quote: there are still a couple of nutcakes on this board who insists that natural selection isn't enough to drive evolution, but they're kind of vague on what exactly the driving force is
Many Darwin defenders these days admit that “natural selection” might not be adequate to organize a bunch of genetic accidents into complex biological structures, but that modern evolutionary theory includes “other things”, but are kind of vague on what exactly the “other things” do. ID does not question common descent. It questions RM&NS as the driving force behind evolution.
The Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis view of evolution suggests that biological change does not originate in genomes, it originates in individual responsive, adaptive organisms. All organisms have some ability to change, override instincts, and adapt. Used organs develop and unused ones atrophy. Adaptations are inherited epigenetically, as they develop and are only encoded into the genome if persistent over generations. An instinct is nothing more than a memory. Just as no one has located a “stored” memory in a brain, I predict no one will ever locate a “stored” instinct in a genome. Following is an excerpt from an article no longer available on the web.
quote:Not only does memory account for the inheritance of living adaptations, it eliminates the need for a blueprint from which the body is mechanically constructed. Instead of following a pre-planned design, whether theological or genetic, the embryo simply mimics the developmental steps of its ancestors. And in contrast to the determinism of both creationist and neo-Darwinian ideology, natural memory enables organisms to play a role in their development and to influence the course of evolution. Between the randomness of molecular events and the necessity of physical law lies a probabilistic gray area in which a creature may choose to follow its species memory or ” if environmental conditions have changed sufficiently ” to select a new course of action Elsasser’s organismic selection is thus the logical counterpart to Darwin’s natural selection.
Neo-Darwinism mistakes time for space, compressing history into a molecule that obeys dead laws of nature, that is, laws that account for nonlife but not necessarily life.
Isn’t it time for the Darwinian revolution to come full circle? Neither our own species nor any other is the passive product of external forces, be they intelligent or blind. To deny the first but not the second is to leave the revolution half undone. Darwin’s declaration of independence establishes freedom from any and all celestial proclamations, regardless of where they originate ” in a book or with a bang ” so long as they deny our birthright of active self-creation. As Sheldrake and Elsasser demonstrate, with a bit of imagination we can establish a basis for the inheritance of adaptations and thereby escape the sterile, endless clash of Tweedledum and Tweedledarwin. Not only can we conceive of biology without mechanism but we have no choice, as the ghost of mechanism past will surely haunt us until we’ve expelled it in all its forms.
I'd like to add that I align myself with ID because of the Darwinist penchant for denouncing anyone who questions RM&NS as a "nutcase". Academic freedom is more important than any scientific theory.
I'd like to add that I align myself with ID because of the Darwinist penchant for denouncing anyone who questions RM&NS as a "nutcase".
That's good scientific reasoning, is it? If Darwinists started calling creationists "darling", presumably you'd change your alignment. Perhaps "Darwinists" would be more respectful of critics of the Theory of Evolution if they would back up their criticism with evidence for their preferred alternatives.
We're weird, that way. We tend to go by evidence, not what someone calls someone, when we make our decisions about what are or are not strong scientific theories.
Academic freedom is more important than any scientific theory.
Is that why you have so 'freely' put forward a theory built of nothing but groundless claims and baseless assertions? As opposed to any sort of scientific theory?
Many Darwin defenders these days admit that “natural selection” might not be adequate to organize a bunch of genetic accidents into complex biological structures, but that modern evolutionary theory includes “other things”, but are kind of vague on what exactly the “other things” do.
The most obvious 'other thing' is the mutation you so conspicuously left out.
If you had so more specific example it might put some flesh on this tenuous attack on 'Darwin defenders'.
I predict no one will ever locate a “stored” instinct in a genome.
This seems like a pretty futile prediction given the continuing refinement of genetic analysis of complex behaviours using techniques such as Quantative Trait Loci analysis. For example see Manoli et al. (2006) who detail research on the genetic basis of innate mating behaviours in Drosophila.
Academic freedom is more important than any scientific theory.
No one is stifling academic freedom. Anyone is free to pursue whatever research projects that might validate whatever theory they wish to consider. Now, if the research looks like it's not producing any useful results, it will be very hard to get funding, but that is the problem of trying to validate something that is incorrect, not a stifling of academic freedom.
-
I'd like to add that I align myself with ID because of the Darwinist penchant for denouncing anyone who questions RM&NS as a "nutcase".
I usually use the word nutcake. Some people are pretty nutty. Like those who disagree with the consensus scientific opinion just because they don't like the choice of words used by one particular person who accepts the scientific consensus.
In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
I'd like to add that I align myself with ID because of the Darwinist penchant for denouncing anyone who questions RM&NS as a "nutcase".
I'd like to add Carl Sagan's words:
"Sure, they laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Being ridiculed has nothing to do with being right. Sometimes the people who are being ridiculed actually are wrong and just haven't gotten the message, yet.
Incidentally - the ID guys have plenty of their own little names for those who accept the scientific consensus of evolution. More, in fact. So why doesn't that convince you that "Darwinism" is more right?
Many Darwin defenders these days admit that “natural selection” might not be adequate to organize a bunch of genetic accidents into complex biological structures, but that modern evolutionary theory includes “other things”, but are kind of vague on what exactly the “other things” do.
They are vague probably because they don't actually say this. The vast majority of biologists, as far as I know, accept that natural selection is the driving force that creates complex structures.
--
All organisms have some ability to change, override instincts, and adapt. Used organs develop and unused ones atrophy. Adaptations are inherited epigenetically, as they develop and are only encoded into the genome if persistent over generations.
It would be interesting if there is actual evidence that these acquired traits are indeed inherited. Without evidence, this is just "making stuff up".
In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
quote:It would be interesting if there is actual evidence that these acquired traits are indeed inherited. Without evidence, this is just "making stuff up".
I predict overwhelming evidence of inheritance of acquired characteristics. I also predict that Darwinists will claim they supported the idea all along.
I predict overwhelming evidence of inheritance of acquired characteristics. I also predict that Darwinists will claim they supported the idea all along.
I predict that if you study the data that you will find that this has already been invalidated.
I further predict that if you deny this evidence that invalidates your concept that this will not make it any more valid, but will just show that you are deluded:
Message 48 Adaptations are inherited epigenetically, as they develop and are only encoded into the genome if persistent over generations.
How are these adaptations encoded into the genome? What is the mechanism that changes the genome to match the development?
How do you reconcile this definition of epigenetic with this concept of later incorporation of the trait in the genome (genetics}:
This development of the embryo is based on the genome and the growing environment (chemicals, hormones, nutrition, etc), but not on any inheritance of non-genetic characteristics developed by any parents.
You do not have any means to transfer adaptations except through the genes.
... are only encoded into the genome if persistent over generations.
How would they know if they are generation 1 or generation 1000?
Looks like you concept has some serious logical flaws in it .... not least of which is that it has already been invalidated.
quote:Adaptations are inherited epigenetically, as they develop and are only encoded into the genome if persistent over generations.
quote:How are these adaptations encoded into the genome? What is the mechanism that changes the genome to match the development? How do you reconcile this definition of epigenetic with this concept of later incorporation of the trait in the genome (genetics}
:
The Darwinist view is that the genome only changes by accident. My view is that the organism changes its own genome, intelligently and purposefully, to reflect adaptations already achieved. Anyone believing in the accident scenario would not look for mechanisms. A new generation of biologists may find some.
..Bertvan originally wrote:
quote:. are only encoded into the genome if persistent over generations.
quote:How would they know if they are generation 1 or generation 1000?
Does a habit know when it becomes a habit? Generation 1 or 1000? Or are you suggesting that habits are supernatural?
The Darwinist view is that the genome only changes by accident. My view is that the organism changes its own genome, intelligently and purposefully, to reflect adaptations already achieved. Anyone believing in the accident scenario would not look for mechanisms. A new generation of biologists may find some.
Actually they did. Extensively and continually. As I said, the theory of inherited developed features has been invalidated. This went under the moniker of Lamarkism
quote:Lamarckism or Lamarckian evolution refers to the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as based on heritability of acquired characteristics or "soft inheritance"). It is named for the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories and is often incorrectly cited as the founder of soft inheritance.
While enormously popular during the early 19th century as an explanation for the complexity observed in living systems, the relevance of soft inheritance within the scientific community dwindled following the theories of August Weismann and the formation of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Epigenetic inheritance
Forms of 'soft' or epigenetic inheritance within organisms have been suggested as neo-Lamarckian in nature by such scientists as Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb. In addition to 'hard' or genetic inheritance, involving the duplication of genetic material and its segregation during meiosis, there are other hereditary elements that pass into the germ cells also. These include things like methylation patterns in DNA and chromatin marks, both of which regulate the activity of genes. These are considered "Lamarckian" in the sense that they are responsive to environmental stimuli and can differentially effect gene expression adaptively, with phenotypic results that can persist for many generations in certain organisms. Although the reality of epigenetic inheritance is not doubted (as countless experiments have validated it) its significance to the evolutionary process is however. Most neo-Darwinians consider epigenetic inheritance mechanisms to be little more than a specialized form of phenotypic plasticity, with no potential to introduce evolutionary novelty into a species lineage.[5]
In other words it has been and is extensively studied. Genetic studies have ruled out transmittal of information to the DNA, studies that involved things like cutting off the tails of mice to see if tailless mice would evolve, showed that there was no effect of cutting off the tails on the genomes of the mice.
Even if other non-genetic hereditary effects (methylation etc) are passed on this is not due to the organism directing it's development, as it too is passed to the organism in the germ cell from the parent. This makes it subject to natural selection (on the phenotype) and normal evolutionary processes, but it is not the development of the feature that causes the hereditary effect (methylation etc) but the other way around.
In fact these non-genetic hereditary effects (methylation etc) are due to random processes in the same way that mutations are random processes, it can develop in one subpopulation but not in another that is otherwise identical (ecology and genome), while your hypothesis would require it to develop in both.
Does a habit know when it becomes a habit? Generation 1 or 1000? Or are you suggesting that habits are supernatural?
In other words you have no clue how your system operates, when your (unknown) mechanism kicks in, and how this hypothetical "something happens" can be differentiated from evolutionary theory or from the invalidated Lamarkism theory.
™ Version 4.2
