Evolutionary biologist asks: Is talk of an evolution “revolution” “misguided?”

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 7, 2021

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Science}

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

Well, maybe that depends on what you mean by “revolution”. How about just allowing facts to be stated calmly and without prejudice?:

When researchers at Emory University in Atlanta trained mice to fear the smell of almonds (by pairing it with electric shocks), they found, to their consternation, that both the children and grandchildren of these mice were spontaneously afraid of the same smell. That is not supposed to happen. Generations of schoolchildren have been taught that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible. A mouse should not be born with something its parents have learned during their lifetimes, any more than a mouse that loses its tail in an accident should give birth to tailless mice.
If you are not a biologist, you’d be forgiven for being confused about the state of evolutionary science. Modern evolutionary biology dates back to a synthesis that emerged around the 1940s-60s, which married Charles Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection with Gregor Mendel’s discoveries of how genes are inherited. The traditional, and still dominant, view is that adaptations – from the human brain to the peacock’s tail – are fully and satisfactorily explained by natural selection (and subsequent inheritance). Yet as novel ideas flood in from genomics, epigenetics and developmental biology, most evolutionists agree that their field is in flux. Much of the data implies that evolution is more complex than we once assumed.
Kevin Laland, “Evolution unleashed: Is evolutionary science due for a major overhaul – or is talk of ‘revolution’ misguided?” at Aeon

Holy cow. Whodathunkit?

For sure, in that case, no more persecution for doubt. A lot of us are already sick of you people. Don’t make it worse.

Comments

Bob O'H states, "If you wanted to discuss speciation, why did you mention errors?" Yet Bob, since Darwinists can't even rigidly define what a species actually is, why even mention Darwinian evolution in your discussion of speciation?
At New Scientist: Questioning The Idea Of Species – Nov. 2020 Excerpt: Take the apparently simple organising principle of a species. You might have learned at school that a species is a group of individuals that can breed to produce fertile offspring. But this is just one of at least 34 competing definitions concocted over the past century by researchers working in different fields.,,,, https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/at-new-scientist-questioning-the-idea-of-species/
As the headline of the following article stated, “What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery”
What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019 Excerpt: Enough of species? This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete. The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,, some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,, https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200
In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted that he did not have a rigid definition for what the term ‘species’ actually meant when he stated that, “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience.,,,”
“I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” – Charles Darwin
As should be needless to say, the inability of a supposedly scientific theory, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place, to clearly define what a species actually is is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species” in the first place! The reason that Darwinists can never give a proper ‘scientific’ definition for what a species actually is because the concept of species turns out to be an abstract, i.e. immaterial, conceptualization of the immaterial mind. As the following article states, ”a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.”,,, ” this denial (of true species) is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge.”
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
Within their reductive materialistic framework, Darwinists simply have no foundation for grounding the abstract, i.e. immaterial, concept of ‘species’. i.e. the ‘true object of our knowledge’. There simply is no physical measurement that Darwinists can perform and say, ‘and this is exactly what we mean when we say the term ‘species”’. The concept of species simply does not weigh anything, nor does it have any speed, nor does the concept of species have any particular width or height that we can measure. Again, the entire concept of species is an abstract and immaterial concept. As should be needless to say, the sheer inability for a supposedly scientific theory, (a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species” in the first place), to clearly define what a species actually is in the first place is a clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the true ‘scientific’ explanation for the “Origin of Species”! Of supplemental note: While I vehemently disagree with Louis Agassiz's scientific racism, I, never-the-less, whole-heartedly agree with Agassiz's view that genera and species must have been ideas in the mind of God prior to their physical creation
Louis Agassiz Excerpt: Agassiz emigrated to the U.S. in 1847 and became a professor of zoology and geology at Harvard University, headed its Lawrence Scientific School and founded its Museum of Comparative Zoology. Agassiz made extensive contributions to the classification of fish (including of extinct species),,,, According to Agassiz, genera and species were ideas in the mind of God; their existence in God’s mind prior to their physical creation meant that God could create humans as one species,,, https://www.bookofdaystales.com/louis-agassiz/
There simply is no physical, and/or material, basis that Darwinian materialists can appeal to to ground the concept of species, which is the 'true object of our knowledge'. Yet, since species clearly and distinctly exist as the 'true object of out knowledge', then it necessarily follows that species must have been ideas in the mind of God prior to their physical creation.
Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Also see the argument from truth
Twenty Arguments God's Existence - Peter Kreeft Excerpt: This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness. It comes mainly from Augustine. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. Truth properly resides in a mind. But the human mind is not eternal. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11
bornagain77_{June 9, 2021
June
06
Jun
9
09
2021
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Bob OH @7
They died before they could be fossilised.
English is not my first language, but are you saying, that you get fossilized when you alive ?martin_r_{June 9, 2021
June
06
Jun
9
09
2021
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

Blastus @13. my bad.... of course, the self-replication of any 3D(flying) system is an engineering SCI-FI. Humans sent probes to Mars, but most lay people don't realize, that to design an autonomous self-navigating flying system in the size of a fruit fly is an engineering SCIFI... (and then comes a Darwinian biologist around, and starts talking about poor design ... these Darwinian clowns ... )martin_r_{June 9, 2021
June
06
Jun
9
09
2021
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

AaronS1978 @ 10 -
Mutants? mutant enough to be a different species?
Eh? Who said anything about different species? If you wanted to discuss speciation, why did you mention errors?Bob O'H_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

I like Martin's reference to: "autonomous self-navigating flying systems". But I would add to it: "autonomous self-navigating, self-replicating flying systems".Blastus_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Correction, I meant to say, "instead of a ‘bottom up’ pattern of diversity preceding disparity, which is exactly what Charles Darwin himself predicted for the fossil record, we instead find a ‘top down’ pattern of disparity preceding diversity for the fossil record.bornagain77_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H offers this flimsy excuse for why the fossil record does not conform to Darwinian expectations,
Martin_r : "where are all the errors in fossils records ?" Bob O'H: "They died before they could be fossilised. That’s how natural selection works."
As with everything else in Darwinian evolution, Bob's ad hoc excuse for why the fossil record does not support Darwinian. evolution does not bear up to scrutiny. As paleontologist Gunter Bechly explains in the following video, because of the 'collector's curve' we now know for a fact that the fossil record is far more 'complete' in its representation of fossils than Darwinists pretend.
How complete is the current fossil record and what does that tell us about the theory of evolution? Gunter Bechly - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCam4z1Ic9w&index=9&t=1s&list=PLtAP1KN7ahiZ80ClsWz-IAmP_fWHpqWar
As the following paper states, "we find that completeness (of the fossil record) is rather high for many animal groups."
Absolute measures of the completeness of the fossil record. - Foote M1, Sepkoski JJ Jr. - 1999 Excerpt: These measurements are nonetheless highly correlated, with outliers quite explicable, and we find that completeness (of the fossil record) is rather high for many animal groups. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11536900
Moreover, the 'rather high' completeness of the fossil record reveals something that is completely inexplicable for Darwin's theory. Namely, instead of a 'bottom up' pattern of disparity preceding diversity, which is exactly what Charles Darwin himself predicted for the fossil record, we instead find a 'top down' pattern of disparity preceding diversity for the fossil record. As Erwin stated, “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”
Jerry Coyne’s Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show “Why Evolution is True” – Jonathan M. – December 4, 2012 Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms. Darwin’s theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science, “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.” Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that, “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.” Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/jerry_coynes_c067021.html Erwin and Valentine’s The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin’s Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is “Unresolved” – June 26, 2013 Excerpt: “In other words, the morphological distances — gaps — between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent.” Erwin and Valentine (p. 340) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/erwin_valentine_cambrian_explosion073671.html
And as Valentine stated, " It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
“Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.” James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Charles Darwin himself predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found throughout the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html Günter Bechly video: Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design - 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7w5QGqcnNs The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule
Thus, contrary to Bob's flimsy ad hoc excuse, the fossil record is far more 'complete' than Bob let on, and is, with the 'top down' appearance of body plans, found to be far more 'un-Darwinian' than Bob, and other hard-core Darwinists, will ever honestly admit. Verse:
Psalm 104:30 When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.
bornagain77_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Mutants? mutant enough to be a different species? I know of mutant cells that turn into cancer and the creature that possesses the cancer dies and it’s still exactly the same species I know of genetic defects that definitely do not have survival advantage and are certainly lower fitness but wouldn’t constitute a new species or be the bridge to evolution creating a new species their genetic defects normally caused by an accident I’ve seen humans with slightly better lung capacity due to the area that they live in that doesn’t make them a mutant it makes them a human with better lung capacity I mean what are these genetic mutants that you speak of that certainly have a better or lower survival capability that would fit the bill of evolution making these multitude of mistakes until it finally get some thing right Because I know mutations on a microscale and they don’t constitute what you’re looking for And mutations at a macro scale seem to be defects and not actually mutations or attempts to bridge into another species Are you talking about mutations in haircolor mutations like albinos? Again same species and you wouldn’t see it in the fossil record because they’re the same species I mean most of the things that we see in the fossil record or giant jumps which are more indicative of hybridization But certainly not just loads and loads of waste from evolution trying to figure out what the new species is Which you would be able to find in the fossil record because it’s so wasteful But again evolution is kind of a God of Gaps you could just use any defect of any kind to satisfy your point Despite the fact that they would be still the same speciesAaronS1978_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

