Remember: Top sci mag Nature says urgent rethink sought on evolution theory but … it might make people think they support ID.
Well, here are three responses from the current issue. First:
I asked my third- and fourth-year undergraduate students whether they thought that evolutionary theory needs rethinking (see Nature 514, 161–164; 2014). More than two-thirds (26 out of 38) argued that it did not … (paywall)
To be expected. He (and especially she who would shout in Darwin’s name is assured a living, irrespective of fact base. All who deal in evidence must fight for their professional lives. )
The debate on rethinking evolutionary theory (see Nature 514, 161–164; 2014) should include viruses. By integrating into host DNA, viruses have markedly influenced the evolution and development of cellular organisms (see, for example, F. Baluška Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1178, 106–119; 2009). (paywall)
Yes, of course it should. But viruses can only help us understand some problems; they are not a magic bullet. See also: Viruses are not fourth domain of life
Standard evolutionary theory should incorporate the complexity of adaptive evolving systems — including species, niches and environment — as dynamic relationship networks (see Nature 514, 161–164; 2014).
For example, epigenetic inheritance — which changes gene expression but not the DNA sequence — involves the storage of molecular information and its retrieval, transfer and processing at … (You have to pay to read the article.)
Yes, and what happens if it turns out that decades of tenured suppression of unorthodox opinion have put the discipline on the wrong track. When does it become okay to correct course openly?
If you want to shell out for these opinions, expanded, it’s your card, not ours.
Follow UD News at Twitter!