"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"

I haven't read the published article. The wiley site isn't even giving me access to the abstract (some strange message about cookies). It seems to be evidence for punctuated equilibrium, which is already well supported within the evolutionist community. I doubt that there is much of great interest here. Then it is not so sudden if it takes years to appear. From the news report, it seems to be a kind of recessive "hopeful monster" theory.I don't expect this to revolutionize biology. Maybe someone should tell Schwartz that the scientific community moved away from Darwin's original version a long time ago, when they became aware of Mendel's work. The theory of evolution has itself been evolving.

Since forum rules prohibit you from referring to members as "wackos", may we ask who you were actually referringn to?

Thanks.The news reporter possibly wasn't following very well. The abstract seems to be rather different from what the news article reported. That gives me a chance to re-assess the work. I'm still guessing. Access to the complete article would be better.From what I can see with the abstract, and with some reading between the lines, it looks as if the authors are proposing that a species builds up variation in the DNA, but in a manner such that the variants are mostly unexpressed within the organisms in the species. As a consequence we might say that a population builds up a reservoir of potential variation that could be used at some future time.Then under some circumstances -- the author suggests stress -- there can be a reorganization of the DNA, whereby a lot of this variation is now expressed. That would allow for relatively rapid evolution. It might still take a number of generations for the reorganized DNA to establish a new stasis. This could account for punctuated equilibrium.Maybe I read too much between the lines. In any case, if that is what the authors are suggesting, it sounds about right to me. It's pretty close to my own personal theory of how it works. And, as far as I can tell, it is different from what is the traditional neo-Darwinist view.If my reading is not too far out, then this won't be a threat to evolutionary biologists. It could be a bit of a problem for Dawkins and to a few other neo-Darwinian theorists, as it seems to be opposed to their view of the underlying processes of evolution.It might be a bit of a problem for creationists. The best thing creationists have had going for them, is that the traditional neo-Darwinist mechanism of statistical filtering of genes has seemed to some people (Fred Hoyle, a number of mathematicians) as too weak to account for the actual evolution that is seen. If Maresca and Schwartz are proposing a more powerful mechanism for change, and one that will more obviously produce the punctuated equilibrium seen in the fossil record, then the best argument of creationists will have been rendered void.

Okay. I may have misread it.In that case I am more skeptical.

That's because the paper really doesn't address the EvC dispute. The paper is part of the continuing discussion with evolutionary science, as to exactly what the mechanisms are. It is not opposed to evolution.

I have only read the abstract and the newspaper article. I haven't had time to check the library to see if there is a copy available that I can read. That's where I'm at a disadvantage, not having read the paper. If "Darwinism" is narrowly defined, almost everbody is against it - we know a lot that was unknown to Darwin. If broadly defined, it means about the same as "evolution", and nobody is against it (except creationists).I'm opposed to narrowly defined Darwinism. I'm also opposed to narrowly defined neo-Darwinism. But most biologists seem to have a rather broader view of what that is, broad enough to adequately account for common descent.Apparently Maresca & Schwartz have problems with gradualism, which they see as contrary to the evidence. I tend to agree with that, as do the PE folk. I don't see it as a problem for evolution, although I do see neo-Darwinism as not dealing with it adequately. The proposal of the authors, that there can be bursts of high rate mutation, doesn't strike me as the correct explanation.

Thanks for those quotes and comments.It seems that the paper is refuting the creationist's strawman theory of evolution.It seems to me that evolutionary biology does have a problem. Much of the general public has picked up a strawman version of ToE. And a lot of the skepticism (and consequent support of ID) is because they find the strawman ToE quite implausible. And they are right about that.

quote:

---

Phenotypes do not change to “fit” their environment as a result of “correct” sequences of mutation

​

This isn't a claim which is made, there is no hypothetical "correct" sequence, there is just what works and what doesn't and some things work better than other in certain conditions.

---

That is perhaps the most serious of the common misunderstandings. Many people want to think of evolution as progressive, goal oriented. There are deeply held views in western culture and philosophy which tend to emphasize the idea of "correct", or of judgement based on truth. People vastly underestimate the importance of pragmatic judgement (what works). The pragmatism of science is not properly appreciated, so that science is often described as a search for truth.