A Revolution in Evolution

nozzferrahhtoo

So because you will not read my posts, I have to do it for you. I see. Please read words 9, 10, 11 and 12 in the text you JUST quoted from me. Your answer lies there. But not limited to there. I have made the distinction MANY times in this thread now between the epigenetic effects being discussed, and the possibility (and mechanisms of) inheritance of same.

So are people on this thread confused? Yes, very. But not about the science in the thread. More about the point of the thread, where the thread is going, what identical twins have to do with anything, why an arbitrarily selected definition of "intelligence" was ever included in the thread, what the "revolution" is meant to be, and much more.

gaynorvader

nagirrac wrote: »

Neo-Darwinism as a term was specifically chosen in the early 20th century by Weissman to distinguish from Darwinism. As you point out, it was based specifically on the rejection of the idea of "inheritance of acquired characteristics", which although originally proposed by Lamark, was also embraced by Darwin. Neo-Darwinism basically states that evolution progresses solely through natural selection of variations that at their source are random in nature (random in terms of outcome).

The simplest way to think about it is the novelty we see within species and between species has at its origin genetic mutations during the reproductive cycle, novelty that was selected for in populations as it provided a survival and reproductive advantage (Neo-Darwinism), contrasted with novelty that emerged during a lifespan, due to what is now known as epigenetics, and is passed on to offspring (neo-Lamarkism).

They were certainly competing theories in the early 20th century and neo-Lamarkism was soundly rejected. They are not so much competing theories today, but should be thought of as part of an emerging new blended theory. Natural selection is still regarded as the primary driving mechanism of evolution, the various cellular mechanisms that generate variation is what is under discussion and revision, much of which appears adaptive rather than random.

Lamark was not the first, in fact that wasn't even the main point of his theory. He believed that if you worked out, your children would be born stronger, which is a different idea to what Neo-Lamarkism or even Lamarkism puts forward. Similarly Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism do not accurately represent Darwin's views.

nagirrac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So because you will not read my posts, I have to do it for you. I see. Please read words 9, 10, 11 and 12 in the text you JUST quoted from me. Your answer lies there. But not limited to there. I have made the distinction MANY times in this thread now between the epigenetic effects being discussed, and the possibility (and mechanisms of) inheritance of same.

That is not the distinction I am talking about, which demonstrates that you spent some time over the holidays reading this thread but never fully grasping. I will hold up my hands and accept that I have made a poor job of explaining myself and must try again. However time is conspiring against me at present, so I will return with (another) summary later today / tonight / this weekend.

Epigenetics is but one aspect of what Shapiro and Nobel are discussing. Shapiro's hypothesis of "natural genetic engineering" dates from the early 1990s, long before any evidence for epigenetic inheritance emerged (roughly 2007). Epigenetic inheritance is one mechanism that potentially supports Shapiro's claims, but is only one of many cellular mechanisms that he himself proposed to suggest a very different model of evolution than that of the RM/NS model.

nagirrac

The primary claim in this thread is the theory of evolution is long overdue for an update. To illustrate this, the following is a table published by the NIH outlining the current state of evolutionary Biology, relative to the principles of Neo-Darwinism. It is actually quite shocking, all major principles of Neo-Darwinism have either been overturned or replaced, and even this is somewhat out of date (2009) as there has been a lot of new research in the past few years. What is even more shocking is that these outdated principles are still being taught to second level and third level Biology students as if the world stopped in the 1970s.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/table/T1/

The upshot is the Modern Synthesis as it has been known is gone, and the question is what will replace it. Shapiro and Noble argue that what should replace it is a cellular theory of evolution that takes into account all of the processes occurring within cells that relate to survival, development, and reproduction.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

That is not the distinction I am talking about, which demonstrates that you spent some time over the holidays reading this thread but never fully grasping.

Again: Pretending people are "confused" rather than engaging with the posts they have made is just a cop out. I am more than aware of the distinction. The only thing I am not aware of yet... and clearly I am not alone if the other posts here are taken into account.... is what your point on the thread is, what identical twins have to do with anything, and why an arbitrary definition of "intelligence" was ever brought into it.

nagirrac wrote: »

The primary claim in this thread is the theory of evolution is long overdue for an update.

Then the thread is even more pointless than I first feared. Because Evolution, like all areas of science, is being updated all the time. Perhaps you are frustrated that it is a slow process and the scientific ideas that personally excite you can not become mainstream quick enough for you. In that I share your pain, but that is what science is. A slow and incremental process.

Take the example I gave you in another context of Lynn Margulis and Symbiogenesis. She did not spend hours, days or weeks supporting that theory. She spent decades of work in papers, books, monography and speeches before Symbiogenesis trickled into the biological curriculum as a mildly controversial but generally accepted theory.

So once again what "revolution" you imagine happening, wish to happen, or expect to happen could not be less clear. Science is, as I said, a slow incremental process and there is good reason for that, as painful as that might be.

Turtwig

Uh, I dare not open it so TIE fighter if you really do dare the evolution-creationism thread is over that way. This is the current synthesis of evolution discussion. Creationism is accepted in this thread as being a crock of sh¡t.

[-0-]

Can you move it over please?

Turtwig

[-0-] wrote: »

Can you move it over please?

Jesus Christ man what are you like. I'm still recovering from boards outage withdrawal symptoms and you want me to intentionally dab my feet into the Creation storm? You're evil!

Ow! Okay, Okay, Master Dades, I will move it.
lousy sadistic power tripping admins.

[-0-]

Heartiez!

nagirrac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then the thread is even more pointless than I first feared. Because Evolution, like all areas of science, is being updated all the time... Take the example I gave you in another context of Lynn Margulis and Symbiogenesis. She did not spend hours, days or weeks supporting that theory. She spent decades of work in papers, books, monography and speeches before Symbiogenesis trickled into the biological curriculum as a mildly controversial but generally accepted theory.

There is nothing mildly controversial about Lynn Margulis' work. A basic tenet of neo-Darwiniam is slow incremental mutation by mutation changes leading to novel features and eventually new species. Symbiogenesis or merging of two organisms to form a new organism in itself overturned this assumption.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Science is, as I said, a slow incremental process and there is good reason for that, as painful as that might be.

I disagree. This may have been true in the past, but with the pace of information distribution these days, there is no excuse for teaching concepts that have long been overturned.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

There is nothing mildly controversial about Lynn Margulis' work.

Like tangents much? My point was not about her work. She was the example I used, nothing more. The point I was making which you have missed while running off on that tangent, is that Evolution, like all areas of science, is an incremental process. Slow, often painfully so,

So if the "point of this thread" is that Evolution "needs an update" then the thread is, as I noted in at least 3, possibly more, posts now.... doing little more than stating the obvious. Because ALL science needs an update.

As Sam harris just wrote today actually:

"As theoretical physicist Max Planck (1858-1947) noted, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” In other words, science advances by a series of funerals."

nagirrac wrote: »

I disagree. This may have been true in the past, but with the pace of information distribution these days, there is no excuse for teaching concepts that have long been overturned.

There may be no excuse, but that does not ground your disagreement as it has nothing to do with what I said. It may be inexcusable, but it just is that way. Saying there is no excuse for it does not disagree with me saying that it still IS that way.

Human Hubris has a lot to answer for in it. No amount of high speed information distribution can combat the scientists who doggedly defend their positions. Planck's point above is as true today as it was when he uttered it.

Finance has much to answer for too. The ideal is that people produce papers which are then peer reviewed and reproduced. Alas often such things do not happen because obtaining funding to repeat the findings of others is notoriously difficult. It is difficult enough to fund new research, let alone peer review.

So yes, science does remain a slow and incremental process, regardless of the information technology we have at our finger tips. As I said, if the slow pace of change in Evolution is frustrating you then I can only share that pain with you and suggest you learn to live with it. I have.