Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

(Reformed) New Scientist on the genome: Not destiny


Readers may recall that New Scientist published an article yesterday on 13 ways we need to “rethink the theory of nature.”

Their Number 1 rethink is GENES ARENʼT DESTINY (genetic plasticity)

Most of the article is paywalled but here’s the gist of #1:

The more we learn about genetics, the clearer it becomes that “genetic determinism” – the idea that genes and genes alone fix our destiny – is a myth. A given set of genes has the potential to produce a variety of observable characteristics, known as phenotypes, depending on the environment.

Michael Le Page , Colin Barras , Richard Webb , Kate Douglas and Carrie Arnold, “Evolution is evolving: 13 ways we must rethink the theory of nature” at New Scientist (September 23. 2020)

Sure but then what about the famous twin studies that were supposed to prove so much about human nature? No? Then it’s probably best for the New Scientists to just get out of the “gene for that” hell while they can.

See also: At New Scientist: We must rethink the (Darwinian) theory of nature If by “our greatest theory of nature,” the writers mean textbook Darwinism, well the new concepts they list are destroying it. What becomes of “natural selection acting on random mutation” if a variety of means of evolution are “natural,” mutations are not necessarily random, genes aren’t selfish and don’t come only from parents, and the fittest don’t necessarily survive? Just for a start…

2 Martin_r The passage you copied almost made me p*ke. What a massive load of garbage are Dawkin's writings.
PS: people, who purchased this book, as you can see, it is all wrong (again), ask for a refund!
People who buy books written by fools (Coyne, Dawkins et al) do not deserve a refund. :) Truthfreedom
@ 1 Robert Plomin Is a good example of someone that thinks almost all is genetic, there is another scientist on springerlink wrote a recent paper on it to that shares his views even went to say that epigenome is still genetic and people are falsely attributing the epigenome as evidence against genetic determinism The twins studies about similar epigenetic responses seems to lend credence to that If am wrong please I welcome the correction as this is something I really want to be wrong about AaronS1978
Does it mean, that militant atheist Oxford's ex-professor Richard Dawkins got it all wrong AGAIN ? let me quote from R. Dawkins Self-Fish Gene book: “Individuals are not stable things, they are fleeting. Chromosomes too are shuffled into oblivion, like hands of cards soon after they are dealt. But the cards themselves survive the shuffling. The cards are the genes. The genes are not destroyed by crossing-over, they merely change partners and march on. Of course they march on. That is their business. They are the replicators and we are their survival machines. When we have served our purpose we are cast aside. But genes are denizens of geological time: genes are forever." PS: people, who purchased this book, as you can see, it is all wrong (again), ask for a refund ! martin_r
Strawman argument. Nobody says that genes ALONE determine behavior. For thousands of years mature thinkers have understood that heredity is a big part of destiny but not the only part. This old wisdom (unsurprisingly) turned out to be quantitatively correct after genes and DNA were quantified. Since 1700 secularists have been insisting INCORRECTLY that genes are meaningless. This big lie leads on one hand to the genocidal myths of "democracy" and "meritocracy", and on the other hand to the genocidal myths of Marx. polistra

Leave a Reply