AaronS1978 -
If what you’re saying what I think you’re saying, “They didn’t survive long enough to leave a presence in the fossil record” Then you now would have to explain why we don’t see any mistakes happening today because they would continue to happen as things change and evolve
Errm but we do. We do see mutants, including ones with lower fitness.Bob O'H_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Huh!? “They died before they could be fossilized.” So you have to die and then you get fossilized Even if it was a small number of species some remnants had to have remained to leave some semblance of evidence which they haven’t If what you’re saying what I think you’re saying, “They didn’t survive long enough to leave a presence in the fossil record” Then you now would have to explain why we don’t see any mistakes happening today because they would continue to happen as things change and evolve But we don’t see that, it hasn’t been observed Furthermore there would be a great deal of mistakes (possibly all different) enough to actually leave a fossil presence Natural selection does play numbers, it’s how it works and it’s why I considered a God of gaps theory because if you force the numbers you can get anything you want but it’s still going to leave plenty of waste behindAaronS1978_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Martin_r -
where are all the errors in fossils records ?
They died before they could be fossilised. That's how natural selection works.Bob O'H_{June 8, 2021
June
06
Jun
8
08
2021
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

"... that evolution is more complex than we once assumed...." sure, all life is more complex than once assumed ... only Darwinists can be surprised by these findings ... If you are an engineer, you can't be that surprised. If you are an engineer, you would be surprised if the contrary would be true - that the life is simple... because: to design an autonomous self-navigating flying systems IS NOT SIMPLE. We know that in 21st century... only Darwinian biologists who never made anything think that this may be simple, just give it enough time ... no knowledge is needed, time alone will solve all the engineering challenges ... According to Darwinists, so called trial-error process solves it .... but Darwinists won't show you the erroneous attempts .... when you look at fossil records, you only see fully developed, fully designed, fully working species (e.g. able to fly) ... where are all the errors in fossils records ? Must be billions of errors unless you believe that blind unguided process solved all the engineering challenges at the first attempt. PS: i, as a mechanical engineer was always wondering, how many 'so called errors' did Darwinian biologists find? Right now, there are around 10 millions of species out there. Each species has at least 1000 co-operating working parts. That means 10,000,000 x 1000 = 1,000,000,000 parts working in concert.... How many errors out of 1,000,000,000 did Darwinian biologists find? 5? or 10 ? :))))))martin_r_{June 7, 2021
June
06
Jun
7
07
2021
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT}

Seversky, yes, it is evolving, but towards what? What is left of blind unguided process? What is left of small gradual steps? Now you have to believe in miracles even more :))))))))martin_r_{June 7, 2021
June
06
Jun
7
07
2021
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

Oh my God you made my brain hurtAaronS1978_{June 7, 2021
June
06
Jun
7
07
2021
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

It would appear that the theory of evolution is - dare I say it - evolving. But it is still evolution.Seversky_{June 7, 2021
June
06
Jun
7
07
2021
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

The modern synthesis is dead. The only 'flux' the modern synthesis is in is the same 'flux' that a decaying corpse is in. Here are a few notes to that effect
"Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology": Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin March 31, 2015 Excerpt: Noble doesn't mince words: "It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved." Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that "genetic change is random," (2) that "genetic change is gradual," (3) that "following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population," and (4) that "inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible." He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,, He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the "Integrative Synthesis," where genes don't run the show and all parts of an organism -- the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything -- is integrated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/physiology_is_r094821.html ,, In the following video, Dr Denis Noble states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”.?Denis Noble - Rocking the foundations of biology - video http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/ Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. Darrel Falk Downplays the Ramifications of the 2016 Royal Society Meeting Brian Miller – June 2, 2021 Excerpt: In the opening talk, organizer Gerd Müller stated that the SEM, (the standard evolutionary model), could explain the modification or duplication of existing traits, but it could not explain such key challenges as the following (here, here): *The origin of complex new traits such as eyes (here, here, here). *The consistent pattern in the fossil record of the sudden appearance of radically new organisms followed by periods of no significant change (here, here). *The distribution of genetic variation in species. He was referring to the fact that no genetic variation exists in any species that would allow for large-scale transformations (here, here). For instance, crossbreeding dogs will only produce dogs since dogs only have dog genes. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/darrel-falk-downplays-the-ramifications-of-the-royal-society-meeting/ Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford - February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/defending-the-validity-and-significance-of-the-new-theorem-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations-part-i-fishers-impact/ Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila – 2010 Excerpt of concluding paragraph: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.” http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/aspiliop//2010_2011/Burke%20et%20al%202010.pdf The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/ Neutral Theory, i.e. the falsification of natural selection as the supposed 'designer substitute' https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/larry-moran-to-write-new-book-claims-genome-is-99-junk/#comment-728351
bornagain77_{June 7, 2021
June
06
Jun
7
07
2021
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

"In flux" is a nice way of saying extinct.polistra_{June 7, 2021
June
06
Jun
7
07
2021
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply