Jump to content

darryl88

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-10 Poor

About darryl88

  • Rank
    Quark
  1. I am in agreement with that comment, and I have read over that paper. Indeed Mae-Wan Ho is one of the scientists who has called for a new evolutionary synthesis since the 1980's. At the end of the day however, it can safely be said that there is no agreed theory of evolution. Whilst evolution is a fact, there is no agreement on the theory of mechanisms. I have lost count of the mount of contradictory books/papers proposing different mechanisms of evolution.
  2. Neo-Darwinism is faced with major conceptual barriers to further progress, deriving directly from its metaphysical foundations and denying that certain processes exist. Neo-Darwinism is very limited, but moving beyond neo-darwinism we will progress in our knowledge in evolution. The current "modern synthesis" regime is very limited, it does not provide a detailed explanation of how evolution occurs, it fails to explain the relationship between the phenotype and genotype and many other things. The current evolutionary theory (modern synthesis of the 1940s) is a theory of genes, and totally
  3. Read over some of the dogmatic replies on this thread, and you will see two militant Darwinists denying the need for an extended synthesis, and even denying that an extended synthesis exists. The publications I have listed above shatter those claims. As Prof Koonin and other scientists have written evolution should be characterized by the pluralism of many processes and patterns in evolution that defies any straightforward generalization, neo-Darwinism was wrong in advocating only limited mechanisms of evolution.
  4. It is utter nonsense to deny there are no plans for an extended or new synthesis. Publications calling for an extended synthesis / revised synthesis etc: Auletta, G. A Paradigm Shift in Biology? Information 2010, 1, 28-59. Carroll, Sean B. Evo-Devo and an Expanding Evolutionary Synthesis. Cell. 134/1, 2008. Depew, David and Bruce Weber. The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution after the Modern Synthesis. Biological Theory. 6/1, 2012. Edelmann, Jonathon and Michael Denton. The Uniqueness of Biological Self-Organization. Biology and Philosophy. 22/4, 2007. Etxeberria, Arantza. A
  5. Arete you have given me 5 links to three random scientific journals - but the links you have given are not to specific papers which can be read online, they are to a couple of book reviews that can not be clicked on without access or things which are not relevant to this topic. It seems you have just randomly tried to get hold of anything to try and back yourself up. I was thinking of calling you dishonest but it appears you are lazy as well. Why can you not cite one single paper to back up your claims. And no don't get angry or abuse me... I am really interested why. Can you point to a si
  6. Listen I respect your replies Ringer and especially your comments on the table overtone but the problem is you are offering me nothing more than opinion. You have attempted to shoot down pretty much everything Prof Koonin has written in that table, but note how every point he makes is backed up via scientific sources. So when you have listed your criticisms you are not only rejecting Koonin's work but also the view of many other scientists on evolution. So what do we have? We have your personal criticism or the work of professional scientists in the field backed up with evidence. Who do yo
  7. Once again overtone if you want to make a case can you please go further than just your personal opinion and please cite actual scientific references for your claims. No it is not "bullshit". And you are being very dishonest, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis formulated in the 1930's it was very critical of saltationism and it rejects that it can happen. Here is a main tenent of neo-Darwinism: Please see Ernst Mayr's book describing the main points of neo-Darwinism such as The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution & inheritance. He wri
  8. I have read all of the papers. Here is the one you mention: 1. The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3215633/ In this paper it discusses the controversial views of the biologist James A. Shapiro and the neo-Lamarckian views of the biologist Eva Jablonka and her collegues (by neo-Lamarckian we are talking about epigenetic mechanisms). Both of these authors discuss how new discovery of evolutionary mechanisms has caused the emergence of a new evolutionary synthesis. As the paper
  9. Sorry but I have no reason to believe any of the opinions expressed by users on this forum because nothing you say is backed up via any scientific evidence whatsoever and you have ignored the scientific papers I have cited. Science is not about personal belief, if you want to make a case please cite scientific papers, but you never do. Here are more papers proving my point. All these papers either discuss the new synthesis, the paradigm shift in evolutionary biology, extension and revisionism etc etc. This is fascinating stuff which clearly users on this forum ignore and have
  10. There is no possible way phenotypic plasticity, niche construction, epigenetics, endosymbiosis etc etc can fit into the "neo-Darwinian" framework without atleast a serious expansion or major revisionism, these mechanisms are about as far away from "Darwinism" as you can get. Note how orthodox neo-Darwinians such as Jerry Coyne have denied epigenetics and Niche construction etc etc. What pisses me off is the amount of loons on the internet thinking anything and everything can fit into "neo-Darwinism", that is the real straw man argument, no matter what is presented you will still say it is some
  11. Still ignored the papers and the table I see. Speechless on the matter. Interesting, I have never heard of it, so it must of not had much media coverage but I agree does look like an important event considering the European Society for Evolutionary Biology were there. Do you have a listing of the scientists who spoke at this meeting, and what they were actually discussing? Here is the program for the events: http://www.confersen...012/program.htm This is pretty EMBARRASSING, a live rapper rapping to evolution at one of the events, pointless poster sessions, note
  12. The below chart proving how many parts of the neo-Darwinian synthesis have been replaced by a more modern synthesis in the 21 century. For a close view of the table and references for this scientific evidence, please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm....84144/table/T1/ From The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? by Prof Eugene Koonin. http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2784144/ There are another 100 of so papers saying similar things how evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism since 2007. Only internet users deny this evidence, ignore it and don't even
  13. The paradigm shift IS occuring within evolutionary biology at the moment, not only have I been invited to some of these meetings and conferences as a student there is also many recent books and publications out on the subject. Once again you have IGNORED the evidence (see my post koonin et al) explaining the shift beyond neo-Darwinism, this has been happening since 2007 and can be trace back even to the 80s. So yes in REALITY the paradigm has occured and IS occuring as I type this. But no this is not accepted on internet forums, becuase most folk on internet forums are NOT scient
  14. No, its based on the scientific evidence which users on internet forums are not aware about or either ignore. Here is the evidence evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian framework. Eugene Koonin Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475 and Eugene Koonin, Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics, Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034 Writes: Koonin also states in the above paper "The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair".
  15. Journals like that are written by different scientists, look up those specific articles or papers etc and check out who they are written by. The paper for example Replacing and additive horizontal gene transfer in streptococcus is a very interesting paper about the role of HGT in bacteria. I just had a long debate the other day with a "neo-Darwinian" and he told me HGT has little to no role in evolution. The other paper you cite Evolutionary dynamics and functional specialization of plant paralogs formed by whole and small-scale genome duplications is about the role of genome duplica
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.