Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there anything up with the "Altenberg 16"?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 47 (468872)
06-02-2008 1:19 AM


It's not Yasgur's Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature - let's call them "the Altenberg 16" - who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accomodate "other" new phenomena. So the theory Charles Darwin gave us, which was dusted off and repackaged 70 years ago, seems about to be reborn as the "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis".
Papers are in. MIT will publish the findings in 2009 - the 150th anniversary of Darwin's publication of the Origin of Species. And despite the fact that organizers are downplaying the Altenberg meeting as a discussion about whether there should be a new theory, it already appears a done deal. Some kind of shift away from the population genetic-centered view of evolution is afoot.
The Altenberg 16: An Expos Of The Evolution Industry | Scoop News
Seems like there is some serious interest in either reexamining the Modern Synthesis or moving from it altogether.
Edit to add:
In "Organism and Environment" in Scientia, and in more popular form in the last chapter of Biology as Ideology, Lewontin argued that while traditional Darwinism has portrayed the organism as passive recipient of environmental influences, a correct understanding should emphasize the organism as an active constructer of its own environment. Niches are not pre-formed, empty receptacles into which organisms are inserted, but are defined and created by organisms. The organism-environment relationship is reciprocal and dialectical. M.W. Feldman, K.N. Laland, and F.J. Odling-Smee among others have developed Lewontin's conception in more detailed models.
Lewontin has long been a critic of traditional neo-Darwinian approaches to adaptation. In his article "Adaptation" in the Italian Encyclopedia Einaudi, and in a toned-down version in Scientific American, he emphasized the need to give an engineering characterization of adaptation separate from measurement of number of offspring, rather than simply assuming organs or organisms are at adaptive optima.[8] Lewontin has claimed that his more general, technical criticism of adaptationism grew out of his recognition that the fallacies of sociobiology reflect fundamentally flawed assumptions of adaptiveness of all traits in much of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Richard Lewontin - Wikipedia
Richard Lewontin is mentioned in the article. From reading the wiki-link, he makes an interesting point I have often considered in discussions here, particularly on the lack of new phyla emerging, which is the idea that niches are not somehow a limited set but rather a dynamic creation, assuming common descent of course (which I do not but for sake of discussion).
Please note this last addition is not meant to be the whole topic, but critiques of adaptionism are fairly central to it.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 06-02-2008 10:54 AM randman has replied
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2008 1:23 PM randman has not replied
 Message 18 by bluegenes, posted 06-03-2008 5:50 AM randman has not replied
 Message 25 by Copasetic, posted 06-09-2008 11:09 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 4 of 47 (468927)
06-02-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wounded King
06-02-2008 10:54 AM


so what is taught is wrong?
Science doesn't work by cabals, however illustrious, getting together and declaring a new paradigm as if it was some sort of religious article of faith.
Science may not suppossed to work by cabals or group-think, but I would argue it largely does.
But be that as it may, if this meeting consolidates and popularizes on-going significant changes in evo theory, it is worth noting as from what I can tell, adaptionism is indeed continually touted by proponents of evo theory as the primae-facie evidence and mechanism of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 06-02-2008 10:54 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 06-02-2008 1:11 PM randman has replied
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 06-02-2008 5:02 PM randman has replied
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 06-02-2008 7:47 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 47 (468933)
06-02-2008 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
06-02-2008 1:11 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
So the topic is now religion, eh?
Personally, I don't object to some aspects of evolution on religious grounds but simply because it's not factual.
I do reject the outdated view of the universe evos employ on both scientific and religious grounds.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 06-02-2008 1:11 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-10-2008 10:33 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 9 of 47 (468971)
06-02-2008 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by subbie
06-02-2008 5:02 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
I think good evidence of this can be seen percy's example on the diet thread where an unsubstantiated study was widely accepted after the senate got behind it, despite it's many flaws. Scientific consensus emerged based on someone, in this case the US senate and government, getting behind it.
At any rate, how can one argue with the fact scientific consensus is reached quite literally when a certain set of scientists agree and convince others so that they form a majority. As such, councils or whatever can indeed be springboards to promote and idea and win majority backing.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 06-02-2008 5:02 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by subbie, posted 06-02-2008 6:12 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 11 of 47 (468974)
06-02-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by subbie
06-02-2008 6:12 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
I will grant you that the prestige behind a scientist or organization may play a part in getting an idea looked at,
Thank you. I don't think we need to rehash famous examples explored ad nauseum where false ideas and faked data were widely accepted without any real evidence or corroborating data to support such claims. It's not always "all about the evidence."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by subbie, posted 06-02-2008 6:12 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 06-02-2008 6:16 PM randman has replied
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2008 7:52 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 47 (468993)
06-02-2008 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
06-02-2008 6:16 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
Nope. It's off-topic, but you can look at my history and a certain topic brought up extensively and see for yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 06-02-2008 6:16 PM subbie has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 47 (469014)
06-02-2008 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Straggler
06-02-2008 7:52 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
I am considering a formal complaint for your needless and baseless insults of charging conspiracy, which has no place here.
Fact is there are other inquiries that work even better than science because they have quicker results sometimes. For example, the decisions one makes in his or her personal life are often shown to be correct or incorrect much faster than the scientific process of consensus which takes time, sometimes a very long time.
I'll give a recent, personal example. A friend of mine was dying of cancer. I found an experimental nutritional product that had anecdotal reports of cancer cells, particularly for her form of cancer being destroyed....almost overnite. Now, we also laid hands on her and prayed. The doctors at Duke gave her 2-3 months at best, maybe just 5-6 weeks. It was pretty grim.
I can't scientifically say why she recovered. Anecdotally, she said she immediately felt relief when she took the product. Of course, we had been praying as well. Maybe God did it without the product's effects. Who knows?
But if we waited for science to tell us the right thing to do, she'd be dead for sure.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 06-02-2008 7:52 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Granny Magda, posted 06-03-2008 4:55 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 47 (470273)
06-10-2008 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Copasetic
06-09-2008 11:09 AM


Saying something doesn't make it so. I understand your arguments perfectly well. Heck, I could probably argue your position much better than you can. But the fact is your arguments are weak. The reality is you never seemed to grasp the phyla argument, nor understand why it is repeated here.
It's an interesting phenomena among evos that they will strenously object to even admitting basic facts if someone that is a critic brings them up but when one of their own discusses the same fact in reevaluating or modifying evo models, then somehow the same fact or argument has become magically true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Copasetic, posted 06-09-2008 11:09 AM Copasetic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2008 2:21 PM randman has replied
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2008 4:05 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 47 (470275)
06-10-2008 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Granny Magda
06-03-2008 4:55 AM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
The fact that it is impossible to base most of ones decisions on scientific studies means that you have no means of comparison to say which has quicker or better results.
If we were in court, you'd have just lost your case by admitting my argument is correct since you admit that the scientific process is unsuitable for "most of one's decisions" and yet you somehow contradict yourself by claiming there is no way to say which one has quicker or better results.
Ahem......if one cannot even work at all, then regardless of the track record of the other, unless absolute 0, it is superiour to the first.
On the subject of cancer being cured, you are simply dodging the issue. Medical opinion from Duke was she had no chance to live. We tried something and it worked. There is always a chance it was something else, sure, but the most reasonable explanation is she would be dead had we not done something else. Now, if you want to say there is a chance it was something else, fine. There is a chance too you are simply dreaming right now and will wake up to find none of this is real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Granny Magda, posted 06-03-2008 4:55 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 30 of 47 (470285)
06-10-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coyote
06-10-2008 2:21 PM


Perhaps the reason is that creationists are known neither for accuracy nor veracity when making claims about science.
Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2008 2:21 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2008 2:42 PM randman has replied
 Message 33 by bluegenes, posted 06-10-2008 3:09 PM randman has replied
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2008 4:12 PM randman has not replied
 Message 38 by grandfather raven, posted 06-10-2008 4:34 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 47 (470288)
06-10-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Coyote
06-10-2008 2:42 PM


Already read all of those sites, and as far as off-topic, maybe so. Please don't digress the discussion further then into off-topic insults and claims such as your bogus claims about me or creationists not understanding the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2008 2:42 PM Coyote has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 47 (470296)
06-10-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by bluegenes
06-10-2008 3:09 PM


pretty far off-topic
So no answer....any lurkers please note that my response is strictly to avoid being banned and not an inability to answer...nor is the poster correct in stating I have lied here.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bluegenes, posted 06-10-2008 3:09 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by bluegenes, posted 06-10-2008 6:42 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 41 of 47 (470395)
06-11-2008 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Otto Tellick
06-10-2008 10:33 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
I wonder whether you extend the same consideration to some aspects of biblical text -- i.e. object to it because it's not factual. If you don't, why not?
That's a different topic, but I certainly don't believe everything in life should be decided upon via the scientific method. However, I do think scientific theories should follow scientific standards or at least be qualified with a caveat if they do not.
It is not impossible that some of the "not factual" issues you currently object to would be addressed in a way that would answer your objections. That is a common enough process in science, in stark contrast to religious doctrine.
I think you misunderstand the nature of religion personally and also seem to think religion and science should work on the same sort of basis, which is a fundamental error but then again, I think of evolutionism as religion.
I do hope the conference and other sorts of things will address issues with evo theory that need to be addressed and not glossed over as somehow non-existent. Also, I don't mean to sound so harsh as some of my comments above and do appreciate that you address the possibility of some items needing to be revised, updated or whatever in evo theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-10-2008 10:33 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-11-2008 10:14 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 43 of 47 (470772)
06-12-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Otto Tellick
06-11-2008 10:14 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
of the things you say seem to indicate an open-mindedness toward findings based on observation and physical evidence, yet based on other things you say, you absolutely accept certain assertions that are physically impossible, simply because they derive from your chosen interpretation of some fragment of biblical text (or you reject assertions that are based on firm observation because they contradict your interpretation of the text).
No, it's because I have seen the things you say are physically impossible occur in my life and many other people's lives. The fact these things are not the types of things anyone has figured out how to test scientifically, and perhaps never will, doesn't change the fact they've been observed. So when you see the Bible true on so many "impossible" things, it's track record is very good and there is little reason to doubt that such things occured then just as they are occuring now.
You choose to reject people's testimony of such things and that's your perogative, but don't mischaracterize it as solely based on some ancient writings absent genuine experience.
In terms of the text, you also incorrectly assume you know what I believe about it. Of course, any Bible scholar or educated person knows that certain things such as mountains dripping with wine knows that's an expression of an abundant land with many vineyards, not that literally mountains run with wine streams and rain day and night or some such.
Other areas are meant to be taken literally. Actually, figurative language in some sense is meant to be taken literally as an expression. In the mountains dripping sweet wine, it is meant to literally suggest a fruitful and abundant land for agriculture.
Biblical analysis though belongs on a different thread so let's not delve into it here.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-11-2008 10:14 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2008 11:39 PM randman has not replied
 Message 47 by ICANT, posted 07-20-2008 12:53 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024