I have been reading a Non-Darwinian evolution website recently called Take On Darwin. One of the authors posted this:

Take on Darwin

DARWINISM

Darwinism is a fairy story; to accept it you have to believe in magic.

Natural selection isn't a force, it's more like friction; it's offers a little resistance to the flow of harmful mutations entering the gene pool.

How efficient is natural selection at eliminating harmful mutations? 100% would involve magic. Anything less would involve extinction. Likely value 1-2%
.So where's the mechanism?

Darwin didn't discover evolution, he merely dumbed it down so natural selection could account for it.

Natural selection can't account for the origin of species, all it could lead to is all creatures varying gradually within a single species.

ADAPTATION

Add a stone and a kitten to a pile of stones. Which is better adapted to its environment? Does adaptation mean anything?

Evolution is living creatures becoming more independent of, not more adapted to, their environment.

Is the Internet us "adapting" to electricity? Is symbiosis "adaptation" to the environment?

Adaptation is the lowest common denominator of all possible mechanisms of evolution. What would distinguish the best mechanism from all the others?

Adapting living creatures to their environment is the least you can ask of evolution. Shouldn't we ask more?

MUTATION

Mutation followed by natural selection is like saying you can make a big mountain out of a small mountain just by shaking it. But avalanches make a mountain smaller, not bigger.

You can't evolve new living creatures just by damaging the old ones.

Beneficial mutations are like unicorns: Everyone's heard of them but no one's ever seen one.

If something other than mutation was what made changes to genes beneficial, how could you tell?

What do you think about this? Does he have a valid case?

No, that's nonsense for many reasons.


If something other than mutation was what made changes to genes beneficial, how could you tell?
If anything makes changes to a gene, that is called a mutation. Most mutations are neutral, some of them are bad (relative to the environment), a very few are good (relative to the environment). If this person is suggesting that something was changing genes for the better (like a God), then it's up to him to prove it.

So, other than the fact that the OP obviously possesses a knowledge of biology less than that of a grade-schooler, can anyone else glean much from his post? I got lost in the constant, and inaccurate, redefinition of terms.

So, other than the fact that the OP obviously possesses a knowledge of biology less than that of a grade-schooler, can anyone else glean much from his post? I got lost in the constant, and inaccurate, redefinition of terms.

It is taken from a website called take on darwin . com
The website is owned by a philosopher and a number of scientists who are trying to improve evolution.

What he is describing in the original post on this thread (which can be found on his website) is that natural selection is not driving evolution. The author is not a creationist, he is a Non-Darwinian evolutionist trying to improve evolution with coming up with new mechanism/s. You can get in contact with him, if you wish to help. Some scientists are already involved.

@darryl --

Tanks for the update, but given that we have over one hundred and fifty years of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection, I think I'll lend my efforts to those quests which aren't hopeless.

I have been reading a Non-Darwinian evolution website recently called Take On Darwin. One of the authors posted this:

Take on Darwin

DARWINISM

Darwinism is a fairy story; to accept it you have to believe in magic.

Natural selection isn't a force, it's more like friction; it's offers a little resistance to the flow of harmful mutations entering the gene pool.

How efficient is natural selection at eliminating harmful mutations? 100% would involve magic. Anything less would involve extinction. Likely value 1-2%
.So where's the mechanism?

Darwin didn't discover evolution, he merely dumbed it down so natural selection could account for it.

Natural selection can't account for the origin of species, all it could lead to is all creatures varying gradually within a single species.

ADAPTATION

Add a stone and a kitten to a pile of stones. Which is better adapted to its environment? Does adaptation mean anything?

Evolution is living creatures becoming more independent of, not more adapted to, their environment.

Is the Internet us "adapting" to electricity? Is symbiosis "adaptation" to the environment?

Adaptation is the lowest common denominator of all possible mechanisms of evolution. What would distinguish the best mechanism from all the others?

Adapting living creatures to their environment is the least you can ask of evolution. Shouldn't we ask more?

MUTATION

Mutation followed by natural selection is like saying you can make a big mountain out of a small mountain just by shaking it. But avalanches make a mountain smaller, not bigger.

You can't evolve new living creatures just by damaging the old ones.

Beneficial mutations are like unicorns: Everyone's heard of them but no one's ever seen one.

If something other than mutation was what made changes to genes beneficial, how could you tell?

What do you think about this? Does he have a valid case?

As refutations go, that is one of the worst I've ever seen. Worst. Denial. Ever.

It is taken from a website called take on darwin . com
The website is owned by a philosopher and a number of scientists who are trying to improve evolution.

What he is describing in the original post on this thread (which can be found on his website) is that natural selection is not driving evolution. The author is not a creationist, he is a Non-Darwinian evolutionist trying to improve evolution with coming up with new mechanism/s. You can get in contact with him, if you wish to help. Some scientists are already involved.

What scientists? Who?

@Geoff --

And more importantly, cites for their work in evolutionary biology.

Quite so.

Perhaps the authors meant David Darwin, a bank manager in Cheapside.

It sounds to me like darryl might be the author advertising his website.

Do you think the author makes a good case, darryl?

It sounds to me like darryl might be the author advertising his website.

Do you think the author makes a good case, darryl?

Completey wrong, the owner of the website is a philosopher and ex biochemist and by his photo probably is about 50. Did you not bother to look at the website? The website has uploaded articles on it from scientists like Stanley Salthe and other critics of the modern synthesis. He is is a critic of natural selection, I don't understand all of his comments but what he has written is interesting.

I am a 20 year old college student. I am a critic of the overemphasized natural selection mechanism, of course it occurs but along with D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson, Lynn Margulis, the Structuralism of Brian Goodwin, symbiosis of Ryan, Sapp and criticisms of Robert Wesson and other evolutionary biologists I agree that symbiosis and other mechanisms are far more important, of course this would be the minority view at the present.

Do you mean by symbiosis that genes are borrowed from other creatures? I think this is widely accepted in evolutionary theory.

Completey wrong, the owner of the website is a philosopher and ex biochemist and by his photo probably is about 50. Did you not bother to look at the website? The website has uploaded articles on it from scientists like Stanley Salthe and other critics of the modern synthesis. He is is a critic of natural selection, I don't understand all of his comments but what he has written is interesting.

I am a 20 year old college student. I am a critic of the overemphasized natural selection mechanism, of course it occurs but along with D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson, Lynn Margulis, the Structuralism of Brian Goodwin, symbiosis of Ryan, Sapp and criticisms of Robert Wesson and other evolutionary biologists I agree that symbiosis and other mechanisms are far more important, of course this would be the minority view at the present.

Do you mean you are a creation science /slash/ intelligent design proponent?

Why else would you refer to "the overemphasized natural selection mechanism"?

The stuff lifted out of the dunghill and dropped here as an OP isn't even good for fertilizer.

If the guy is an ex-biochemist, and he actually wrote that garbage, then I would assume he dropped out of high school biology and chemistry, or rather, was forced out, when his parents discovered the school was teaching evolution. The quote has no markings of science whatsoever.

Sounds more like creationism hiding under a disguise.

Do you mean by symbiosis that genes are borrowed from other creatures? I think this is widely accepted in evolutionary theory.

Very true. But see work of Sapp, Frank Ryan and Margulis they claim symbiosis is the main driving mechanism for evolution and that there is more co-operation in nature than competition and that the random mutation of the modern synthesis is not causing speciation instead symbiosis is doing this.

Do you mean you are a creation science /slash/ intelligent design proponent?

Why else would you refer to "the overemphasized natural selection mechanism"?

I heavly oppose intelligent design and creationist pseudoscience. You might want to study yourself the debate inside evolution at the moment regarding the different schools this has nothing to do with creationism its all about which mechanisms are driving evolution, evolution has happened but the mechanism is still up for debate. Natural selection has always been a problem, nobody denies that it happens, but its role in the synthesis has been challenged by many, many scientists from the early days from Waddington to Berg and to more recent scientists such as Brian Goodwin and even Stuart Kaufman on occasians have criticised the modern synthesis and downplayed natural selection as a secondary mechanism, also see the eclipse of Darwinism for example there have been many debates in the past about this.

There is still a big debate about which mechanism is driving evolution, the issues are not yet solved, I also see problems with the gradualistic framework, I think symbiosis can explain evolution in the past in more sudden bursts. The author of Take on Darwin proposes that natural selection and random mutation are not driving evolution. The question is what mechanism is he advocating then, I am yet to find out.

Is this debate you speak of a real debate between actual scientists or are you referring to some blog/forum somewhere on the internet?

Is this the "take on Darwin" you were referring to?

http://www.takeondarwin.com/

Very true. But see work of Sapp, Frank Ryan and Margulis they claim symbiosis is the main driving mechanism for evolution and that there is more co-operation in nature than competition and that the random mutation of the modern synthesis is not causing speciation instead symbiosis is doing this.

That might depend on how one defines "main". Perhaps in the distant past, symbiosis played a much larger role than it does now, and so it might have been the main driver at one point. Co-operation doesn't negate natural selection, it's a kind of selection.

Went to the site. Woo alert! Woo alert!

Went to the site. Woo alert! Woo alert!

You don’t need to go there to know that. All you have to do is look at the woeful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of evolutionary and genetic concepts in the OP to know that this is just another ho-hum ordinary attempt at an interweb-manufactured controversy. Very ordinary denialism indeed. E for effort. :rolleyes:

Oh I did, but I like to be thorough.

One is reminded here of the problem of protein folding. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Watterson, 1997), that problem also arises from applying classical theories, since they predict an average, not a unique fold. That these questions remain unsolved still today after 50 years of intense research effort, highlights a two-fold failing of statistical methods: firstly, they did not predict the existence of a stable folded state, and secondly, once given as an experimental fact, they cannot explain it.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/contr.html

In terms of evolution of the cell and life, experiments confirm that proteins fold into specific configurations with a probability of 1.0. This specific folding was not predicted by and statistical mechanics, which assumes an average fold due to randomness and thermal fluctuations. This statistical conclusion was fine for years until improvement in tools allowed observational biologists to prove the unique fold of proteins. Now the random theory has this unexplained flaw.

How does a statistical model for evolution, based on randomness, predict specific protein folding with a probably of 1.0?

This does not reflect negatively on Darwin, but rather on 20th century addendum.

Protein folding is chemistry, not evolution.

@James --

Haven't we already established that Wellwisher's knowledge of evolutionary theory is about on par with those on that site?

Completey wrong, the owner of the website is a philosopher and ex biochemist and by his photo probably is about 50.
From the site:

"I studied biochemistry at University College London in the program’s first or second year, but was denied my degree for an inadequate grasp of chemistry."

That would make me an ex-mathematician because I failed a math class once. :cool: