Intelligent Design

Royal Society meeting on evolution appears to be going ahead

Spread the love

That much-diminished meeting on rethinking evolution, remember, which couldn’t really come off, or not much anyway?

Some of us thought it would go the way of the firm that used to teach the peace sign to grizzly bears. But here it is again:

New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives

Monday 7 – Wednesday 9 November 2016, The Royal Society, London

Organised in partnership with the British Academy by Professor Denis Noble CBE FMedSci FRS, Professor Nancy Cartwright, Sir Patrick Bateson FRS, Professor John Dupré and Professor Kevin Laland

So, are they going to uncork the bottle? At this point, it almost doesn’t matter whether they do or not. Acknowledging the questions that Darwinism does not answer is the biggest problem that the bureaucratic organization must get past. Acknowledging other possible solutions is second.

Hey, honesty could well amount to more jobs  in the sciences. Why fight it?

Abstracts

See also: What the fossils told us in their own words

Follow UD News at Twitter!

13 Replies to “Royal Society meeting on evolution appears to be going ahead

  1. 1
    J-Mac says:

    What a relief… I’d thought that Larry Moran with some help from Jerry Coyne were going to cause enough mess to have this meet cancelled. I guess Larry is going to straighten everyone right in there. I’m contemplating to attend. It could be educational as well as entertaining…I just don’t know which option I like best…

  2. 2

    l love it. The end result will be pure rubbish – just like the original theory – but it will provide great entertainment.

    Just when you think Darwinists have reached the limits of lunacy in defending their secular religion, out pops another credentialed fool to raise the bar higher. The petulant, maniacal Lawrence Krauss set the lunacy bar to a very high level indeed, but I have faith that some other wild-eyed atheist will achieve even greater infamy.

  3. 3
    Dionisio says:

    J-Mac @1:

    It could be educational as well as entertaining…I just don’t know which option I like best…

    Get both! 🙂

  4. 4
    Dionisio says:

    Dean_from_Ohio @3:

    I wonder if the Canaanites ever held a conference on “Rethinking Devotion to Baal?”

    Maybe they did! Who knows? 🙂

  5. 5
    Dionisio says:

    Truth Will Set You Free @2:

    l love it. The end result will be pure rubbish – just like the original theory – but it will provide great entertainment.

    According to J-Mac @1 that show could be educational in addition to entertaining.

    🙂

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    I think it would be worth while to attend just to hear Professor Denis Noble speak. From the few talks I’ve seen him give, he is not the least bit shy about debunking foundational precepts of Darwinian evolution.

    Rocking the foundations of biology – video
    http://www.voicesfromoxford.or.....iology/184

    ,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel 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!”.
    Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.

    Here is a more recent talk by Dr. Noble:

    Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology – Denis Noble – July 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzD1daWq4ng

    Here is the paper that accompanies the preceding video:

    Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology – Denis Noble – 17 MAY 2013
    Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,,
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.....4/abstract

    “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/2.....94821.html

    Of course, such evidence challenges the entire reductive materialistic framework that Darwinian evolution is built upon. And as such it is not just that Darwinian evolution needs to be extended or anything like that, like many leading Darwinists try to claim when faced with the evidence, it is that the entire reductive materialistic framework that Darwinian evolution rests upon needs to be jettisoned and replaced with a ‘information theoretic’ framework in which the integrated information of the entire organism runs the show and the material particulars are very much subsidiary to that holistic ‘information theoretic’ framework.

    Is Professor Noble willing to push it that far at the upcoming meeting? Well, besides the videos I listed, he has given other hints elsewhere that he is indeed willing to go that far.

    Replace the Modern Synthesis (Neo-Darwinism): An Interview With Denis Noble 07/09/2014
    Excerpt: Suzan Mazur: In recent years the modern synthesis has been declared extended by major evolutionary thinkers (e.g., “the Altenberg 16” and others), as well as dead by major evolutionary thinkers, the late Lynn Margulis and Francisco Ayala among them. Ditto for the public discourse on the Internet. My understanding is that you are now calling for the modern synthesis to be replaced.
    Denis Noble: I would say that it needs replacing. Yes.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....84211.html

    “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator”
    – Denis Noble – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences
    http://musicoflife.co.uk/

  7. 7
    Dionisio says:

    BA77 @7:

    I think it would be worth while to attend just to hear Professor Denis Noble speak.

    Well, too late now:

    New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives
    Dates: Monday, 07 Nov 2016 to Wednesday, 09 Nov 2016
    Venue: The Royal Society, London
    Type: Scientific discussion meeting
    Capacity:
    Monday, 07 Nov 2016: 274 (fully booked, waiting list available)
    Tuesday, 08 Nov 2016: 274 (fully booked, waiting list available)
    Wednesday, 09 Nov 2016: 274 (fully booked, waiting list available)

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    OT:

    Brangelina Fever Gets Its Own Darwinian Just-So Story – Jonathan Witt – September 29, 2016
    Excerpt: What about all those zany things on the nature shows so impractical that natural selection would never vote them on to the next round of mother nature’s great big unmerciful game of Jeopardy? Well then, Darwinism has just the little beauty you’re looking for. That’s right, folks, sexual selection — natural selection’s winsome, whimsical, and wondrous assistant. Sexual selection is where, say, peahens prefer the peacocks with the bigger tail feathers, never mind how impractical those tails might become for running and flying. Presto! Peacocks have evolved whimsically enormous peacock tails.
    Together, natural and sexual selection can whip up a just-so story or any biological marvel you want to throw at them.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03177.html

  9. 9
    J-Mac says:

    Unfortunately, the meet is not going to feature Jerry Coyne-who apparent retired from who knows what, for reasons we all suspectEDDDDDD…

    btw: Jerry; you will never beat me. you can’t. nobody can unless they can create or recreate life… you fail jerry… you always do…

    Don’t try to beat me…

  10. 10
  11. 11
    Seversky says:

    Does this mean Susan Mazur may not get her next paradigm shift book out of it after all? That would be sad.

  12. 12
    J-Mac says:

    @11. It’s personal between me and Jerry Coyne. He banned me on his blog so I responded here knowing very well that he reads UD. Sorry that all of you are puzzled by my comment…

  13. 13
    J-Mac says:

    Regarding the Royal Society meeting coming up in November, I have recently bumped into an old friend of mine who called the Royal Society Meet “…a frantic attempt to place a dead theory on life support with the hopes of it being resurrected…again…”

Leave a Reply