Criticizing neo-Darwinism

Hi nwr,I know this is an old thread, but I ran across it the other day and liked your ideas. I agree that neo-darwinismin is an inadequate explanation for evolution, but at this point my reasons amount to little more than personal incredulity, which I realize is not an adequate argument to win a debate. However it is good enough for me to hesitate to make something part of my belief system. I don't necessarily have ambitions to develop my own formal theory, as you are doing, but I would like to come to some conclusions regarding my own personal beliefs and try to reconcile some conflicting ideals.So, I would like to ask you some questions about your point of view and to clarify your position on a few things. This is the first thing I am unclear on; what do you mean by "biology" in this context? Are you meaning that when the theory is insufficient to explain a particular evolutionary feature, then an 'add-on' is needed? As an example, RM + NS + Time does not very well explain why placental and marsupial animals have evolved strikingly similar characteristics. So we have termed it "convergent evolution" (which I realize has now become part of the theory). So, the theory doesn't "predict" convergent evolution, so we "appeal to the biology" to explain it. Is that a good example of what you mean by "appeal to the biology"? If it was just one or two of these amendments, no big deal; but when there is so many ... I wonder if it is time to adjust the model.Obviously no theory is going to explain everything perfectly, so how much predictive power do you expect from neo-darwinism? I personally get frustrated with explanations that are basically RM + NS + Time. IMO this amounts to no better explanation than God-did-it. This is the aspect that I have had the hardest time coming to terms with: gradualism. Although I can see gradualism working in certain cases, I don't believe it is what we actually observe. Organisms appear fully functional with novel features intact and operational. An example is the Italian Wall Lizard that evolved a new and novel feature (the cecal valve) in about 30 generations from a founding population of 5 breeding pairs! I have been unable to find any follow up work on this discovery that draws conclusions about how this novel feature actually evolved, but it seems unreasonable that this cecal valve evolved in gradual steps in such a short time. Instead, the cecal valve appears fully functional and operational.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/04/080417112433.htm You seem to advocate PE as a major factor in development of novel features. I believe that neo-darwinism has rejected PE in favor of gradualism or at least relegated it to a very minor role. I am unclear as to why this is, I would guess lack of mechanism. On the surface it makes sense to me and seems to match what we observe better. Organisms are relatively unchanging until environmental conditions require a change or offer some benefit to the organism. Then change is rather rapid, just as in the Wall Lizards.What is not clear is how changes could accumulate in regions of the DNA that are not being expressed and therefore not being selected for. (I believe I read you proposing such a scenario, but I could not find the quote when I went back to quote it - must have been in another thread) So how do you propose that beneficial mutations can accumulate without selection? That is what would have to happen, right? Back to the Wall Lizards ( I know I keep using the same example but its a good one ) The beneficial mutations would have been accumulating before they were trans-located and when the conditions changed, they expressed these changes. It seems improbable that just the right mutations would have occurred.Well, I guess thats enough for now.Just to be clear, I am not arguing for or against anything here, I am just looking to discuss my doubts of neo-darwinism with someone sensible and as you know, doubts are not very well received. Perhaps being a fellow doubter, we could have a decent discussion about this.Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.Edited by Admin, : Fixed long link again.