Suzan Mazur’s Paradigm Shifters is now available from Amazon

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 29, 2015

Evolution, News}

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

The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin' Here:

Major scientists from a dozen countries present evidence that a paradigm shift is underway or has already taken place, replacing neo-Darwinism (the standard model of evolution based on natural selection following the accumulation of random genetic mutations) with a vastly richer evolutionary synthesis than previously thought possible. About The Author Suzan Mazur is the author of two previous books, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry and The Origin of Life Circus: A How To Make Life Extravaganza. Her reports have appeared in the Financial Times, The Economist, Forbes, Newsday, Philadelphia Inquirer, Archaeology, Astrobiology, Connoisseur, Omni, Huffington Post, Progressive Review, CounterPunch, Scoop Media and other publications, as well as on PBS, CBC and MBC. She has been a guest on Charlie Rose, McLaughlin and various Fox Television News programs.

Also from Barnes & Noble, Ingram Books, Baker and Taylor et al.

No reviews as yet. Be the first of your friends to beat the trolls to it.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Larry Moran: "You can’t understand the arguments about the prevalence of junk DNA…" Hmmmn! I was under the assumption that Encode et al put this canard to rest or at least on life support. Are you going against the scientific consensus, Professor Moran? I love independent thinkers, but as those of us who see things differently know all too well, disagreeing with the consensus is not allowed. You, yourself have said as much, Professor, have you not? And if DNA is not mostly junk, as the scientific consensus seems to indicate, would that be evidence for ID or against it? In responding, pointing to folks like yourself who disagree with the consensus doesn't help you unless of course minority dissent is accepted in science. Is dissent acceptable to you, Professor, and what should the larger populace think of someone who ignores science to make a point? What do you call someone who ignores science?Florabama_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran:
Or maybe (gasp!), you could read a book.
What do you think of Masatoshi Nei's Mutation-Driven Evolution? Does he know about neutral theory and genetic drift?Mung_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

You are wrong, Mung. You fell for it hook, line and sinker. Edit: If Moran was telling the truth, no gene would be conserved. And yet, most genes are conserved for millions of years across different species.Mapou_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran:
This is very wrong. Could one of the ID proponents please explain to Mapou why he is wrong? I don’t think he’ll believe anything I say. This is an excellent opportunity for some of you to show the world that you really understand evolution and you are embarrassed by ID proponents who spout such nonsense on an ID blog. Waiting ….
We already tried. We were ignored. And yes, now it's embarrassing, because he continues to repeat it. It was first pointed out here.Mung_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Moran:
Mapou says, Only a very small subset of mutations are neutral. The others are immediately repaired, otherwise everything would die.
This is very wrong. Could one of the ID proponents please explain to Mapou why he is wrong? I don’t think he’ll believe anything I say.
In other words, you're lying again. You remind me of Zachriel.Mapou_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Prof Moran Ever heard of biomimicry? Reverse engineering of biological systems. .. http://biomimicry.net/ If you can reverse engineer it you can say with confidence it was engineered in the first place. Now if you can show us how mindless processes can engineer things like a flagella then the floor is yours and I am open to your practical solution using these mindless processes to prove your point.Andre_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

And Larry, why is it that you don't have to learn about what ID actually says and why is it OK for you to argue from ignorance? Here is another good article for you to ignore: Irreducible Complexity And Darwinian Pathways- Mike Gene Responds to Thornhill & UsseryVirgil Cain_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Prof Moran But we can talk about the Architecture of the flagellum and that will naturally lead to reverse enigeering. Do you want to learn something about reverse engineering? http://www.npd-solutions.com/reoverview.htmlAndre_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Larry Moran:
I’m also a “show me” person so I’ll be happy to point you to books and articles that provide evidence for neutral mutations and for random genetic drift.
Doing what? What do the articles say those mechanisms can do?
As part of the deal, you will do an actual demonstration of an intelligent designer making a bacterial flagellum.
So if Venter or someone else goes into a lab and designs a bacterial flagellum, you will accept ID? Really? You do realize that if you could show that drift and NS can produce a bacterial flagellum ID would be in deep trouble- so why haven't you done so? I can provide examples of genetic engineering by intelligent design.Virgil Cain_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Prof Moran I am an engineer but my skill levels in building a living flagellum is not quite there yet so I have to apologise for my incompetence at such a high level of design. I've read the books Prof Moran I'm begging for a practical here.Andre_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Virgil Cain How do we model sheer dumb luck? Can it be tested? Can it be repeated? Verified? Dr Moran do you know how to model dumb luck?Andre_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Andre says,
You still seem to be stuck on some misinformation. We have read about it we have heard you talk about it but due to the fact that I’m a show me person why don’t you do an actual demonstration? One we can test and verify?
I'll make you a deal. I'm also a "show me" person so I'll be happy to point you to books and articles that provide evidence for neutral mutations and for random genetic drift. As part of the deal, you will do an actual demonstration of an intelligent designer making a bacterial flagellum. Is that a deal?Larry Moran_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Larry is too dim to understand that by relying on drift to solve evolutionary problems he is relying on sheer dumb luck. And that isn't science.Virgil Cain_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Denyse O'Leary says,
Suzan Mazur and I wish to severally offer our thanks to Dr. Moran for the great job he is doing as part of her book’s promotion team.
You're very welcome. I'll probably blog about it on Sandwalk as well. I'm sure that the publicity she gets from a few of my comments on an ID blog will make all the difference.Larry Moran_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Prof Moran You still seem to be stuck on some misinformation. We have read about it we have heard you talk about it but due to the fact that I'm a show me person why don't you do an actual demonstration? One we can test and verify? How about it Prof Moran?Andre_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Mapou says,
Only a very small subset of mutations are neutral. The others are immediately repaired, otherwise everything would die.
This is very wrong. Could one of the ID proponents please explain to Mapou why he is wrong? I don't think he'll believe anything I say. This is an excellent opportunity for some of you to show the world that you really understand evolution and you are embarrassed by ID proponents who spout such nonsense on an ID blog. Waiting ....Larry Moran_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Mung says,
The “Random Genetic Drift” Fallacy
I'm impressed that you read William Provine's book. Which of his arguments did you find the most convincing?Larry Moran_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Andre asks,
Let us start right from the beginning here perhaps after this we might understand each other better. If you would like us to understand neutral evolution and random genetic drift why don’t you demonstrate it to us?
Are you agreeing with me? Are you admitting that you have been attacking evolution for years without understanding the basics of evolutionary theory? How many others are admitting to this ignorance? How many of you have such a poor understanding of Neutral Theory and random genetic drift that you need to have it explained to you in very simple terms in the comments section of an ID blog? You probably won't believe anything I say so maybe it would be better if Vincent Torley explained it to you. Or maybe you could convince Michael Denton or Michael Behe to stop by and give you the information you need. Denyse O'Leary and Barry Arrington won't be able to help you. Or maybe (gasp!), you could read a book.Larry Moran_{October 30, 2015
October
10
Oct
30
30
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Prof Moran
Second, you simply can’t even begin to understand many of the explanations of evolution unless you understand Neutral Theory and random genetic drift. I’m not saying that you have to agree with those explanations but if you are going to fight evolutionary biology it seems like a good idea to understand what you are attacking, no?
Let us start right from the beginning here perhaps after this we might understand each other better. If you would like us to understand neutral evolution and random genetic drift why don't you demonstrate it to us? An actual demonstration would go a very long way in understanding what you're saying. Now I know there are many people in this world that find a good explanation or story enough, but I'm not one of those people, I want you to show me with testable, repeatable and verifiable results. Can you do that Prof Moran? Let me ask you Prof Moran how does one model something random? I would love to see how on God's green earth anyone can model random! Bless you.Andre_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

