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

Upright Biped- Unless you can get each and every one on that list to prove to larry, personally, that they understand evolution and the neutral theory, it is a given that they do not. ;)Virgil Cain_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

Larry, You made a statement that cannot be defended. The gentlemen (and lady) that Mazur interviews in her last book certainly understand evolution and neutrtal theory.Upright BiPed_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

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.News_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran:
First, ID proponents keep referring to “Darwinism” as if it represents the position of evolutionary biologists.
It refers to anyone who accepts that natural selection and drift are enough to account for life's diversity.
Second, you simply can’t even begin to understand many of the explanations of evolution unless you understand Neutral Theory and random genetic drift.
We have already been over that. Tell us Larry, does the theory tell us what predictions are borne from natural selection and drift? Does the neutral theory tell us how many generations it takes to evolve a human from a knuckle-walker? If modern evolutionary theory cannot explain DNA what, exactly, does it have to say about it and how can we verify what you say about the theory?Virgil Cain_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Dear Upright BiPed, I assume you're familiar with the positions of all those scientists otherwise you wouldn't have posted their names, right? You would look pretty foolish if you were just using an argument from pseudo-ubased on the word of Suzan Mazur. Eugene Koonin and the late Carl Woese were familiar with Neutral Theory and random genetic drift. Which of the others, in your informed opinion, discusses Neutral Theory or random genetic drift in a manner that convinces you that they know what they are talking about? Can you post links and references? Have you heard any of them talk? Have you been following their work for the past few years? Have you read any of their papers?Larry Moran_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Andre says, Secondly you don’t really understand our position if you did you would not make such absolutely stupid remarks unless of course you’re panicking about something. I may not understand YOUR position because it's so confused but I've been debating ID proponents for over twenty years and I have a pretty good understanding of the position of many of them. They don't all agree with each other so it's impossible to say that I "understand" the position of every one of you. I'm making two points about modern evolutionary theory. First, ID proponents keep referring to "Darwinism" as if it represents the position of evolutionary biologists. This demonstrates that they don't understand their position. That must be important to most of you since you often accuse me of not understanding your position. 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? You can't understand the evolutionary explanation for why you can construct phylogenetic trees, for example, unless you understand random genetic drift. Read Michael Denton's latest book—he will explain it to you. You can't understand the arguments about the prevalence of junk DNA unless you understand modern evolutionary theory and population genetics. You just look like fools when you argue against junk DNA without understanding modern evolutionary theory. Again, I'm not saying that you have to agree with those arguments but if you are going to claim that they are wrong you should understand them, no?Larry Moran_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Don't scale as suspected. So is there a 1 in a million chance that neutral theory can make a comeback and scale? Come on give all those people from 1970 some hope Mung!!!!Andre_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

(you) don’t known about neutral alleles and random genetic drift. Neither does Suzan Mazur and neither do most of the people she writes about in her latest book.
Founder Institute of Evolution (Haifa), Eviatar Nevo Computational Biologist, Eugene Koonin Virologist, Ricardo Flores Cellular Biologist, Stuart Newman Systems Biologist, Denis Noble Geneticist, Corradi Spadafora Molecular Biologist, František Baluška Neurobiologist, Jonathan Delafield-Butt Microbiologist, James Shapiro Virologist, Luis Perez Villarreal Biophysicist, Carl Woese :|Upright BiPed_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

I think this paper blows Prof Moran’s Neutral Theory out of the water… That's not something that's immediately obvious. They just say it doesn't scale as expected, not that it's false.Mung_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

I think this paper blows Prof Moran's Neutral Theory out of the water.... http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002112 Natural selection constrains neutral evolutuon according to this research.Andre_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Sampling theory just doesn't sound as sexy as evolutionary theory.Mung_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

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.
The Selfish Gene (1976) Les avatars du gène : théorie néodarwinienne de l’évolution (1997). Gene Avatars (2002)Mung_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Larry Moran, you have been told many times that the reason both Darwin and IDists ignore drift is because it has not been a posited mechanism to explain the appearance of design. Population genetics doesn't explain the physiological and morphological differences observed between alleged sister populations, like chimps and humans. As for understanding "evolutionary theory", seeing there isn't a scientific theory of evolution it is a safe bet that any one person's "understanding" could be as good as the next. Most of the evolution taught in schools seems to be nothing more than bald assertions "Natural selection is the only mechanism known to produce adaptations. Here are some adaptations and as such evidence for natural selection"- Futuyma doesn't acknowledge that drift has any creative power. So, Larry, random genetic drift is ignored for good reason-> it isn't any different than sheer dumb luck. And we care about scientific explanations. And guess what, Larry? This isn't your blog so my response refuting your diatribe will stay for all to see.Virgil Cain_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Well Prof Moran we are in good company because you don't have anything to show how random genetic drift and neutral theory can build a single protein from scratch. Do you have the results? Are the figures in? Show it and we will shut up. Secondly you don't really understand our position if you did you would not make such absolutely stupid remarks unless of course you're panicking about something. Lastly I find it very funny that everybody is wrong except of course Prof Moran.Andre_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

So the "distinguished one" is still around.Vy_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

I agree with Denyse that neoDarwinism is a "model of evolution based on natural selection following the accumulation of random genetic mutations." However, it is not the current "standard model" that Denyse claims. 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. That "paradigm shift" has never been recognized by ID proponents. Even today, after 45 years, most of them (you) don't understand modern population genetics and evolutionary theory. Most of them (you) don't known about neutral alleles and random genetic drift. Neither does Suzan Mazur and neither do most of the people she writes about in her latest book. Like ID proponents, they completely missed the last paradigm shift and they are still trying to challenge the old strawman version of evolutionary theory from the 1960s. It's ironic that Denyse O'Leary would listen to Suzan Mazur while ignoring all those experts who have tired to educate her since she first discovered intelligent design and started to attack the old "Darwinism" and "neo_Darwinism" models.Larry Moran_{October 29, 2015
October
10
Oct
29
29
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply