Darwin's Illusion

[Polymath257]

I am always tickled when creationists cite someone that disagreed with some aspect of evolution by their full title (or often an an embellished one complete with accolades) and present their claim as unimpeachable.

Especially someone like Gould who wrote *extensively* on the evidence of evolution and also about how often he was misinterpreted by creationists. He wrote a number of popular books that went over the basics of evolution and his views about it.

And yet, somehow, those same quotes are misinterpreted again and again by those who have not read a word of anything Gould actually wrote.

Margulis is also an amazing person to pick out in this. She gave some solid evidence of evolution and its mechanisms. And yet, she is misquoted by people who wouldn't know a mitochondrion from a microtubule.

 

[Segev Moran]

Hi,

Yes, I've often heard this claim, never have I seen it proven.

Just watch these videos:

If you do not understand some of it, just search their channel, they have a very detailed explanation about everything.
Then google "Evolution Evidence" and you'll find all the evidence you require.

 

[Valjean]

Basic mechanisms of evolution explained, in simple, layman's language:

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

This reminds me of flat-earthers (people who believe the earth is flat) spreading disinformation on the internet, not knowing they are using technology dependent on the earth being round (i.e. satellites). So many things (medicine, agriculture... far too many things to list here) are depend on evolution being true. All that aside, I'm curious, is there anything I could present you to change your mind? or are you devout to the bitter end in your convictions?

 

[LIIA]

ToE does not require linear accumulation of changes. Since this is the basis of your argument, it fails.

When did I say that the ToE evolutionary process is linear? See# 112, I said “It’s important to understand that the claimed evolutionary process is not linear.” You and Valjean didn’t understand what I meant by linear. I meant, it’s not a rational plan to transform an organism over the generations from point A to point B along the evolutionary line with calculated steps towards a specific end goal. But rather it’s a random process not trying or wanting an end result and moves in any and every direction without any purpose.

In that sense, we agree it’s not linear, On the other hand, the slow and steady random evolution entails an enormous number of intermediates, which we agreed that it was disproven per your comment in #139
“Gould didn't think so. He challenged the 'slow and steady' view of how evolution was supposed to act. That *is* disproven.”

And that is factually incorrect. Mutation with natural selection naturally leads to saltation in morphology: large changes can happen in fairly few generations. This leads to fewer 'intermediate forms' but is perfectly in line with ToE.

Not true, the ToE doesn’t provide an explanation for the sudden appearance of such massive genetic information. If microevolution is true, even if the changes are large, Saltation should have been preceded by many functional intermediates in the fossil record, but it was never found.

The types of 'directed evolution' seen in epigenetic change is fairly rare and doesn't change the overall theory.

Most genetic changes are random with respect to survival. Even epigenetic changes are ultimately random (to allow for the epigenetics).

I’m not talking about epigenetic at all. Epigenetic affects gene expression but doesn’t alter the DNA sequence, it’s not a genetic change but the transmission of epigenetic markers affects the traits of offspring. Nonetheless, the way it works to turn genes on and off and determining functions of the cells is not random.

I’ve been talking about directed mutation (see #64).
Non-Random Directed Mutations were confirmed.
“Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating mutations are involved that appear to be under the control of the cell or organism as a whole in different environmental contexts”
Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed (i-sis.org.uk)

In the international conference of physiological sciences 2012, Denis Noble declared ”It’s impossible to find genome change operator that is truly random in it’s action within the DNA of the cell.” He also declared that not only mutations are not random but also proteins didn’t evolve via gradual accumulation of mutations.

See “The origin of mutants” Nature volume 335, pages142–145 (1988)
The origin of mutants | Nature

Yes, punctuated equilibrium is a thing. And it is consistent with the modern synthesis of evolution and genetics. Even Gould and Eldridge acknowledged that. Furthermore, the notion of 'sudden' is relative, not absolute. Gould was looking at changes on fairly short time scales and *did* find those intermediates. It's just that when the resolution goes down, the effects *look* sudden.

Paleontologists such as Gould admit the fact of extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record. It simply doesn’t support the slow and steady transformation of a whole species into a new one. Gould as an evolutionist wanted an explanation that acknowledges real world observation (which actually disproves the ToE & phyletic gradualism), that is why he proposed punctuated equilibrium, on one hand, he didn’t explain the sudden appearance of massive genetic info, on the other hand, he didn’t consider the fact that rejecting phyletic gradualism as a fundamental principal of the ToE shakes the theory to it’s roots. That’s why Richard Dawkins and others believed that punctuated equilibrium gained undeserved credence among non-scientists and didn’t deserve large publicity. In fact, critics referred to the theory as "evolution by jerks". After Gould’s passing away, punctuated equilibrium lost popularity and the gradualistic slow and steady transformation became the ruling dogma again.

Really? Gould didn't think so. He challenged the 'slow and steady' view of how evolution was supposed to act. That *is* disproven.

Agreed, “slow and steady” is disproven.
slow and steady transformation is a fundamental principal of Darwin’s theory and the neo-Darwinism. Since we agreed that “slow and steady” is disproven, then Darwin’s theory and the neo-Darwinism are necessarily disproven.

But the modern synthesis of genetics and evolution was actually *supported* by Gould's work.

Neither Gould nor the modern synthesis explain the extreme rarity of functional intermediates in the fossil record. Denis Nobel called for the replacement of modern synthesis with the extended modern synthesis which actually concluded (by Gerd B. Müller) that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation

And always from closely related previous forms. And that *is* evolution. Again, punctuated equilibrium does not contradict the modern synthesis.

Even in simulations with a constant random mutation and natural selection, the actual changes seen tend to be saltational.

The appearance of fully formed organisms is an undisputed fact. Richard Dawkins did not support punctuated equilibrium and explains the sudden appearance because migratory events and that evolution occurred gradually elsewhere. He simply shifted the problem to somewhere else and forgot the fact that no evidence was found for gradual evolution anywhere in the fossil record.

Stephen Jay Gould said “In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of it’s ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.”

Dawkins addressed the problem of origin of life similarly when he proposed that it was seeded from outer space. His imaginary explanations are always in somewhere else where it was never found or impossible to verify. Beyond these wishful speculations, real world evidence disprove the claimed evolutionary process of slow, uniform and gradual transformation of a species into a new one (phyletic gradualism).

Except that isn't true. Epigenetic change is still based on random mutations. And such changes are rare and are not the norm, even for speciation.

Epigenetic is not a mutation at all and is not random. See my clarification of directed mutation above.

None of the new findings point to *directed* evolution. Natural selection and genetic drift are still the primary mechanisms. Epigenetics is a minor player but doesn't contradict the basic theory.

-See my response above for directed mutations
“The origin of mutants” Nature volume 335, pages142–145 (1988)
The origin of mutants | Nature

-We agreed “slow and steady transformation” is disproven. (phyletic gradualism/ neo-Darwinism)

-The extended modern synthesis concluded that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation (see above)

-Epigenetic affects gene expression but doesn’t alter the DNA sequence.

 

[Neuropteron]

All that aside, I'm curious, is there anything I could present you to change your mind? or are you devout to the bitter end in your convictions?

Hi,
I feel an desire to answer your question since it seems to stem from an honest inquisitiveness.

Certainly, I would be inclined to take this theory seriously if for instance it can be shown that a multi-part mechanism serving a useful purpose simply appears by a random action of natural forces or similar imperial evidence.

I have to admit I would do so reluctantly since this belief is one without hope. Nonetheless we all have to recognise the truth since it will always prevail, regardless of what we think or desire.

An important consideration is that evolutionist believe what they are told by scientist. My belief is ankered in many years of personal study and fact checking.
The bible is unique in that true faith cannot be transferred from one person to another, the only way to acquire evidence is to dig for it yourself, the more you dig the more is found, until the evidence is so overwhelming that a lot more than the latest fad in evolutionary science is required to topple it.

 

[tas8831]

Hi,
That's a good question, followers of Darwin are constantly modefying their theory in an attempt to prove their mainstream narrative, without success. Christ accurately foretold that the majority will alway follow the broad road, it leads to destruction.

Christ also said that the mustard seed is the smallest, so....

 

[tas8831]

I’ve been talking about directed mutation (see #64).
Non-Random Directed Mutations were confirmed.
“Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating mutations are involved that appear to be under the control of the cell or organism as a whole in different environmental contexts”
Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed (i-sis.org.uk)

...
See “The origin of mutants” Nature volume 335, pages142–145 (1988)
The origin of mutants | Nature

I find it odd that your 'research' into directed mutations stopped in 1988.
A 2014 paper by one of Cairns' acolytes mentioned:

"Stress-induced mutagenesis was initially thought to be a mechanism by which mutations could be “directed” to the specific loci that would alleviate selective pressures. Subsequent studies have revealed that this is not the case."​

And even earlier (1992):

But hey, you've got an agenda to push...

 

[tas8831]

In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

Why conflate abiogenesis and evolution?

Here is a searchable collection of Darwin's work.
Please show us where he indicated these things.

 

[tas8831]

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:

" They [creationists] have no alternatives that are scientific."

and

"Anthropocentric writers with a proclivity for the miraculous and a commitment to divine intervention tend to attribute historical appearances like eyes, wings, and speech to 'irreducible complexity' (as, for example, Michael Behe does in his book, Darwin's Black Box) or 'ingenious design' (in the tradition of William Paley who used the functional organs of animals as proof for the existence of God). Here we feel no need for supernatural hypotheses. Rather, we insist that today, more than ever, it is the growing scientific understanding of how new traits appear, ones even as complex as the vertebrate eye, that has triumphed"

 

[tas8831]

“Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating mutations are involved that appear to be under the control of the cell or organism as a whole in different environmental contexts”
Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed (i-sis.org.uk)

I should also note that the organization linked above was founded by Mae Wan Ho, a fringe anti-evolutionist and supporter of woo such as homeopathy.
Great resource!

 

[tas8831]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection

Wrong in sentence 1. He provided a mechanism for the observed changes in diversity.
This is going to be fun - and from your second thread, I see this is really about stroking your ego and playing martyr (as is so often the case with scientifically illiterate creationists).
Consider the fact that your inability to describe even basic material is not a good sign that you are here for honest, informed discussion.

based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.

Was that his expectation?
Here is a searchable collection of Darwin's work.
Please show us where he indicated this.

He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes.

Did he really?
Citation please.
If this was Darwin's belief, how would it matter to the ToE, which is not about how life began?

In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.

I guess it was just him, eh?
Providing, of course, that this is what he actually thought.

Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species,

Non sequitur.
You are really bad at this.

and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

Why lie?
Is this all you have are tidbits of disinformation and nonsense to make your "argument"?
Like I said, you are bad at this.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

Sleight of hand noted - it really does seem that all you have is disinformation and nonsense.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

Do tell!
PLEASE claim that Miller had set out to create life and failed.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?

In view of what?

Your misrepresentations and mischaracterizations?

Nothing happened to Darwin's idea, except that in the 150 years or so since it was published we have discovered a multitude of supporting evidence and refined his original theory.
And in all this time creationism has produced... what? A bunch of websites populated by charlatans who spew nonsense for their deity's favor?

Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Well, have at is, superstar:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo and Pan lineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "​

Just tests of a method followed by applications of the method.

She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.

From a creationist computer scientist's website:

Here are some quotes from Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" that are relevant to my attempt to distinguish small evolution from large evolution and to define the "kernel" of an organism that is tightly constrained.

Page 26:

At one of her many public talks, she [Lynn Margulis] asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet.​

So did you plagiarize that from Behe or Plaisted?

Smug AND a plagiarist. Did you think nobody on earth has Google and experience dealing with creationist trolls?

Pathetic.

 

[LIIA]

I find it odd that your 'research' into directed mutations stopped in 1988.

You didn’t notice that I referenced 2012 international conference of physiological sciences.
Denis Noble declared “It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns of change”

In an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.”
How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

2016 “New Trend in Evolutionary Biology” conference in the Royal Society meeting, Gerd B. Müller discussed the challenges of MS theory and the need for the EES. The extended evolutionary synthesis acknowledges developmental bias as one of the core assumptions. here the article by Gerd B. Müller that was published on 2017.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

A 2014 paper by one of Cairns' acolytes mentioned:

"Stress-induced mutagenesis was initially thought to be a mechanism by which mutations could be “directed” to the specific loci that would alleviate selective pressures. Subsequent studies have revealed that this is not the case."

This research didn’t conclude against directed mutation. It didn’t even conclude whether “Stress-induced mutagenesis” is not one of the directed mutation mechanisms. The next statement directly after your selected quote stated “However, this concept may need to be revisited in a more subtle form”. Regardless, A debate whether “Stress-induced mutagenesis” is one of the directed mutation mechanisms or not, doesn’t change the fact that mutations are not random.

And even earlier (1992):

Citation please. This is an out of context screenshot without any reference to the source. Anyway, I thought you don’t like older research.

But hey, you've got an agenda to push...

I’m on the opposite side of the argument stating my evidence. What it yours?

I should also note that the organization linked above was founded by Mae Wan Ho, a fringe anti-evolutionist and supporter of woo such as homeopathy.
Great resource!

I understand you don’t like a resource from the opposite side of the argument, how about the names above? Denis Noble, James A. Shapiro and Gerd B. Müller? Are these satisfactory enough?

I’m also on the opposite side myself. Does this mean we can’t have a rational argument? After all, if we were on the same side, we wouldn’t have an argument. It’s about the exchange of logical evidence not the person (ad hominem).

Here is another 2012 article published on Nature addressing Evidence of non-random mutation.
Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy | Nature

 

[Heyo]

You didn’t notice that I referenced 2012 international conference of physiological sciences.

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

"Extended evolutionary synthesis" sounds boring. Why not call it "Zombie Lamarckism"?

 

[tas8831]

You didn’t notice that I referenced 2012 international conference of physiological sciences.

The one that relied on Cairns' old paper?
I saw it.

Denis Noble declared “It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns of change”

Did he., now? Why didn't you say so! If Denis Noble declared something, it MUST be 100% true!
Does that criterion (100% truth via declaration) apply to anyone researching the subject, or just those that you think prop up your agenda?

In an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.”
How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

Same applies here. What makes Shapiro's declaration unimpeachable?

2016 “New Trend in Evolutionary Biology” conference in the Royal Society meeting, Gerd B. Müller discussed the challenges of MS theory and the need for the EES. The extended evolutionary synthesis acknowledges developmental bias as one of the core assumptions. here the article by Gerd B. Müller that was published on 2017.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Oh, well, a 'challenge' - again - why do the people you cite (who are all, by the way, considered to be on the fringe by most biologists I know) have the ultimate truth through their 'declarations' or 'challenges'? What is your background such that you can tell that those you cite re correct and all others wrong?

Here is something I posted on here in 2019 when a previous Shapiro/Noble/Muller fan linked to an article on one of these 'extended synthesis' meetings, apparently without reading it:

As a result, Laland and a like-minded group of biologists argue that the Modern Synthesis needs an overhaul. It has to be recast as a new vision of evolution, which they’ve dubbed the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Other biologists have pushed back hard, saying there is little evidence that such a paradigm shift is warranted....

The researchers don’t argue that the Modern Synthesis is wrong — just that it doesn’t capture the full richness of evolution...

That didn’t sound right to Shuker, and he was determined to challenge Noble [note - Noble is an 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" supporter] after the applause died down.

“Could you comment at all on the mechanism underlying that discovery?” Shuker asked.

Noble stammered in reply. “The mechanism in general terms, I can, yes…” he said, and then started talking about networks and regulation and a desperate search for a solution to a crisis. “You’d have to go back to the original paper,” he then said.

While Noble was struggling to respond, Shuker went back to the paper on an iPad. And now he read the abstract in a booming voice.

“‘Our results demonstrate that natural selection can rapidly rewire regulatory networks,’” Shuker said. He put down the iPad. “So it’s a perfect, beautiful example of rapid neo-Darwinian evolution,” he declared.

Shuker distilled the feelings of a lot of skeptics I talked to at the conference. The high-flying rhetoric about a paradigm shift was, for the most part, unwarranted, they said. Nor were these skeptics limited to the peanut gallery. Several of them gave talks of their own.

“I think I’m expected to represent the Jurassic view of evolution,” said Douglas Futuyma when he got up to the podium. Futuyma is a soft-spoken biologist at Stony Brook University in New York and the author of a leading textbook on evolution. In other words, he was the target of many complaints during the meeting that textbooks paid little heed to things like epigenetics and plasticity. In effect, Futuyma had been invited to tell his colleagues why those concepts were ignored.

“We must recognize that the core principles of the Modern Synthesis are strong and well-supported,” Futuyma declared. Not only that, he added, but the kinds of biology being discussed at the Royal Society weren’t actually all that new. The architects of the Modern Synthesis were already talking about them over 50 years ago. And there’s been a lot of research guided by the Modern Synthesis to make sense of them.

Take plasticity. The genetic variations in an animal or a plant govern the range of forms into which organism can develop. Mutations can alter that range. And mathematical models of natural selection show how it can favor some kinds of plasticity over others.

If the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis was so superfluous, then why was it gaining enough attention to warrant a meeting at the Royal Society? Futuyma suggested that its appeal was emotional rather than scientific. It made life an active force rather than the passive vehicle of mutations...

Still, he went out of his way to say that the kind of research described at the meeting could lead to some interesting insights about evolution. But those insights would only arise with some hard work that leads to hard data. “There have been enough essays and position papers,” he said....​

This research didn’t conclude against directed mutation.

Oh? Do tell how one of Cairns' acolytes writing about stress-induced hypermutation and NOT 'directed mutation' still, somehow, supports this mythical 'directed mutation.

It didn’t even conclude whether “Stress-induced mutagenesis” is not one of the directed mutation mechanisms.

Are you claiming that stress-induced mutatgenesis is directed mutation?

The next statement directly after your selected quote stated “However, this concept may need to be revisited in a more subtle form”. Regardless, A debate whether “Stress-induced mutagenesis” is one of the directed mutation mechanisms or not, doesn’t change the fact that mutations are not random.

That is quite a conclusion to draw from what is, at best, an open question.
Unless you are referring to mutation distribution not being random? Well, duh. I knew that 30 years ago. I find it funny, frankly, that people are using physicochemical properties of DNA molecules favoring mutations in some areas over others is some mystical secret that THE MAN has been covering up...

Citation please. This is an out of context screenshot without any reference to the source. Anyway, I thought you don’t like older research.

I don't like citing older research that has been supplanted by more recent research, which is why citing the 1988 Cairns paper is a laugh.
By the way - the bold blue text IS A LINK - shocking that a super science guy like you missed that... I do have one correction - the paper is from 1998, not 1992.
Try again - but here is the first page:

I’m on the opposite side of the argument stating my evidence. What it yours?

My only agenda is to expose bad scientific arguments.

I understand you don’t like a resource from the opposite side of the argument, how about the names above? Denis Noble, James A. Shapiro and Gerd B. Müller? Are these satisfactory enough?

What about them? They your heroes or something? See my quote above.

I’m also on the opposite side myself. Does this mean we can’t have a rational argument? After all, if we were on the same side, we wouldn’t have an argument. It’s about the exchange of logical evidence not the person (ad hominem).

Rational arguments need to have more than personalities driving them. Your name-dropping is pretty sad, really.
But as a science guy, I'm surprised you were taken in by Ho and pal's nonsense.

Here is another 2012 article published on Nature addressing Evidence of non-random mutation.
Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy | Nature

Yeah, great. I already cited more recent evidence not supporting the concept.

This goes nowhere.

 

[tas8831]

My premise is that scientist have not shown that evolution is a valid theory.

On what basis do you draw this conclusion?
Your history does not give me confidence that you done any more than paraphrase creationist talking points (while flubbing some of the actual points along the way).

For years people believed that evolution is a scientific fact.
It is because of it being repeatedly questioned by a minority that it is least acknowledged to be only a "theory"now.

Thank for for providing another bit of evidence demonstrative of your naivete when it comes to science.
For you see, theories are based on facts. It isn't really that hard to learn about the things one pontificates on, is it?

I don't support the notion that scientist are God's and that I have to believe them unquestionably.

Do you support the notion that non-'syndicated news talking heads are Gods whose words are beyond reproach? You have implied as much elsewhere. What about preachers and pastors?
You can question science/scientists all you want.
But to expect your "just asking questions" bit to be taken seriously when you make trivial and foundational errors in your questioning, belies your real preparation and motivation. You did not study science or evolution, you just listen to your non-mainstream, fringe acolytes of bible lore and think them - elites that they are - to be impeccable in their protestations.
You fail to see their errors because you erroneously think yourself able to make a judgement. And while I am sure your façade of erudition impresses those in the pews besides you, it just comes across as sad and comical to those who have the requisite knowledge to discuss these issues.

We've been lied to.

Yes, you certainly have. But not by the people you accuse, but by those you blindly believe.

But it is nice to see that I have not yet caught you plagiarizing a second time.... yet.

 

[tas8831]

Certainly, I would be inclined to take this theory seriously if for instance it can be shown that a multi-part mechanism serving a useful purpose simply appears by a random action of natural forces or similar imperial evidence.

HINT: When trying to impress by using excessive high-falutin verbiage, it is better to use the actual correct word than to use the word that you think should be used.

Empirical, not imperial.

I have to admit I would do so reluctantly since this belief is one without hope.

So cryptic yet confident.
Which creationist website favorite will you rely on here - without having done any reading to see if the challenge in legitimate, of course?

An important consideration is that evolutionist believe what they are told by scientist. My belief is ankered [sic] in many years of personal study and fact checking.

Yes, of course it is.

Have you ever fact-checked a professional creationist?

Try this claim from David Menton, YEC, PhD anatomist:

"Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the forelimbs attached to the pectoral girdle. (This is particularly obvious in animals such as kangaroos and theropod dinosaurs.) Not only are the pelvic fins of all fish small, but they’re not even attached to the axial skeleton (vertebral column) and thus can’t bear weight on land."​

Specifically, the red part. I eagerly await your fact-check of this.

The bible is unique in that true faith cannot be transferred from one person to another, the only way to acquire evidence is to dig for it yourself, the more you dig the more is found, until the evidence is so overwhelming that a lot more than the latest fad in evolutionary science is required to topple it.

Wow, an impenetrable shield to protect your fact-averse faith. Who would have thunk it?

 

[gnostic]

The bible is unique in that true faith cannot be transferred from one person to another, the only way to acquire evidence is to dig for it yourself, the more you dig the more is found, until the evidence is so overwhelming that a lot more than the latest fad in evolutionary science is required to topple it.

First off, faith isn’t about evidence.

If you have evidence, then faith isn’t necessary.

Second, Faith is about acceptance of belief (without physical evidence), in another word, faith is equated to personal conviction, like with personal opinion.

As with any conviction and any opinion, faith is often acceptance through subjective biases, not sway by objective reasoning, nor by objective physical evidence.

Third. Faith isn’t magical, nor is there any divine intervention. Like I said earlier it is all about acceptance of belief without evidence, very similar to personal opinions.

 

[LIIA]

"Extended evolutionary synthesis" sounds boring. Why not call it "Zombie Lamarckism"?

Nice name but its more like “return of the Zombie”, the EES is another attempt to bring a dead theory back to live. Others are happy with it as is regardless of the challenges. Simply, because they know that the EES would demolish the fundamental principals of the original theory.

 

[LIIA]

The one that relied on Cairns' old paper?
I saw it.

Did he., now? Why didn't you say so! If Denis Noble declared something, it MUST be 100% true!
Does that criterion (100% truth via declaration) apply to anyone researching the subject, or just those that you think prop up your agenda?

Same applies here. What makes Shapiro's declaration unimpeachable?

Oh, well, a 'challenge' - again - why do the people you cite (who are all, by the way, considered to be on the fringe by most biologists I know) have the ultimate truth through their 'declarations' or 'challenges'? What is your background such that you can tell that those you cite re correct and all others wrong?

Here is something I posted on here in 2019 when a previous Shapiro/Noble/Muller fan linked to an article on one of these 'extended synthesis' meetings, apparently without reading it:

As a result, Laland and a like-minded group of biologists argue that the Modern Synthesis needs an overhaul. It has to be recast as a new vision of evolution, which they’ve dubbed the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Other biologists have pushed back hard, saying there is little evidence that such a paradigm shift is warranted....

The researchers don’t argue that the Modern Synthesis is wrong — just that it doesn’t capture the full richness of evolution...

That didn’t sound right to Shuker, and he was determined to challenge Noble [note - Noble is an 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" supporter] after the applause died down.

“Could you comment at all on the mechanism underlying that discovery?” Shuker asked.

Noble stammered in reply. “The mechanism in general terms, I can, yes…” he said, and then started talking about networks and regulation and a desperate search for a solution to a crisis. “You’d have to go back to the original paper,” he then said.

While Noble was struggling to respond, Shuker went back to the paper on an iPad. And now he read the abstract in a booming voice.

“‘Our results demonstrate that natural selection can rapidly rewire regulatory networks,’” Shuker said. He put down the iPad. “So it’s a perfect, beautiful example of rapid neo-Darwinian evolution,” he declared.

Shuker distilled the feelings of a lot of skeptics I talked to at the conference. The high-flying rhetoric about a paradigm shift was, for the most part, unwarranted, they said. Nor were these skeptics limited to the peanut gallery. Several of them gave talks of their own.

“I think I’m expected to represent the Jurassic view of evolution,” said Douglas Futuyma when he got up to the podium. Futuyma is a soft-spoken biologist at Stony Brook University in New York and the author of a leading textbook on evolution. In other words, he was the target of many complaints during the meeting that textbooks paid little heed to things like epigenetics and plasticity. In effect, Futuyma had been invited to tell his colleagues why those concepts were ignored.

“We must recognize that the core principles of the Modern Synthesis are strong and well-supported,” Futuyma declared. Not only that, he added, but the kinds of biology being discussed at the Royal Society weren’t actually all that new. The architects of the Modern Synthesis were already talking about them over 50 years ago. And there’s been a lot of research guided by the Modern Synthesis to make sense of them.

Take plasticity. The genetic variations in an animal or a plant govern the range of forms into which organism can develop. Mutations can alter that range. And mathematical models of natural selection show how it can favor some kinds of plasticity over others.

If the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis was so superfluous, then why was it gaining enough attention to warrant a meeting at the Royal Society? Futuyma suggested that its appeal was emotional rather than scientific. It made life an active force rather than the passive vehicle of mutations...

Still, he went out of his way to say that the kind of research described at the meeting could lead to some interesting insights about evolution. But those insights would only arise with some hard work that leads to hard data. “There have been enough essays and position papers,” he said....​

Oh? Do tell how one of Cairns' acolytes writing about stress-induced hypermutation and NOT 'directed mutation' still, somehow, supports this mythical 'directed mutation.


Are you claiming that stress-induced mutatgenesis is directed mutation?
That is quite a conclusion to draw from what is, at best, an open question.
Unless you are referring to mutation distribution not being random? Well, duh. I knew that 30 years ago. I find it funny, frankly, that people are using physicochemical properties of DNA molecules favoring mutations in some areas over others is some mystical secret that THE MAN has been covering up...

I don't like citing older research that has been supplanted by more recent research, which is why citing the 1988 Cairns paper is a laugh.
By the way - the bold blue text IS A LINK - shocking that a super science guy like you missed that... I do have one correction - the paper is from 1998, not 1992.
Try again - but here is the first page:

View attachment 61195


My only agenda is to expose bad scientific arguments.

What about them? They your heroes or something? See my quote above.

Rational arguments need to have more than personalities driving them. Your name-dropping is pretty sad, really.
But as a science guy, I'm surprised you were taken in by Ho and pal's nonsense.

Yeah, great. I already cited more recent evidence not supporting the concept.

This goes nowhere.

You’re not making any rational argument but rather playing physiological tricks to confuse uninformed readers.

These are Scientists of the highest caliber bringing the latest in the field to these international conferences. They are evolutionists without any bias to the other side of the argument but similar to Stephen J Gould, even so evolutionists, but honestly acknowledge real world challenges against the theory. Then, they unsuccessfully try to update the theory and engage in endless debate with other evolutionists but with no winner. One side refers to punctuated equilibrium as “evolution by jerks” and the other refers to phyletic gradualism as “evolution by creeps”. Such an endless waste of effort of bright minds engaging in this nonsense. I’m not interested in doing the same. Gould summed it up when he honestly said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

Evolutionists fallacious tactics “appeal to authority” and “ad hominem” are common in their illogical arguments to intimidate uninformed readers. The info below is not for you. It’s intended for the benefit of other readers of the thread, to get themselves informed who are these scientists and the latest of what they had to say.

Denis Noble
Denis Noble - Wikipedia

James A. Shapiro
James A. Shapiro - Wikipedia
How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

Gerd B. Müller
Gerd B. Müller - Wikipedia
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Stephen J Gould
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia

The ToE doesn’t provide a coherent explanatory framework, evolutionists are divided among themselves with contradicting theories that all fail miserably to explain the real world facts. They hope the answer is another synthesis of theories to acknowledge the new facts of science, latest attempt is the EES but the debate never ends and will never end as long as they try to fit all new scientific knowledge accumulated in the last 100 years within the Darwinian box. It will never fit.

Evolutionists are free to believe in an obsolete theory, it’s their faith but they can’t pose it as a fact that everyone should accept. It’s not.

Here is some of what Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016 “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike”
“Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous, but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory, which they see as having ‘co-evolved’ together with the methodological and empirical advances that already receive their due in current evolutionary biology. But the repeatedly emphasized fact that innovative evolutionary mechanisms have been mentioned in certain earlier or more recent writings does not mean that the formal structure of evolutionary theory has been adjusted to them. To the contrary, the discrepancies between the current usage of evolutionary concepts and the predictions derived from the classical model have grown.” Here is the link for the article that was published in 2017.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

In absence of the absolute truth, every truth is relative. Today’s truth is tomorrow’s fiction.