Creationist/Woo Split From Nature Paper Thread

[BooBoo]

!	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.

[DavidMcC]

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!

[BooBoo]

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.

[DavidMcC]

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?

[BooBoo]

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.

[Sendraks]

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.

[BooBoo]

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.

[Sendraks]

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.

[DavidMcC]

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.

[DavidMcC]

... 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.

[Rumraket]

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.

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...".

[BooBoo]

... 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.

[Animavore]

... 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?

[BooBoo]

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.

[BooBoo]

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.

[Animavore]

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.

[Rumraket]

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?

[BooBoo]

Like, Darwinists are Nazis nasty?

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

[BooBoo]

You'll need to elaborate.

http://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance

[Animavore]

Like, Darwinists are Nazis nasty?

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.