Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there anything up with the "Altenberg 16"?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 47 (468906)
06-02-2008 10:17 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 3 of 47 (468912)
06-02-2008 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-02-2008 1:19 AM


who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today
Anyone who thinks these two things are the same is probably deluding themselves. I would hope most practicing biologists would have a quite substantially different understanding of evolutionary theory to what you might expect to have at the end of high school, which is presumably when it might be taught in a classroom.
The reason it probably appears 'a done deal' is because modern evolutionary theory has been continuously moving on since the modern synthesis was formulated. The idea that currently practicing biologists are adhering to a 70 year old formulation is ludicrous.
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. We aren't all sitting at our lab benches waiting for Massimo Pigliucci to issue a papal bull.
The research into evo-devo and epigenetics and all the other things which are bandied about as 'alternatives' to darwinism has been ongoing for the past couple of decades. You don't need to go to Altenberg to see the future of evolutionary theory you just need to read the current literature.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 1:19 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 1:05 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 5 of 47 (468929)
06-02-2008 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
06-02-2008 1:05 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
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.
And if this meeting does something like this, how does that help those opposed to the theory of evolution on religious grounds?
Any changes in the details of "adaptionism" only makes the theory of evolution more accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 1:05 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 1:43 PM Coyote has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 47 (468930)
06-02-2008 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
06-02-2008 1:19 AM


Given the fact that the article spends most of its time talking about people other than the 16 - including the dubious and crankish Stuart Pivar - I would not trust it too much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 1:19 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 8 of 47 (468966)
06-02-2008 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
06-02-2008 1:05 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
quote:
Science may not suppossed to work by cabals or group-think, but I would argue it largely does.
Or, more accurately, you repeat this canard ad nauseum without ever producing a shred of proof of its accuracy.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 1:05 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 5:53 PM subbie has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 10 of 47 (468972)
06-02-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
06-02-2008 5:53 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
quote:
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.
Uh, no.
Consensus is reached when most scientists are convinced that the evidence supports the conclusion. I will grant you that the prestige behind a scientist or organization may play a part in getting an idea looked at, but if the evidence doesn't support the conclusion, no council, cabal, group or whatever will make any difference.
It's all about the evidence.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 5:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 6:14 PM subbie has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 12 of 47 (468975)
06-02-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
06-02-2008 6:14 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
quote:
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.
Please show me where you've provided any examples of this.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 6:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 7:00 PM subbie has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 14 of 47 (469000)
06-02-2008 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
06-02-2008 1:05 PM


Re: so what is taught is wrong?
randman writes:
Science may not suppossed to work by cabals or group-think, but I would argue it largely does.
In whatever way science does actually operate, like all else that people do it is a human activity. This is true whether the science is carried out by creationists or scientists. The people involved are subject to all the weaknesses and foibles to which the human flesh is heir.
At heart what gives science an advantage over any other approach to knowledge is that it is based upon evidence from the real world. Any chicanery committed in the study of a real world phenomenon will eventually come to light, because other scientists can study the same phenomena and find out what is really so. It is only study not based upon the real world that has no means of detection and correction.
Even science misdirected by government can not permanently stop scientific progress, as your mention of the carbohydrate thread makes clear. Lysenkoism in the USSR is another example of government-driven scientific consensus eventually being discarded.
The goal of any scientist is to bring theory into as close agreement with the real world as possible. I'm sure we can assume that the scientists meeting in Altenberg will keep this goal firmly in mind.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 1:05 PM randman has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 15 of 47 (469003)
06-02-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
06-02-2008 6:14 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."
It is also worth noting that, contrary to that which your anti-science conspiracy theory might suggest, any such flaws and hoaxes were actually revealed by scientists conducting scientificinvestigation.
It is this ability to weed out philosophical conclsions, wishful thinking and genral nonsense by testing conclusions against reality that differentiates science from other forms of investigation.
You would be well advised to apply such thinking to your own flawed conclusions....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 6:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 11:12 PM Straggler 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