Evolutionist Says Evolution’s “Traditional Framework” Must Go

Moczek writes a lot about environment and it's effect on genes and how these factors enable evolution but, in an article by Donald Prothero in 2012 Stasis in Pleistocene mammals and birds which David Tyler at ARN posted, Prothero states that, "In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give no one including myself has of yet a good explanation for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climates." So, is climate / environment, a factor of not? rwz46

OT: From whales to larvae, study finds common principles at work in swimming - Sept. 15, 2014 Excerpt: At nearly 100 feet long and weighing as much as 170 tons, the blue whale is the largest creature on the planet, and by far the heaviest living thing ever seen on Earth. So there's no way it could have anything in common with the tiniest fish larvae, which measure millimeters in length and tip the scales at a fraction of a gram, right? Not so fast,,, ,,,the researchers found that the swimming speed of virtually every organism, from fish larvae to frogs to birds, amphibians and even whales, could be described by one of the two equations. The same also held true, Mahadevan said, when Gazzola created complex computer models to solve the governing equations of fluid dynamics to describe how different organisms swim. "What is particularly interesting is that all the organisms essentially reach the hydrodynamic limits of performance," he said. "Our simple theory, which doesn't distinguish in any detailed way between something like a blue whale and fish larvae, except in the parameters of how large you are, much you move and how quickly you move, can describe all this diversity. That suggests there are general principles at work here." (such a principle as say,, 'all these creatures were designed to 'reach the hydrodynamic limits of performance?') http://phys.org/news/2014-09-whales-larvae-common-principles.html bornagain77

It is interesting to note that, while they concede that,,,

"genes do not “code” for form"

they still try to save 'variation of form' with this argument,,

"form emerges out of an interaction between gene products and environment",,, and "change arises through heritable changes in developmental systems enabled by environmental and genetic contributions'

Thus, despite their concession that genes are not the be all, end all, explanation for morphology, as envisioned by the modern synthesis, they still think morphological 'form' is ultimately reducible to some type of 'interlocking' materialistic framework in which, "change arises through heritable changes in developmental systems enabled by environmental and genetic contributions",,, This is simply wrong. Developmental systems are now shown to be highly resistant to change. Far more resistant to variation than genes themselves are,,, (Stephen Meyer - Darwin's Doubt, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, etc..)

A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Marshall, Part 2 (developmental Gene Regulatory Networks) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8Mhn2EKvQ

Moreover, 'form', or a body plan, is not completely reducible to a materialistic framework, but is something that transcends the material substrate and dictates the 'morphological boundaries' in which genes, proteins, etc.., can be expressed. (Stephen Talbott).

HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: ,,, The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

Thus, while their honesty about the inadequacy of the gene-centric view of the modern synthesis, (neo-Darwinism), is refreshing, their paper still fails to appreciate how complete the separation is between ANY type of reductive materialism and the unlimited variation of 'form' that was originally envisioned by Charles Darwin. bornagain77