This parody of evo devo makes it sound a lot like ID

_{News
December 19, 2017

Cell biology, Evolution, Evolutionary biology

1}_{Categories
Cell biology
Evolution
Evolutionary biology}

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

“This is how we go from single cells to people.” Hmmm.

See also: From Biology Direct: Darwinism, now thoroughly detached from its historical roots as a falsifiable theory, “must be abandoned”

Comments

Evolution Driven by Organismal Behaviour – a Unifying View of Life, Function, Form, Mismatches, and Trends By Rui Diogo, 252 pages. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, Switzerland, 2017. ISBN: 978?3?319?47580?6. Art Tom V. Smulders DOI: 10.1111/joa.12750 Smulders, Tom. (2017). Evolution Driven by Organismal Behaviour – a Unifying View of Life, Function, Form, Mismatches, and Trends By Rui Diogo, 252 pages. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, Switzerland, 2017. ISBN: 978?3?319?47580?6.. Journal of Anatomy. . 10.1111/joa.12750.Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? Project A Process Ontology for Contemporary Biology John Dupré Goal: This ERC funded project aims to rethink central issues in the philosophy of biology by elaborating an ontology for biology that takes full account of the processual nature of living systems. It explores the possibility of seeing living things - genes, cells, organisms, etc. - as fundamentally processes, maintained in relatively stable conditions by yet further processes. Three postdoctoral researchers work on the project: Stephan Guttinger, Anne Sophie Meincke, and Daniel J. NicholsonDionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? :) New trends in evolutionary biology: Biological, philosophical and social science perspectives DOI: 10.1098/rsfs.2017.0051 Introduction to New Trends in Evolutionary Biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives Patrick Bateson, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ ppgb@cam.ac.uk. Nancy Cartwright, Department of Philosophy Durham University 50 Old Elvet Durham DH13HN nancy.cartwright@durham.ac.uk John Dupré, Egenis, The Centre for the Study of Life Sciences Byrne House, St German’s Road University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4PJ J.a.dupre@exeter.ac.uk Kevin Laland, Centre for Biodiversity School of Biology University of St Andrews Harold Mitchell Building St Andrews Fife KY16 9TH, UK, e-mail: knl1@st-andrews.ac.uk Denis Noble Department of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics University of Oxford Parks Road, OX1 3PT Denis.noble@dpag.ox.ac.uk https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Dupre/publication/319191327_New_trends_in_evolutionary_biology_Biological_philosophical_and_social_science_perspectives/links/599fee394585151e3c73d877/New-trends-in-evolutionary-biology-Biological-philosophical-and-social-science-perspectives.pdfDionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? Project: [let's try to come up with a reasonable explanation ASAP] :) The Extended Life Cycle Nayely Velez-Cruz, Manfred Laubichler Goal: We aim to devise a robust mathematical and multiresolution data analytic framework for a mechanistic explanation of phenotypic evolution that is conceptually rooted in a developmental evolutionary biology. This is motivated by the lack of evolutionary models that integrate the biological reality of multiple simultaneously-occurring mechanisms of inheritance with developmental biology to explain the origins of evolutionary novelty. We introduce The Extended Life Cycle, a conceptual framework for theory integration in the biological sciences, and its mathematical realization via the Phenotype-Genotype-Phenotype (PGP) Map.Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

evo devo despacito? Austin, Christopher. (2017). Recent Work in The Philosophy of Biology. Analysis. DOI: 10.1093/analys/anx032 The biological sciences have always proven a fertile ground for philosophical analysis, one from which has grown a rich tradition stemming from Aristotle and flowering with Darwin. And although contemporary philosophy is increasingly becoming conceptually entwined with the study of the empirical sciences with the data of the latter now being regularly utilised in the establishment and defence of the frameworks of the former, a practice especially prominent in the philosophy of physics, the development of that tradition hasn't received the wider attention it so thoroughly deserves. This review will briefly introduce some recent significant topics of debate within the philosophy of biology, focusing on those whose metaphysical themes (in everything from composition to causation) are likely to be of wide-reaching, cross-disciplinary interest.Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

evo-devo despacito? Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary Gerd B. Müller DOI: 10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015 Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and multiple inheritance systems, the ‘-omics’ revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge about the factors responsible for evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process. 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 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. http://rsfs.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/7/5/20170015.full.pdfDionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

evo-devo despacito? Organisms as Persisters Subrena E. Smith DOI: 10.3998/ptb.6959004.0009.014 https://philarchive.org/archive/ESMOAP Philos Theor Pract Biol (2017) 9:14 https://www.ptpbio.org/Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

DiEb & GP: You may find this RW case driven discussion of the design inference explanatory filter relevant: https://uncommondescent.com/design-inference/alien-megastructure-is-not-the-cause-of-the-dimming-of-tabbys-star-design-inference-filter-in-action-sci-fi-fans-disappointed/ It is the context for my previous linked. KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

DiEb, You may want to seriously heed KF's suggestion @71.Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

DiEb, Please, read very carefully gpuccio's comment @70, which is addressed to you. Please, pay special attention to the last paragraph. Now gpuccio has graciously provided to you with a nice opportunity to present a strong mathematical support for your constant criticism of ID. If you miss this rare opportunity, you will confirm that your void rants are just what the beautiful Italian singer Mina said in a popular song she sang so well: "Parole, parole, parole". This is your moment to shine. Don't miss it!Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @70: "empirical formulation of biological ID" I like that! Biological ID (BID) Empirical Formulation of Biological ID (EFOBID) Biological ID Empirical Formulation (BIDEF) A title for a future article?Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

GP & DiEb note this current thread: https://uncommondescent.com/selective-hyperskepticism/tabbys-star-on-the-extraordinary-evidence-claim/ KFkairosfocus_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

DiEb: "While virtually every single branch, every mathematical idea has internet fora on which it is discussed vigorously, there is no such forum left for the maths of Intelligent Design. I’m afraid that this is mainly due to lack of general interest – and due to a lack of new ideas in this field." I think that the discussion about ID has shifted mainly to biological and empirical problems. IMO, the mathematical basis for ID is simple enough, and if correctly applied to an empirical framework about biology, it is more than enough to infer design with overwhelming scientific strength. For me, Dembski's explanatory filter is enough, provided that we interpret it as an empirical tool, and not as a logical theorem. I have tried to do exactly that in my discussions here. I would be interested to know what are your main arguments against ID from a mathematical point of view, to understand if those arguments really apply to an empirical formulation of biological ID. Could you please point to some place where I can find your interventions, or just simply express the main points briefly here?gpuccio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

Evo-devo despacito? [almost a decade old?] Are they getting a little nervous? Evolutionary Developmental Biology Offers a Significant Challenge to the Neo?Darwinian Paradigm DOI: 10.1002/9781444314922.ch11 In book: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology, pp.199 - 212 Manfred Laubichler 38.29 Arizona State University Abstract In this paper, I note that in evaluating present-day evo-devo the question for us is not only whether evo-devo is revolutionary in some sense, but also whether sometimes a "revolutionary" position in science can actually resemble more a "counter-revolution." I argue that the relationship between evo-devo and the neo-Darwinian paradigm can be interpreted exactly like that, and that the revolutionary nature of evo-devo lies precisely in its return to a more inclusive conception of phenotypic evolution, one that more closely resembles the conceptual framework of Darwin and the first few generations of evolutionists than the more narrowly focused interpretation of the Modern Synthesis. However, I also argue that evo-devo is by no means "reactionary" as it approaches these more traditional conceptual problems with all the methodological, technological, and empirical advances of the last six decades of biological research. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manfred_Laubichler/publication/228028772_Evolutionary_Developmental_Biology_Offers_a_Significant_Challenge_to_the_Neo-Darwinian_Paradigm/links/5a157fb7a6fdccd697bc2a89/Evolutionary-Developmental-Biology-Offers-a-Significant-Challenge-to-the-Neo-Darwinian-Paradigm.PDFDionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

ET @67, Those folks make it quite easier to do so. Their fumbling seems constant. It's the typical attitude of the losers. However, always I must remind myself to be gracious toward others, as God has been gracious to me, despite the fact that I'm not better that others. I make many mistakes too. It's part of our human imperfections. Had we remained in Eden, none of this would have been an issue.Dionisio_{January 17, 2018
January
01
Jan
17
17
2018
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

I just love turning the tablesET_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

ET @61, Valid questions.Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

DiEb @63: Huh?Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

DiEb @60: Huh?Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

@Dionisio: word-games about "surprise" - quelle surpriseDiEb_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

DiEb @55:
I was surprised that you seemingly were not acquainted with the website evoinfo.org
I had not opened that website before reading your comment about being surprised. :) In the list of websites @56, these are the ones I enjoy visiting: Biblegateway.com_________1,001 Desiringgod.org_________10,908 Truthforlife.org________42,349 Gty.org__________45,516 Apparently -looking at their rankings- other people like them too. :) I've also downloaded some video material from mit.edu and as you well know I've been in this UD website "a few times" too. :) Ah, I've also been quite a bit in Kodugamelab.com______311,217 because it's related to one of the projects I'm working on lately. The last time I was surprised it was by grace. Don't recall being surprised by much since then.Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

DiEB:
I always wondered how IDst and creationists got this reputation of enjoying word-games over discussing content…
LoL- when have evos ever discussed content? When have they ever discussed science?ET_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

@Dionisio: I always wondered how IDst and creationists got this reputation of enjoying word-games over discussing content...DiEb_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

DiEb @55:
I was surprised that you seemingly was not acquainted with the website evoinfo.org
I think you've mentioned that English is not your first language? If that's the case, then join the club!!! I can use any help coming my way in the form of grammar corrections. Unfortunately some English-speaking folks don't like to correct my language errors. I miss that.
I was surprised that you seemingly were not acquainted with the website evoinfo.org
[Emphasis added]Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

DiEb @49, In the text that you quoted from my comment @43, there are some typo errors that I should correct:
A couple of years ago a distinguished biochemistry professor at a Canadian university stopped an incipient discussion we tried to have. He ran for the door after mistakenly answering a very simple biology-related question. Apparently he couldn’t stand the heat. I don’t know what happened him that day. Perhaps he had a brief mental lapse? He just said that he won’t discuss with me because I don’t ask honest questions. The simple question he failed was: "Do you know exactly how the morphogen gradients form?" He answered ‘Yes’. Unbelievable! He later complained about the ‘tricky’ word ‘exactly’ embedded in the question. Some folks suggested that I should have highlighted the ‘tricky’ word ‘exactly’ in bold characters, so that it could be easily noticeable. Oh well, my fault. I’ll try better next time. :)
His mistake was very significant by any standard and quite embarrassing in the context it occurred. He knew very well that it wasn't known exactly how those signaling profiles are constructed. There are still fundamental issues awaiting resolution. Important outstanding questions remain unanswered. Details about what happened that day here are publicly available. They are all recorded here in this website. Anyone can search them very easily. No one knows what made such a distinguished biochemistry professor write that embarrassing 'Yes'. But I believe I know why it happened. I quoted the explanation at the end of my comment @43. But many people won't understand what that text means.Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Interesting proteins: DNA-binding proteins SATB1 and SATB2 July 14, 2017 Posted by gpuccio 305 Comments Visited 2,181 times https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-proteins-dna-binding-proteins-satb1-and-satb2Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Please, note that no web info service is 100% reliable. Also note that the numbers keep fluctuating. However, the different reports confirm that UD is comfortably within 1% of the currently active websites. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/uncommondescent.com MIT.edu___________481 Nature.com________860 Harvard.edu_________873 Biblegateway.com_______1,001 mtgsalvation.com______10,201 Desiringgod.org_______10,908 Answersingenesis.org_____28,882 Truthforlife.org______42,349 Gty.org_______45,516 Samaritanspurse.org_____51,000 freethoughtblogs.com_____76,655 Icr.org_______77,874 sermonsearch.com______81,317 Religionnews.com_____96,212 Royalsociety.org_____102,052 keepbelieving.com______144,829 sermonnotebook.org_____146,899 Rzim.org_______148,154 Evolutionnews.org_____168,380 gospelinlife.com______231,645 Kodugamelab.com______311,217 Reasons.org___________346,070 fpcjackson.org_______358,074 asa3.org_____________428,374 Jamesmacdonald.com_____460,457 discovery.org__________542,905 Uncommondescent.com_____644,999 Pandasthumb.org__________906,313 intelligentdesign.org_____932,239 ideacenter.org___________1,655,821 arn.org__________________1,956,610 theskepticalzone.com______5,147,609 biologicinstitute.org_____6,450,899 Evoinfo.org_______________10,309,075 * Active websites (10%): 132M to 173M UD 0.4% – 0.5% PT. 0.5% – 0.7% TSZ 3% – 4% All websites UD 0.04% – 0.05% (*) mentioned @25Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Dionisio @52: I was surprised that you seemingly was not acquainted with the website evoinfo.org - you seem to be amused by the fact that its ranking is virtually unmeasurable in the 10,000,000... Now, you seem to be ignorant about Jeffrey Shallit. Perhaps you should read up on W. Dembski's and R. Marks's oeuvre, and have a look at the main critics. Perhaps you do know that this blog was started by W. Dembski - a philosopher and mathematician. It is no surprise that some mathematically inclined people have lost interest in Uncommon Descent as the last time that there happened something like a discussion between mathematicians on a technical subject was in 2015. Articles like this one are just painful to read for mathematicians, and they may not be interested in the endless discussions on philosophy and theology. While virtually every single branch, every mathematical idea has internet fora on which it is discussed vigorously, there is no such forum left for the maths of Intelligent Design. I'm afraid that this is mainly due to lack of general interest - and due to a lack of new ideas in this field.DiEb_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Please, note that no web info service is 100% reliable. Also note that the numbers keep fluctuating. However, the different reports confirm that ID is within 1% of the currently active websites. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/uncommondescent.com MIT.edu___________481 Nature.com________860 Harvard.edu_________873 Biblegateway.com_______1,001 Desiringgod.org_______10,908 Answersingenesis.org_____28,882 Truthforlife.org______42,349 Gty.org_______45,516 Samaritanspurse.org_____51,000 freethoughtblogs.com_____76,655 Icr.org_______77,874 Religionnews.com_____96,212 Royalsociety.org_____102,052 Rzim.org_______148,154 Evolutionnews.org_____168,380 Kodugamelab.com______311,217 Reasons.org___________346,070 asa3.org_____________428,374 Jamesmacdonald.com_____460,457 discovery.org__________542,905 Uncommondescent.com_____644,999 Pandasthumb.org__________906,313 intelligentdesign.org_____932,239 ideacenter.org___________1,655,821 arn.org__________________1,956,610 theskepticalzone.com______5,147,609 biologicinstitute.org_____6,450,899 Evoinfo.org_______________10,309,075 * Active websites (10%): 132M to 173M UD 0.4% – 0.5% PT. 0.5% – 0.7% TSZ 3% – 4% All websites UD 0.04% – 0.05% (*) mentioned @25Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

@52 addendum An interesting detail is that a blogger within a relatively more popular website seems to keep an eye on what they write here in UD (a relatively less popular website), or at least got the tip from someone else?Dionisio_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply