|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4617 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Wounded King writes: Yes, lets look at the abstract for that paper ...
Pigliucci writes: Evolutionary theory is undergoing an intense period of discussion and reevaluation. This, contrary to the misleading claims of creationists and other pseudoscientists, is no harbinger of a crisis but rather the opposite: the field is expanding dramatically in terms of both empirical discoveries and new ideas. In this essay I briefly trace the conceptual history of evolutionary theory from Darwinism to neo-Darwinism, and from the Modern Synthesis to what I refer to as the Extended Synthesis, a more inclusive conceptual framework containing among others evo-devo, an expanded theory of heredity, elements of complexity theory, ideas about evolvability, and a reevaluation of levels of selection. I argue that evolutionary biology has never seen a paradigm shift, in the philosophical sense of the term, except when it moved from natural theology to empirical science in the middle of the 19th century. The Extended Synthesis, accordingly, is an expansion of the Modern Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, and one that--like its predecessor--will probably take decades to complete. So misleading claims, check! No paradigm shift, check! Enxtension of current theory to acount for new findings, check! Yeah, it really sounds like they are tearing down the whole structure of modern evolutionary theory, oh no, wait! It doesn't sound like that at all, it sounds like what we have been telling you for this whole thread. The modern synthesis is roughly a century old and unsurprisingly we have learned a hell of a lot of new things in that century. Pigliucci's extended synthesis already exists, it is called modern evolutionary biology and it is spread throughout the literature of all the fields he mentions. TTFN, WK Hey there. You know that HGT in prokaryotes and epigenetic inheritance should just about have confounded current genomic modelling into a meltdown, I would think. "Most thinking in genetics has focused on vertical transfer, but there is a growing awareness that horizontal gene transfer is a significant phenomenon. Amongst single-celled organisms it may be the dominant form of genetic transfer."Modern synthesis - Wikipedia http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/02/110217141307.htm I think Mendellian population genetics has been confounded by Lamarkian style inheritance in epigenetic inheritance and Darwin has been outdated as too simplistic. http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/05/090518111723.htm I think current thinking about Darwinian evolution requires replacement, maybe a Creationist model would be more parsinomous with current knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4617 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Hey there,
Isn't Pigliucci a philosopher rather than a credentialed scientist? Quote Granny Magda:"He could almost be talking about you. Did you even read that before you quoted it? He's saying that you're wrong Shadow. He's saying that what modifications must be made to the MS are not sufficient to bring the whole crashing down. He is saying that the theory can take these modifications just fine. That is how it is supposed to work." You know that evolutionists operate from a faith that overides the unfalsifiable basis for evolutionary theory. About the only basis even Dawkins could come up with is a precambrian mammal. As you stated "scientific theories are constantly modified". Hence TOE is a theory in evolution itself and has little, if any, predictive power. An example is the human Y chromosome. It is remarkably different to the human male Y chromosome. Rather than admit they got it wrong another theory of 'accelerated evolution' is invented to explain why some genomic regions do not fit as predicted. The same happened with the death of LUCA and HGT, the same happened for Darwins gradual change with punctuated equilibrium, abiogenic single cell arising to multiple cells arising and undergoing HGT. Darwins gradual change, his theoretical basis in population genetics, TOE's reliance on Mendelian inheritance alone are way too simplistic. Epigenetic inheritance (Lamark) and HGT in both eukaryotes and prokaryotes must be confounding evolutionary modelling into a meltdown. Really all the speak to genetic markers, relics etc could be no more than fantasies and wish lists. About the only thing I see evolutionary researchers agreeing on is "It all evolved". The how, when, where and why are still up for grabs. So I'd say the faithfull that follow TOE do not care if the how, when, where and why constantly changes. These have the underlying faith that "it all evolved" so the details are irrelevant. No matter what changes or how, evolutionists will believe in a TOE. It does not matter if chimps and man are 1%, 30% or 80%dissimilar. Even if a precambrian mammal was found I doubt TOE would be tossed. Rather it would be reworked to suit, as researchers already do. eg Jehol bird fossils did not fit evo theory so the fossils redated the strata. You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us | WIRED#http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/ Chinese fossil layers and uniformitarian re-dating - creation.com I think evolutionists need to amend their theory if they want creationists to abandon common sense and true science for myth, models based on probabilities that change like the wind and flavour of the month. eg LUCA, knucklewalking ancestry, etc... The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution itself and appears to be the only thing demonstrating macroevolution on this earth. TOE in its current state needs to be replaced or tossed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4617 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
molbiogirl writes: To me this demonstrates some qualifed scientists do accept Ho as revelant and not a "nutbag". Couple of words about that paper. One. This paper has never been cited. By anyone. Ever.Two. It was published in a rinky dink backwater South American journal which no one cites. Source. That's pathetic. Seriously. A couple of words about your post. It appears that you are trying to minimise another posters point by denying the underlying basis of mols point that is well documented in various research even if the example given was not the best. How about something from the quarterly review of biology. In fact there are numerous papers that speak to the implications that epigenetic inheritance have for current evolutionary thinking. Here is just one.... "New evidence for epigenetic inheritance has profound implications for the study of evolution, Jablonka and Raz say. "Incorporating epigenetic inheritance into evolutionary theory extends the scope of evolutionary thinking and leads to notions of heredity and evolution that incorporate development," they write. This is a vindication of sorts for 18th century naturalist Jean Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck, whose writings on evolution predated Charles Darwin's, believed that evolution was driven in part by the inheritance of acquired traits."http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/05/090518111723.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/03/110323104737.htm ..Another source....Paternally Induced Transgenerational Environmental Reprogramming of Metabolic Gene Expression in Mammals: Cell If you disagree with the Mol, Jablonca and Raz and other credentialed researchers, then you had best submit a paper for critique as these credentialed researchers appear to agree that epigenetics has PROFOUND implications for evolutionary theory. and let's not forget about HGT...that also has ,major implications for your theories and modelshttp://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/02/110204144545.htm These models and resulting hypothesis are already biased with the assumption of ancestry as scaffolds, and are not really robust and reliable to begin with. Below are some reflections by researchers on current genomic modelling, and I can provide plenty more. http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/02/110217141307.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/06/080619142102.htm It will be difficult to revamp any theory with non credible computer models that appear to have a ways to go before they will actually reveal any truth, despite the biased scaffholding and presumptions of ancestry. The result is likely to be no more valid than the previous attempts to explain how, when, where and why or to make pretty simplistic pictures of a complex genomic system out of a handfull of dyed enzymes. Edited by Mazzey123, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4617 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Percy writes: Mazzey123 writes: Isn't Pigliucci a philosopher rather than a credentialed scientist? Wikipedia says he's chair of the Philosophy Department at one of the City University of New York campuses. He has a doctorate in genetics, another in botany, and another in philosophy. He's a fellow of the AAAS, no small feat. You've managed to include a rather large number of creationist PRATTs in your post. To begin addressing them would take this thread way off topic, so I'll just ask if you have any specific suggestions for how evolution should be modified or replaced in order to be better aligned with the available evidence. --Percy I have also included some evolutionist PRATTs that demonstrate the sorry state of TOE and its constant need for rescussitation from a zombie state by more and more convoluted theories to explain what was not predicted by current researchers, let alone Darwin. Edited by Mazzey123, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4617 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: Hey there. You know that HGT in prokaryotes and epigenetic inheritance should just about have confounded current genomic modelling into a meltdown, I would think. You would think wrong, since obviously HGT is part of "current genomic modeling" --- which is how you know about it. Epigenetics is also part of current biological thinking, which is, again, the reason that you've heard of it.________________________ Quote from me..."Well too bad your evo researchers agree with me and not you. So much so they have had to invent another lot of convoluted models to address HGT in their models. A Fast and Accurate Heuristic forReconstructing Horizontal Gene Transfer As a result, detecting and reconstructing HGT events in groups of organisms has become a major endeavor in biology. The problem of detecting HGT events based on incongruence between a species tree and a gene tree is computationally very hard (NP-hard). Efficient algorithms exist for solving restricted cases of the problem. http://www.phylo.org/pdf_docs/41_(82)Wang_NRW.pdf" ____________________________ As molbiogirl pointed out, a quick search turns up thirty-nine thousand papers on epigenetics and evolution. And yet somehow now creationists hope that if they shout "epigenetics!" loud enough it'll "confound" biologists "into a meltdown"? Like shadow, you seem to be under the curious impression that well-established pillars of current scientific thought are somehow in conflict with current scientific thought. How could this be the case?
I think Mendellian population genetics has been confounded by Lamarkian style inheritance in epigenetic inheritance and Darwin has been outdated as too simplistic. Boy, that was confused. * Darwinian and Lamarkian are two styles of evolution, not inheritance.* Mendelian genetics and population genetics are two different things. * As Darwin believed in the existence of Lamarkian mechanisms, proof that he is right would not make him "outdated" but a century before his time. I think current thinking about Darwinian evolution requires replacement, maybe a Creationist model would be more parsinomous with current knowledge. Evidence for Darwinian evolution and Lamarkian evolution and evolution by HGT cannot be explained, parsimoniously or otherwise, by a dogma the essence of which is to deny evolution. You seem to be making the same strange mistake as shadow. The fact that modern scientists know more about biology than scientists did in the 1930s is not a crisis in modern biology; it's one of its achievements. It is certainly not a sign that we should scrap all the knowledge carefully accumulated over the last couple of centuries and return to the superstitions of the Dark Ages. Listen up... Darwins gradualism has been discarded, epigentics is Lamarkian not Darwinian regardless of any excuses offered to Darwin. I have previously provided research that suggests epigentics plays a bigger role than thought and is a major player in inheritance. I have provided research that speaks to HGT being a confounding factor in phylogenic trees. From the look of what your researchers had to invent to address HGT it looks like a meltdown to me. It is not about whether or not the research is right or not. It is about all this modelling and data derived from genomic models and comparisons is as clear as mud and is not solid irrefuable evidence at all. It is as solid as saying chimp-human variation is 1% then altering to 6% MtDNA SNPs....what they choose to count, don't count, miss and misrepresent is as clear as mud... The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution. Based on that fact the current thinking will replace itself. It has done so many times in the past and will do so again. There is no need to formerly call for changes or modification to evolutionary thought. Darwin is already outdated and too simplistic. History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia Like any desperately needed item that has no alternative, other than creation, TOE will be patched, fixed and modified for eternity rather than letting it die a graceful death, as I and other creationists would recommend. The only thing that has not changed is the assumption "It all evolved". It is just the how, when, where, and why that is hypothesised without certainty. A theory in continual evolution itself with little if any predictive ability, that is also unfalsifiable, will continue to reinvent itself without any assistance from creationists. It is just the way it is for theories built on the straw foundations of probabilities . Edited by Mazzy, : grammer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4617 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
molbiogirl writes: Pigliucci cannot use those terms because he is an Atheist dedicated to the BELIEF not scientific fact that evolution cannot be planned. You cite an expert and then reject that expert's findings.You don't get to pick and choose the bits of the paper you like, shadow. The guy said, and I quote: Do these new potential developments represent the possibility of what Kuhn called a paradigm shift, that is a dramatic change in the way we understand evolution? I doubt it. ... The fundamental Darwinian insights that all life on earth share a common descent, and that natural selection is a major mechanism of diversification of biological forms, are still valid and at the core of evolutionary theory. Period. End of sentence. You are not an expert.He is. Those are his conclusions. There's no "But but but he's an atheist!" You gotta problem with the atheist's conclusions, you cite one of those creo papers you go on and on about (and have yet to produce). BTW ..LUCA is dead due to HGT, so there is no Last Universal Common Ancestor..or at least that is flavour of the year. So there goes that irrefutable evidence that turned out to be a delusion.Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia Here is an article that speaks to John C Sanford's work on genetic entropy, seeing as you doubt there is creationist research out there. It is just not so well funded. It does not matter that evolutionary researchers try to refute it because they refute each other all the time on pretty much everything and still manage to all agree 'it all evolved'. Likewise creationists agree "God created it". Mathematics Of EvolutionJohn C. Sanford - Wikipedia Sanford is a well credentialed ex evolutionist turned YEC. I also am not an expert in genomics. However I can undertand this.. "A major conclusion of the work is that for some organisms, possibly including humans, continued evolution will not translate into ever-increasing fitness. Moreover, a population may accrue mutations at a constant rate -- a pattern long considered the hallmark of "neutral" or non-Darwinian evolution -- even when the mutations experience Darwinian selection."http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/11/091102171726.htm Would you or anyone suggest this is not a paradigm shift? Indeed new models have been invented to address HGT in compartive genomics "BGC is thought to be strongest in regions of high recombination, and can cause harmful mutations can spread through populations. The results lead to the provocative hypothesis that, rather than being the result of Darwinian selection for new adaptations, many of the genetic changes leading to human-specific characters may be the result of the fixation of harmful mutations. This contrasts the traditional Darwinistic view that they are the result of natural selection in favour of adaptive mutations."http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/01/090126203207.htm Does anyone think the fixation of harmful mutations is in line with all the woffle and models about beneficial mutations and fitness? Yep....the TOE is a theory in evolution. It will modify and reinvent itself because there is no replacement. TOE is continually modified as the history of evolutionary thought highlights, so this is a mute point. Should TOE be replaced. Yes....but if not with a creationist model..then what have evolutionists got left to offer?. Edited by Mazzy, : more info
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4617 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
I think the topic is something we all can argue about eternally.
With Lamarkian style epigenetic inheritance, HGT and Chaos theory and the demise of gradualism with PE, are any of these researchers, evolutionist or otherwise, able to say anything definitive at all about TOE. The chaos theory of evolution | New Scientist The point for me being that evolutionists already have a new theory of evolution, really. The only thing that has remained the same since Darwins day is "It all evolved".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024