Is the neo-Darwinian view of evolution dead and outdated?

Thanks for the heads up and a clap on the back to you for defending your name.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I, too, use only my screenname as you see here. If someone were to use it to discredit me or create a sock puppet elsewhere others believed was me, I would be very outraged.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some random amazon threads? WTF? Is that you Aqueous Id creating fake accounts now? Pathetic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nice try buddy- Busted.

Best to tuck tail between your legs and head out. By the way, the mods can easily verify whether it's a sock puppet of a member here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Creating fake accounts of someone is against the forum rules, you should get banned for what you are doing.

 

First you accuse AiD, now me. Sheesh. Ask the Admin or Moderator to look into his account and all of ours and yours.

 

So why are you doing it?

 

Sounds like a perfect candidate for sciforums.
But I object, Sir!

Damn it all. Everyone knows that I am the real M Helsdon.
I evolved horizontally, from my CK identity by morphic "smoke" genetics.
Of course I retain my CK identity in viral form.

 

The real M. Helsdon

Sir, I feel for the outrage you justifiably feel at the behavior of this miscreant. Maybe the mods could permaban this charlatan and fraud and restore your rightful moniker to you, and that you feel welcome to join our little forum in any case. All opinions are welcome, though we have strong views on reality and real science and cannot guarantee that all opinions will be free from criticism or rebuttal.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Unlike you, I have no need to fake anything since I'm not the one that opened with the spurious thread title. It's pure bunk, but you're hiding behind a user name or playing games with it. In either case, no one cares.

Yes, your attempt to insult the intelligence of people who have have studied science, as if you think posting bunk would phase them, is pathetic. It's a weird combination of naivete and cynical denial of science. The other possibility is that you're incredibly bored and you just enjoy trolling educated people.

In any case, the crap you're attempting to feed us is moot. The state of science is what it is, and it's reflected in the academic textbooks currently use in high school and college classes in biology, which care not one whit about your bogus claims. They are teaching the exact same theory readers here first studied in their early education, with a few updates that have nothing to do with the crap you're crying about. McGraw Hill, for example, which produces beautiful illustrations to accompany the text in their life sciences series, does in fact mention Lynn Margulis, who you cited. But it's limited to her contribution to science (theory of the origin of cell organelles). They also have prepared responses in their texts to help students fend off cranks like you. National Academy of Sciences, under Dr. Francisco Ayala (cited by another of your sources) has a nicely done survey course of the state of evolutionary biology for teachers and students, with similar techniques for fending off spurious anti-science claims like yours.

You forget that every science course in the country teaches the scientific method, the very process I asked you to employ on my post #2. They teach students critical thinking skills, and how to sniff out bias, a topic also taught in early English classes. I doubt if you could get past a 7th grader. And probably half of 5th graders could trump you with the facts.

It makes no difference what you say, or what anyone you cite has to say. Science curricula are not crumbling. And they are teaching evolution by natural selection, with a few updates. So you are simply irrelevant.

Even a nitwit can see that. So imagine how educated folks see you.

 

Margulis was a critic of neo-Darwinism (see her latest publication before her death), she even called it a "religious sect" becuase all neo-Darwinists do is peddle the "natural selection" of the gaps argument. Please do not attempt to quote mine Margulis, she was the biggest critic of neo-Darwinism going. Are you going to call her anti-science?

http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/201104?pg=68#pg70

Francisco J. Ayala is his own words has written evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism. He even wrote a positive review of Evolution - the Extended Synthesis http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-the-Extended-Synthesis-ebook/dp/product-description/B008H5PZZA

Just more evidence you havn't even read these scientists.

For a close view of the table and references for this scientific evidence, please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/table/T1/

From The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? by Prof Eugene Koonin.

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

You are anti-science Aqueous Id, you offer nothing more than opinion and you deny that evolution has progressed in the last 80 years. You are clueless on endosymbiosis, niche construction, HGT, saltationism, molecular drive, self-organization infact you didn't even know they existed until I mentioned them to you. All these mechanisms are non-Darwinian, just deal with it. Evolution is more complex than just "Darwinism", evolution has progressed in the last 150 years but you seem to reject this. You seem to be falling into the creationist fallacy of confusing "Darwinism" with evolution. Evolution is a fact, "Darwinism" is just an interpretation of evolution. You have failed to understand that the mechanisms in evolution are still being debated by scientists. I guess you have never been to an evo-devo class or conference. Science is not static you know that right?

Have you not heard of non-Darwinian evolution? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Darwinian_evolution

Someone making fake accounts etc is stupid and the personal attacks are not what a forum is about. I have asked for my account to be closed, please close it and the other fake accounts should also be banned. I have no interest in speaking to people who are clearly anti-evolution, ignore all the scientific papers I cite and in response personally attack me. Please close my account. Thank you.

 

Well if I wanted to look for Ayala's viewpoint on Darwin which was the very early point I made, and which you are in denial of, I would go to Amazon looking for

Darwin's Gift: To Science and Religion

or, I would go to any of his many publications and talks espousing the greatness of Darwin's contributions to science and the necessity for the educational curriculum we have in place which teaches Darwin's theory, a fact the makes your arguments irrelevant.

Just more evidence you no nothing about evidence. Just more evidence you have no science background. Just more evidence you don't even have a current biology text on your shelf. Just more evidence you don't read from academic (that means college, bro) sites._In conclusion, that just means you are arguing fro a position of ignorance.

No, I just got through telling you to open a biology textbook. I stand by what it says. I have no need to feed you, troll. Yeah, I'm anti-science, which is why I posted at #2, and why I keep mentioning NAS. Pretty sorry comeback, dude.

Take a class in biology and get back with me.

Yeah, you've been exposed. But you just can't admit you're a fraud. So you resort to flaming, to the point of this incident at Amazon. You've been on this tack for quite a while huh? What got you started? Jealous of Darwin? Desperate to prove you're somebody? See a shrink. They have therapy for that. And while you're sitting in the shrink's waiting room, read some textbook biology and reconcile what you're claiming with the stark reality of what science educators are teaching. Oh, yeah, read up on Ayala with your mobile device:

There are few science paradigms that survive and continue their influence for very long—most disappear within a decade. So it was a remarkable gathering at the Beckman Center of the National Academies of Science and Engineering in Irvine, California (hosted by John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala), where a group of eclectic evolution experts—biologists, philosophers, thinkers, historians, and empiricists—met to reflect upon 150 years of influence exerted by On the Origin of Species and the 200th birthday of its author, Charles Darwin. In 17 brilliant and colorful lectures, we heard updates, details, and advancements centered on nature’s examples of natural selection and two carryover concepts that intrigued Mr. Darwin: artificial and sexual selection. The historians and philosophers revealed timeless insights into the prescience of Darwin's logic and dismissed as rubbish conspiracy theories that imply he purloined ideas from Alfred Russel Wallace. Francisco Ayala marveled at Darwin's propensity to erect hypotheses over any biological observation and then to begin the scientific process of falsification (or validation) a century before granting bodies began to instruct us to follow this format in our research proposals. Elliott Sober reminded us that adaptive characters offer evidence of their cause, natural selection, while nonadaptive or even maladaptive characters are better for imputing common ancestry. Adaptation happens frequently, leading to parallel, independent origins of flight and of aquatic and terrestrial locomotion, but neutral traits form the currency for modern coalescent and phylogenetic reconstructions. Darwin’s rough sketch of a bifurcating tree of life connecting related species was shown often to remind us that temporal transition of species is a continuous branching process that continues today.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/origins/2009/01/impressions-from-nas-darwin-ce.html

As you see, Ayala crumbled nothing. When you discover what he has done so shore up the current state of teaching, against the unrelenting attacks by creationists, we can only scratch our heads and wonder why you standing is opposition to an agenda as worthwhile as his, while pretending not to? Are you a stealth creationist, or what? Stealth conspiracy theorist?

:shrug:

 

Hilarious Aqueous Id your evidence is a public "blogspot" and a book with "religion" in the title. TELL ME WHY YOU IGNORE THIS PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPER BY PROF. EUGENE KOONIN:

From The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? by Prof Eugene Koonin.

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

You are speechless on the above paper, and 40 of the other SCIENTIFIC peer-reviewed papers I have pasted in. In response you ignore everyone of these papers.

Here you are, STUMPED again:


Michael R Rose and Todd H Oakley, in their research paper, titled "The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis" published on 24 November 2007

wrote that The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century".

Oakley is a professor of biology, and this was published in a peer-reviewed journal:

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/30/

Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb

Another paper you IGNORED:

This paper presents some of the recent challenges to theModern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominatedevolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus ofthe paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the idea that variations that arise during development can beinherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNAsequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources ofhereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, themechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveriesare clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role forLamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challengesto the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework fore volutionary biology.

http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/soft1.pdf

Why are you IGNORING scientific papers on evolution? You clearly are a creationist loon. I see your agenda. You are the reason so many creationists exist in America, you claim evolution has not moved beyond "Darwinism" in the last 150 years. You play right into the creationists hands, are they paying you? You fall into the typical creationist fallacy of confusing "Darwinism" with evolution.

I have peer-reviewed papers backing up this thread which proves beyond doubt evolution has progressed in the 150 years, yet you deny all of this.

Why do your posts never mention the following mechanisms in evolution:

gene flow, genetic draft, genetic hitchhiking, horizontal gene transfer, endosymbiosis, symbiogenesis, paleopolyploidy (genome duplications), group selection, internal selection, kin selection, social selection, molecular drive, niche construction, saltationism, self-organization, epigenetics, hybridization, natural genetic engineering, orthogenesis, directed mutagenesis, field theories of morphogenesis, transposable element (jumping genes) etc etc.

Face it you have never heard of any of the above mechanisms, you are not a scientist in the field or up-to-date about the latest events and finds in evolutionary biology. You are not a scientist, just a troll who sits on this forum all day offering his personal opinion. None of your claims are backed with any scientific evidence. You have a poor understanding of the subject and you refuse to accept anything which is not "Darwinian", you are acting like a loon and you have never read a book on evolution, if you did you should know what the above mechanisms are, many of them of found in evo-devo textbooks. Why I am even giving you this knowledge? You are not worthy. I do not need to educate ignorant creationists such as yourself who refuse to accept that science progresses. You have exposed your anti-science agenda by denying to read any the scientific papers I cited, personally attacking me and creating fake accounts. Your agenda is religious and you clearly are anti-evolution.

I will not feed the troll any longer, I have asked for my account to be deleted. How old are you anyway 60, 70? If you wern't such an old fart and perhaps you realised that sudents such as myself are learning about evolution everyday then perhaps you would get somewhere. We are not in the 1950's any longer... trying going to a recent evo-devo class or conference you would probably walk out when they describe how evolution is no longer "Darwinian" due to recent finds in the relationship between genotype and phenotype. You seem to be obsessed with Darwin like the creationists and refuse to accept evolution has progressed in the last 150 years.

Here is a SCIENTIFIC TEXTBOOK on evolution:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10128/

Developmental Biology. 6th edition.

by Gilbert SF

He points out how the neo-Darwinian synthesis is incomplete as it ignored finds in evo-devo, and that how evo-devo calls for an extended synthesis beyond the limited neo-Dariwinian framework.

Why don't you try learning about evolution? Instead of clinging to an outdated view? Science progresses. Please accept this. I have no more time for your personal attacks so further responding will not be read. Bye.

 

M. Helsdon

Get your fraudulent, ignorant ass off of our forums. You've been exposed and the best thing you can do for yourself is never let your shadow ever darken this forum again. You are nothing but an ignorant troll, spewing garbage, and the smell is nauseating. You've already violated common decency and forum rules, leave or be summarily ejected, with prejudice. There is nothing more worthy of contempt than an ignoramus pretending they know something, unless it is a troll stealing another's identity in order to discredit it's rightful owner. You have done both.


You've been told repeatedly that your cherry picked cites and the OPINIONS of the authors of those sites are rejected by the scientific consensus for good scientific reasons. Repetition of dreck still leaves you with dreck.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Seconded.

 

Criticizing Darwin because he didn't and couldn't know where his own theory might lead is a little like lambasting the Wright brothers because they didn't make it to the moon on their first flight.

 

I found this thread by searching for the inheritance of acquired characters, well Neo-Darwinism denied this could occur, but there is now solid evidence it can and does occur. I recommend visiting the website of Denis Noble. According to his website:

I can't post links so google his name and visit his website musicoflife

And here is his paper about how Neo-Darwinism has been replaced published in 2013:


Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology.

You can easily find the paper online

Noble, D. (2013). Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology. Exp. Physiol. doi: 10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134

 

Wow, so much hatred towards one person, it makes you people look like effing creationists!
Even on this page alone... uh, sounds EXACTLY like a bible thumper:
"You are nothing but an ignorant troll, spewing garbage, and the smell is nauseating. You've already violated common decency and forum rules, leave or be summarily ejected, with prejudice."

For those who want to know more (at least more than these so called science lovers, actually a anew type of creationists) about the new developments in evolution and epigenetics, search for Moshe Szyf (geneticist at McGill University, Montreal).

 

Hello SkyNet & welcome. You picked a thread that's gone stale for the past 9 months (over a year actually). The person that opened it ended up getting banned, so it would be hard to reconstruct whatever it was that motivated him. But I vaguely remember that this was a Creationist posting pseudoscience in a science forum, the purpose of which was to troll the people who actually took Biology and who wanted to see the facts correctly represented.

Trolls and cranks come here in waves to attack science, so if you notice the discussion got lively, it reflects the desire to concede nothing to the Religious Right. They've done enough damage to science, academia and social policy as it is.

 

In addition to Aq Id's explanation, I feel I should point out that, if you read the correspondence, you will see that the OP was falsely using the name of somebody else in order to misrepresent his views. That's pretty atrocious behaviour by any standard of common decency. So not surprising he was attacked and got banned.

I looked up this Szyf person in Wiki, and see he indeed works on epigenetics, though there was not a lot about him there. Epigenetics is fascinating, I agree.

 

Darwin developed his ideas on Galapagos Island, which was isolated and stopped in time. These unique conditions set the special case environmental parameters that underly his theory. If Darwin had traveled, instead, to Yellowstone National Park in the USA, before, during, and after the huge forest fire, his theory would have needed to reflect much faster changes within evolution, with these changes more a function of swings in the physical environment as well as animal and plant migration. The theory would need to be different for each scenario, to reflect the observable data. Galapagos is stuck in time, while YellowStone did in 10 years, what took Galapagos 100, 000 years. The best curves through the data are two different curves.

The Yellowstone fire cleared the larger trees and killed and/or drove out all the animals. We have a clean slate for life. Ten years later, the forest rebuilds from the floor up, with migration bringing a new ratio of animals, based on how the flora is reintroducing itself. There is little in the way of genetic change driving this process, compared to a simple sorting of what already is. A Darwin theory, based on these observations, would have been more consistent with this data; adapting to a rapidly changing dynamic environment. Darwin's theory is a special case theory based on the best fit, for an isolation scenario.

From the molecular side of evolution, how does evolution explain the unique folding of proteins, with probability equal to 1.0? Unique folding is anything but based on random changes. One might then ask, how soon within evolution did this push to remove random occur? Proteins represent the vast bulk of the cell's organic mass, so common sense will take a weighed average based on this trend.

How does such consistent order, within the bulk of the organic mass, impact random assumptions? Are the random assumption due to a molecular Galapagos bias effect (so to speak) extrapolated from Darwin? Maybe an explanation for why unique protein folding, will bring us to molecular Yellowstone (so to speak), with much different parameters pushing faster changes due to the impact of bulk order.