Creationist/Woo Split From Nature Paper Thread

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Creationist/Woo Split From Nature Paper Thread

#1  Postby BooBoo » Dec 04, 2014 5:03 pm


!
MODNOTE
These posts, containing assorted creationist and woo-based assertions and apologetics, have been split off from this thread, so that said thread can concentrate on the actual science.


This does seem to lend credence to the notion that Evolution may well be a theory in crisis, as Michael Denton wrote back in 1986. The crisis may indeed get worse before it gets better.
User avatar
BooBoo
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Rowena
Posts: 361

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#2  Postby DavidMcC » Dec 04, 2014 5:20 pm

BooBoo wrote:This does seem to lend credence to the notion that Evolution may well be a theory in crisis, as Michael Denton wrote back in 1986. The crisis may indeed get worse before it gets better.

The "crisis" probably isn't of the kind that means that genes have no effect on evolution!
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#3  Postby BooBoo » Dec 04, 2014 6:07 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
BooBoo wrote:This does seem to lend credence to the notion that Evolution may well be a theory in crisis, as Michael Denton wrote back in 1986. The crisis may indeed get worse before it gets better.

The "crisis" probably isn't of the kind that means that genes have no effect on evolution!


Laland and his colleagues don't deny the role of genetic variation in evolution. What they do posit are extra-genetic influences of which we still don't know much about and which the opposite side are skeptical of.
User avatar
BooBoo
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Rowena
Posts: 361

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#4  Postby DavidMcC » Dec 04, 2014 6:15 pm

BooBoo wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
BooBoo wrote:This does seem to lend credence to the notion that Evolution may well be a theory in crisis, as Michael Denton wrote back in 1986. The crisis may indeed get worse before it gets better.

The "crisis" probably isn't of the kind that means that genes have no effect on evolution!


Laland and his colleagues don't deny the role of genetic variation in evolution. What they do posit are extra-genetic influences of which we still don't know much about and which the opposite side are skeptical of.

In which case, evolutionary theory doesn't need much of a rethink!
Can you give the Laland reference?
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#5  Postby BooBoo » Dec 05, 2014 1:53 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
In which case, evolutionary theory doesn't need much of a rethink!Can you give the Laland reference?


It needs a massive rethink. From the paper Calilasseia provided: http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.160 ... 14161a.pdf

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra- genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.


Mathematical models of evolutionary dynamics that incorporate extra-genetic inheritance make different predictions from those that do not. Inclusive models help to explain a wide range of puzzling phenomena, such as the rapid colonization of North America by the house finch, the adaptive potential of invasive plants with low genetic diversity, and how reproductive isolation is established.


In addition, extra-genetic inheritance includes socially transmitted behaviour in animals, such as nut cracking in chimpanzees or the migratory patterns of reef fishes. It also encompasses those structures and altered conditions that organisms leave to their descendants through their niche construction — from beavers’ dams to worm- processed soils. Research over the past decade has established such inheritance to be so widespread that it should be part of general theory.
Last edited by BooBoo on Dec 05, 2014 2:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
BooBoo
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Rowena
Posts: 361

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#6  Postby Sendraks » Dec 05, 2014 1:56 pm

BooBoo wrote:This does seem to lend credence to the notion that Evolution may well be a theory in crisis, as Michael Denton wrote back in 1986. The crisis may indeed get worse before it gets better.


Evolution isn't a theory in crisis. Just a theory that will be updated in light of new evidence.
Even if evolutionary theory wasn't updated in light of new evidence, that wouldn't make it a "theory in crisis" it would just mean that something had gone very wrong with the scientific method.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#7  Postby BooBoo » Dec 05, 2014 2:01 pm

Sendraks wrote:
BooBoo wrote:This does seem to lend credence to the notion that Evolution may well be a theory in crisis, as Michael Denton wrote back in 1986. The crisis may indeed get worse before it gets better.


Evolution isn't a theory in crisis. Just a theory that will be updated in light of new evidence.
Even if evolutionary theory wasn't updated in light of new evidence, that wouldn't make it a "theory in crisis" it would just mean that something had gone very wrong with the scientific method.


It is a theory in crisis if it lacks predictive power and is thus in danger of being deemed unfalsifiable. Laland is warning that the gene-centric approach of the standard synthesis is threatening to undermine evolutionary theory.
User avatar
BooBoo
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Rowena
Posts: 361

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#8  Postby Sendraks » Dec 05, 2014 2:06 pm

BooBoo wrote:It is a theory in crisis if it lacks predictive power and is thus in danger of being deemed unfalsifiable. Laland is warning that the gene-centric approach of the standard synthesis is threatening to undermine evolutionary theory.


Well then the theory would no longer work at all.
Which doesn't appear to be the case.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#9  Postby DavidMcC » Dec 05, 2014 3:04 pm

BooBoo wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
In which case, evolutionary theory doesn't need much of a rethink!Can you give the Laland reference?


It needs a massive rethink. From the paper Calilasseia provided: http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.160 ... 14161a.pdf

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity);

These factors exist, but they are largely non-heritable, at least in the long term. The importance of genes is their ability to store information about how the organism can develop.
how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra- genetic inheritance).

These factors exist, but are short-lived in terms of number of generations affected (as mentioned above. Generally, only genetic change lasts long enough to have a lasting effect. The modification of the environment simply changes the selection rules. In reality, it is an already well-known oversimplification to claim that genes "drive" evolution. The neoDarwinian synthesis argues that nautural selection and the earth itself play just as much a role as genes in deciding the course of evolution.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#10  Postby DavidMcC » Dec 05, 2014 3:08 pm

... Also, nobody is denying the role played by behaviour in affecting the course of animal evolution, but it is indirect - actual evolutionary change only occurs via genetic changes selected for by those behaviours.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#11  Postby Rumraket » Dec 05, 2014 5:22 pm

BooBoo wrote:This does seem to lend credence to the notion that Evolution may well be a theory in crisis

If only all the IDiots and creationist idiots can tirelessly repeat this loud and emphatically enough you can eventually convince yourselves that it's true. :roll:

http://thewordofme.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/the-imminent-demise-of-evolution-the-longest-running-falsehood-in-creationism/

Any day now, any day, the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down. And then, there'll be the gloriously scientific creation science "in the begging was the word...".
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#12  Postby BooBoo » Dec 06, 2014 4:35 pm

DavidMcC wrote:... Also, nobody is denying the role played by behaviour in affecting the course of animal evolution, but it is indirect - actual evolutionary change only occurs via genetic changes selected for by those behaviours.


That is just an assertion of yours. The nut-cracking habits of chimpanzees, dam-building habits of beavers or preening behaviour of birds are likely not genetically based at all.
User avatar
BooBoo
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Rowena
Posts: 361

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#13  Postby Animavore » Dec 06, 2014 4:36 pm

BooBoo wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:... Also, nobody is denying the role played by behaviour in affecting the course of animal evolution, but it is indirect - actual evolutionary change only occurs via genetic changes selected for by those behaviours.


That is just an assertion of yours. The nut-cracking habits of chimpanzees, dam-building habits of beavers or preening behaviour of birds are likely not genetically based at all.


How do you explain beavers growing up in captivity acting out building dams if this behaviour is not genetic?
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44748
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#14  Postby BooBoo » Dec 06, 2014 4:37 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Any day now, any day, the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down. And then, there'll be the gloriously scientific creation science "in the begging was the word...".


United we stand, divided we fall. Things are going to get very bitter and nasty from now on.
User avatar
BooBoo
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Rowena
Posts: 361

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#15  Postby BooBoo » Dec 06, 2014 4:38 pm

Animavore wrote:
How do you explain beavers growing up in captivity acting out building dams if this behaviour is not genetic?


That's where Sheldrake offers an explanation: morphic resonance.
User avatar
BooBoo
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Rowena
Posts: 361

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#16  Postby Animavore » Dec 06, 2014 4:46 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Animavore wrote:
How do you explain beavers growing up in captivity acting out building dams if this behaviour is not genetic?


That's where Sheldrake offers an explanation: morphic resonance.


You'll need to elaborate.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44748
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#17  Postby Rumraket » Dec 06, 2014 4:57 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Any day now, any day, the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down. And then, there'll be the gloriously scientific creation science "in the begging was the word...".


United we stand, divided we fall. Things are going to get very bitter and nasty from now on.

Like, Darwinists are Nazis nasty? :lol:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#18  Postby BooBoo » Dec 06, 2014 5:21 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Like, Darwinists are Nazis nasty? :lol:


I will predict a major split, akin to that of Protestants and Catholics.
User avatar
BooBoo
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Rowena
Posts: 361

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#19  Postby BooBoo » Dec 06, 2014 5:22 pm

User avatar
BooBoo
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Rowena
Posts: 361

Print view this post

Re: Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

#20  Postby Animavore » Dec 06, 2014 5:23 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Like, Darwinists are Nazis nasty? :lol:


I will predict a major split, akin to that of Protestants and Catholics.


It's not much of a split. They both still more or less believe the same stuff.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44748
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest