014. On whether Modern Synthesis should be Extended or Replaced. It is precisely discovery of new mechanisms of change, variation and creative force that this split is taking place, being discussed and hotly debated. DATCG

Had to look up emergent homeostasis. After reading one of Turner's articles, I can see that he understands homeostasis accurately but fails when he tries to treat negative feedback as the 'uncreated creator'. NF is not something that occurs in inanimate Nature. NF came along with life, and there's no way to reach it 'emergently' as an underlying basis for life. If life doesn't already have NF, life doesn't survive long enough to randomly determine that NF is necessary for life. polistra

Seversky:

Somebody needs to tell these luminaries that the theory of evolution has moved on somewhat since 1859.

True, but there still isn't a scientific theory of evolution. ET

@2 error correction: They ain’t seen nothin’ yet. :) Dionisio

Aristotle > Darwin. Aeneas Pietas

Sev @5, that last sentence is interesting. "...that the theory of evolution has moved on somewhat since 1859." The 'somewhat', is a nice understatement. These popular science books which Coyne, Shubin, Miller, Dawkins, and many others publish are not research. Nor do these authors put them forward as such. They are to make the general public aware of the state of good science. You shouldn't promote this book as evidence for ID, merely as a populiser of ID. rvb8

What purpose is being discussed here, an internal sense of purpose in the mind of each living creature or the external purpose for all living things in the mind of their creator? Note that purpose, as distinct from function, only exists in the mind of a "purposer", the conscious intelligent agent capable of conceiving and formulating a purpose. And if purpose is one of the properties which distinguishes the living from the non-living, Is Professor Turner arguing that ants or earthworms or bacteria all have a sense of purpose? As for all the challenges to Darwinism, that's a bit like challenging Newtonism in physics. Somebody needs to tell these luminaries that the theory of evolution has moved on somewhat since 1859. Seversky

Dio, Prof Noble seems to have little support for his 'extended evolutionary synthesis', beyond ID circles. He says genetic change is, 'far from random'. Which I suppose is music to the ears of the ID community, but once again, a claim, and nothing else; 'He says'? Indeed. A very talented man indeed, and well respected, to a point. Does he support IC? Is he an, 'environment can alter the genome' scientist, and that these characteristics altered by the environment can be inherited? Isn't this just a rehash of Lamarckism? Didn't experiments by August Weismann flatly, and forever disprove this error, in 1892? rvb8

"the noise we hear is just the orchestra musicians tuning their individual instruments." Nice one, Dionisio, nail, head. Belfast

They ain't seen nothing' yet. The most fascinating discoveries are still ahead. The concert hasn't started yet... the noise we hear is just the orchestra musicians tuning their individual instruments. Work in progress... stay tuned. Complex functionally specified informational complexity. At the end of the day those exquisitely written books leave a fundamental question unanswered: Where's the beef? :) Dionisio

Dance to the Tune of Life: Biological Relativity by Denis Noble

'Among its many merits, this remarkable book deserves to become a classic text in the philosophy of science. Almost alone among philosophers of science, Noble is a practising scientist; and unusually among practising scientists, he is an accomplished philosopher. His book brings out, with unparalleled clarity, how the scientific endeavour involves not only empirical inquiry but also conceptual structure. Noble shows how, on the negative side, popular presentations of sound biological results may be vitiated by bad metaphysics, and how, on the positive side, science and philosophy may extend the boundaries of knowledge by a unified epistemology. He ends, however, with a salutary warning that there may well be a limit to the human capacity to know the answers to ultimate questions.' Sir Anthony Kenny, University of Oxford

"there may well be a limit to the human capacity to know the answers to ultimate questions" Unending Revelation of the Ultimate Reality (c) Dionisio