Moran:
We’ve been telling her for several decades that neo-Darwinism, as she and her fellow ID proponents define it, was abandoned in the early 1970s when everyone adopted Neutral Theory—the idea that many mutations are neutral—and the idea that random genetic drift is the primary mechanism of evolution.
How does this solve the biggest problem of all stochastic search mechanisms: the dreaded combinatorial explosion? The CE brings them all down to their knees.
everyone adopted Neutral Theory—the idea that many mutations are neutral—and the idea that random genetic drift is the primary mechanism of evolution.
Only a very small subset of mutations are neutral. The others are immediately repaired, otherwise everything would die. Most genes are conserved for tens of millions of years, precisely because they are not allowed to mutate (not very random, I might add). Worse, how can the system know which genes should be mutable and which ones should be fixed? And how did it evolve this crucial life-death ability? How did it survive for millions of years without it? And let us not forget the dreaded combinatorial explosion that rains hard on every Darwinist parade including this pathetically lame neutral theory.Mapou_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Careful, folks over at TSZ might confuse you with “Frankie.”
The folks over at TSZ are just confused. I got mine on Kindle after Larry Moran mentioned it the other day. TSZ are very much the minority with respect to codes and the genetic code. They need to make their case and have failed, as usual. Of course the only way they will ever admit they are wrong is to have the designer sit down and explain it all to them, as if they would be able to understand. It's like trying to explain the ideal gas law, the many flaws in the Wells report and the fact there isn't any evidence for any advantage gained to Goodell.Virgil Cain_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Evolution is a flop. In modern times they had ro come up with new ideas to make it plausible especially as better investigation took place relative to before. The core idea of evolution is still taught to the public as selection on mutations over time equals complexity and diversity. In small circles they stress random or drift or whatnot. Yet evolutionism is still old man darwin and they celebrate him as the inventor. Thats why these new groups, not creationists, keep poping up. It just doesn't make sense. recently i watched much of the yale lessons on evolution, by a Prof Stern i think, and its laughable to hear what they teach and as evidence. This is all ending quicker then one thought. More intelligent people thinking carefully about this stuff will end it soon enough.Robert Byers_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Careful, folks over at TSZ might confuse you with "Frankie." I've had the book for some time, on Kindle, but hadn't read it. BruceS mentioned it a few times so I thought I'd at least read through Chapter 2. But Lane, like petrushka, never says what a code is.Mung_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

I just started reading that book by Lane. He does make several leaps of faith- just don't look behind the curtain! Get the Krebs cycle going through the influx of environmental energy and the evolution of ATP synthase is a given I tell ya!Virgil Cain_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Short of positing celestial design, the only way to explain optimisation is via the workings of selection. If so, the code of life must have evolved. Lane, Nick (2009-06-19). Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution (Kindle Locations 815-816). Norton. Kindle Edition.
Impeccable logic!Mung_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

The Darwinian revolution has been a resounding success in biology since its inception. The problem with great scientific revolutions is that they frequently become unmovable dogma. For a while the dogma maybe useful to clarify some points, but soon an ‘establishment’ form, the individual scientists find it impossible to break ranks, for their careers and financial livelihood are put at great risk. This is opposite to Galileo’s legacy, and yet it is an accurate statement on the human condition. Today it is an unfortunate fact that Neo-Darwinian ideas have evolved into almost a religion in certain quarters, particularly among population geneticists. The New Lamarckian soma-germline-gene-feedback loops (Steele, 1979 especially) and the extra-nucleic L system inheritance are passionately resisted. Some embryologists and population geneticists are still wedded to the neutral theory of molecular evolution of Kimura (1983).
pdfMung_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Hi Mung- Larry took his swings at Provine's book- WIlliam Provine doesn't like random genetic driftVirgil Cain_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Vy at 17, please keep in mind that Suzan Mazur's publicity team only wishes that they could pay Larry Moran more than they now do. We ought to be grateful to him for keeping the noise going - lack of publicity can be the ruin of a good book.News_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

The "Random Genetic Drift" FallacyMung_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

You just look like fools when you argue against junk DNA without understanding modern evolutionary theory.
Says the meatbag that believes blindly selective randomness formed his brain for no reason whatsoever. Coming from you, Larry Meatbag, it's a compliment.Vy_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply