Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement?

Message 19 of 472 (609104)
03-16-2011 10:52 PM Reply to: Message 13 by jar
03-16-2011 8:22 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Re: Pretty much an irrelevant question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------jar writes;If and when there is enough evidence for others to take Shapiro seriously, it's possible that the Theory will change again, but never to the extent that Intelligent Design or Special Creation will be more than stuff to laugh about.He is talking about natural genetic engineering that is nonrandom as I point out in reply to message 8 by taq.If in fact the theory does change in accord with Shapiro and others who are researching about a 21st century theory of evolution that does not rely on random mutation, but rather information in the cell that engineers change then Special Creation will become something that Science will have to deal with.It isn't necessary.Triggering of engineearig change mechanism it could'nt mean Special Creation, but just an order by the "thinking" neural system.(see Theory of Neuro-genic Evolution).

We must admitt that non-random mutations have an element of determinism.How could it be otherwise? But determinism need not be Special Creation.

All of them and maybe others as well, if they are triggered off by Special Creator or by "thinking" neural system.

I agree partially. But it should be areason to allow different ways of thinking to be heard of,even these ways outrun the limits of current Theory.

ok. you dont have to see it in his way.But why do you generalise? What he is only saying (no what he is having in the back of his head) is only that evolution is information driven. If you think this is uncientific, you have to say why. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

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 throughoutI agree. Science is just going ahead. But where is there that strikingly simple easy belief that classical Darwinism expllains life's diversity? I think now somebody is legitimate to think twice before accepting such a claim.

Posts: 2945
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9Send Private MessageCoyote Posts OnlyRate this message:
1
2
3
4
5Message 562 of 578 (620433)
06-16-2011 8:04 PM Reply to: Message 558 by zi ko
06-16-2011 7:37 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Re: Better theories?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------What he is only saying (no what he is having in the back of his head) is only that evolution is information driven. If you think this is uncientific, you have to say why.I see too many creationists trying to sneak their religious beliefs into science in various ways under the guise of "information." This is after previous Trojan horses were shot down by the courts.There has yet to be convincing evidence that this is correct. I suppose you could stretch things a lot and claim that natural selection was based on "information" but I see that as a mere feedback mechanism. Certainly mutations are random in most respects.But there is no evidence that "information" causes directed evolution as the creationists are trying to get us to believe.I would not regard "information" simply as a part of a feedback mechanism.The new scientific findings in epigenetics and these by Shapiro (natural genetic engineering systems) all stress the importance of environment's (internal and external) effect on organisms (this effect can take place only by "information"). More than that we must see the theme in a logical way.Is it possible this infinite flow of information all over around the world not to be used by nature? Wouldnt it be against nature's economy low? Is logical the not subtanciated fear of this idea's exploitation by IDers to prevent us from seeing propable truth?Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

Anyone saying "Darwin was completely wrong!" or "Darwin was completely correct!" would be wrong.
He is not famous for being 100% correct.
He is famous for pointing us in the right direction with high accuracy. Iam not talking about details.It is about the powerful (or not) role of information on evolution, to the extent that it reduces randomness role on mutations. Please dont misinterprete me. Idon't implay an ID idea

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

But to what extend those Darwinists do they accept the idea of importance of the environment and so the information in directing evolution? It seems to me very wrong and unscietific to deliberatly shut the eyes in facing a new possibly wright story, just from the fear of danger of the IDers having an advance.This is my strong impression in my reading of the relevant postings

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

I cite what B. WRIGHT says:
"As this minireview is concerned with the importance of the environment in directing evolution, it is appropriate to remember that Lamarck was the first to clearly articulate a consistent theory of gradual evolution from the simplest of species to the most complex, culminating in the origin of mankind (71). He published 1809, the year of Darwin's birth. Unfortunately, Lamarck's major contributions have been overshadowed by his views on the inheritance of acquired characters. In fact, Darwin shared some of these same views, and even Weismann (106), the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation (71). This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians (6) who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today"
I dont think that what she as reffering towith "environment in directing evolution", was natural selection.

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

I agree. All recent fidings in evolution biology tent to support this view.but this does not mean that we have to accept inevitably Supernatural interfearence. It can be other evolutional mechanisms than could "make the decisions",as e.g Neural System, (http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com) in metazoa with neural tissue, or engineering systems and maybe other systems yet unkown ,in bacteria.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

Shapiro states that engineering mechanisms systems is geared on by environmental factors. this isthe crucial undeniable finding , which gives a non randomness sense on the mechanism.This of course can be resulting from evolution and not a matter of Teleology.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

Shapiro treats the matter very serioucly and scientifically.He does'nt give any Teleology meaning in his nonrandomness.. I suggest an excellent article by him, The Third Way. Iquote:"Unfortunately, readers of Boston Review may remain unaware of this intellectual ferment because the debate about evolution continues to assume the quality of an abstract and philosophical "dialogue of the deaf" between Creationists and Darwinists. Although our knowledge of the molecular details of biological organization is undergoing a revolutionary expansion, open-minded discussions of the impact of these discoveries are all too rare. The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered. In my comments, then, I propose to sketch some developments in contemporary life science that suggest shortcomings in orthodox evolutionary theory and open the door to very different ways of formulating questions about the evolutionary process. After a discussion of technical advances in our views about genome organization and the mechanisms of genetic change, I will focus on a growing convergence between biology and information science which offers the potential for scientific investigation of possible intelligent cellular action in evolution."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this your way to serve science by distorting others sayings? So information = God!!! !!!. Great!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

Definition of information:
Data that (1) has been verified to be accurate and timely, (2) is specific and organized for a purpose, (3) is presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) that can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.The value of information lies solely in its ability to affect a behavior, decision, or outcome. A piece of information is considered valueless if, after receiving it, things remain unchanged. For a technical definition of information see information theory.

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.