darryl88

Evolutionary mechanisms

Recommended Posts

Theres been a list compiled here of over 100 alternatives to the mechanisms of the modern evolution synthesis, dont worry this has nothing to do with creationism. There appears to be some decent alternatives such as the mechanism of molecular drive, or symbiosis driving evolution instead of natural selection. see the list here (and yes theres also some metaphysical ones), what do you think about some of these?

 

Non Darwinian evolution mechanisms and their authors

Edited by darryl88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We certainly need a New Synthesis. Molecular drive and programmed responses of genomes due to environmental changes is something new and indicates that the Genome is more dynamic than we had thought and this indicates that there are mechanisms other than natural selection but any New Synthesis will not override the basic tenets of Darwinian theories.

 

There is no need for any metaphysical theories for evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may well be more to evolution than we know, but it seems that natural selection is the biggest/most efective driver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are other forms of evolution than Darwinian evoultion, in fact, tehre are even types of evolution that biological systems (as they exist) can not perform.

 

Evolution is a word that means "change", but it has many different contects it can be used in. Usually when most people talk about evoultion they mean either:

  • Change over time
  • Biological Evolution

(and mostly then mean biological evolution).

 

Basically the context is about what kind of system the "evolution" is happening to.

 

As an example, it is possible to set up a computer program where "Lamarckian Evolution" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism ) occurs. As a form of evolution, Lamarckian Evolution works, it is just that biological systems don't utilise it, so it is not used for biological evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello folks.

 

I am a University student and I have an interest in evolution. Over the past few months I have been emailing many scientists (biologists and ecologists etc) as I believe that evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian paradigm.

 

Now this is quite a confusing subject, becuase I have recieved a mixed response from different scientists. Some admit to me that neo-Darwinism is outdated and incomplete whilst some others still represent that view.

 

Eugene V. Koonin in his book 'The Logic of Chance' (The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution) is critical towards neo-Darwinism or 'Modern Synthesis' as they call it and he sees a totally new paradigm shift developing in evolution. The American biologist James A. Shapiro author of Evolution: A View from the 21st Century has also said the same thing. Some other scientists have also told me by 2020 they see neo-Darwinism as totally dead.

 

What is to be said about this? Any scientists actually in the field here can they confirm any of this? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello folks.

 

I am a University student and I have an interest in evolution. Over the past few months I have been emailing many scientists (biologists and ecologists etc) as I believe that evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian paradigm.

 

Now this is quite a confusing subject, becuase I have recieved a mixed response from different scientists. Some admit to me that neo-Darwinism is outdated and incomplete whilst some others still represent that view.

 

Eugene V. Koonin in his book 'The Logic of Chance' (The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution) is critical towards neo-Darwinism or 'Modern Synthesis' as they call it and he sees a totally new paradigm shift developing in evolution. The American biologist James A. Shapiro author of Evolution: A View from the 21st Century has also said the same thing. Some other scientists have also told me by 2020 they see neo-Darwinism as totally dead.

 

What is to be said about this? Any scientists actually in the field here can they confirm any of this? Thanks.

 

Hi,

 

Even I have interests in evolution and a book written by Dr. A.P. JHA, Professor of Zoology, who has nearly fifty published papers on genes and evolution to his credit in his book called as 'Genes and Evolution' has a seperate chapter for 'Modification Of Neo-Darwinism: The New Synthesis' and he concludes the chapter saying this:

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The mid-century (twentieth) synthetic theory was formulated and developed during 'the golden age', a period which was rich in theories, but poor in data. The present time is rich in data, but poor in theory. In view of the discoveries of the repetitive DNA sequences, multigene families, transposition, concerted evolution, programmed responses of genomes to environmental challenges unknown to Darwin, together with the discoveries in the fields of morphology, physiology and development, a whole new theory of evolution appears to be emerging. We just do not know what this new theory will be. But we know that a new consenus has emerged. Although such a consensus has emerged from the ongoing research and controversy, it has not rejected the basic tenets of Darwinism and those of the mid-century synthetic theory. Darwinism stays unpunctured. Quite likely, the synthetic theory of the twenty-first century will differ further from the present concept due to further modifications, but the process by which it will emerge will be the evolution of Darwinism rather than upheaval. The new competing theory of evolution, that will emerge in future, will be accommodated within the encompassing vision of the synthetic theory.

Edited by immortal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean "evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian paradigm". By neo-Darwinian paradigm, are you talking about the modern synthesis? Can you please describe the new paradigm of which you speak??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the naming of the theoretical bodies is quite confusing and is even used in an odd way in literature. Historically, neo-Darwinian is referred to the update on Darwin's theories that abandoned Lamarckian inheritance. What the OP refers to sounds indeed more like the modern synthesis. And currently there is indeed a strong push to integrate new findings into a new cohesive body. A major problem is that we got so much detailed molecular data that it is not trivial to create a comprehensive theoretical framework that is globally applicable.

More likely it is going to change gradually by first abandoning or reducing the relevance of parts that were found to be inaccurate and and slowly deriving principles out of the information we got and apply those instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean "evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian paradigm". By neo-Darwinian paradigm, are you talking about the modern synthesis? Can you please describe the new paradigm of which you speak??

 

Neo-darwinism also known as the modern synthesis, or synthetic theory is basically Mendelian genetics and Darwinian selection merged into a theory of evolution. The mechanisms that it proposes are random mutation + natural selection. But it had been discovered that these mechanisms are not as powerful as the neo-Darwinians first thought they were, they added in genetic drift and that is now described as the main mechanism with natural selection.

 

The New synthesis does not deny that any of these mechanisms, but it says they are inadequate to explain the biodiversity of all life on earth, the new synthesis says that neodarwinism is incomplete. The neo-Darwinian framework is limited, many new mechanisms have been discovered which do not fit into such a narrow framework and in some cases contradict neo-Darwinism. Some things which pop into mind are developmental biology (evo-devo), genomics, epigenetics, ecology, symbiosis, hox genes, natural genetic engineering, niche construction, systems biology, horizontal gene transfer, panbiogeography... neolamarckism ... & many others... as mentioned they do not all fit into a narrow neoDarwinian framework.

 

 

So what is this new synthesis and where is it developing? It is hard to say becuase currently there is no unified new synthesis at present, it just seems to be many new ideas that have been presented by many different scientists. I was recently in a long email debate with 60 scientists! And they were all pretty much arguing over which of the new mechanisms are correct and which ones are wrong...

 

Gert Korthof whos owns the website www.wasdarwinwrong.com talks about how the new synthesis is becoming visible and lists many of these new ideas.

 

 

Dr. A.P. JHA, Professor of Zoology, who has nearly fifty published papers on genes and evolution to his credit in his book called as 'Genes and Evolution' has a seperate chapter for 'Modification Of Neo-Darwinism: The New Synthesis'

 

 

Thanks for mentioning this, I am going to check it out!

Edited by darryl88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neo-darwinism also known as the modern synthesis, or synthetic theory is basically Mendelian genetics and Darwinian selection merged into a theory of evolution. The mechanisms that it proposes are random mutation + natural selection. But it had been discovered that these mechanisms are not as powerful as the neo-Darwinians first thought they were, they added in genetic drift and that is now described as the main mechanism with natural selection.

 

The New synthesis does not deny that any of these mechanisms, but it says they are inadequate to explain the biodiversity of all life on earth, the new synthesis says that neodarwinism is incomplete. The neo-Darwinian framework is limited, many new mechanisms have been discovered which do not fit into such a narrow framework and in some cases contradict neo-Darwinism. Some things which pop into mind are developmental biology (evo-devo), genomics, epigenetics, ecology, symbiosis, hox genes, natural genetic engineering, niche construction, systems biology, horizontal gene transfer, panbiogeography... neolamarckism ... & many others... as mentioned they do not all fit into a narrow neoDarwinian framework.

 

 

So what is this new synthesis and where is it developing? It is hard to say becuase currently there is no unified new synthesis at present, it just seems to be many new ideas that have been presented by many different scientists. I was recently in a long email debate with 60 scientists! And they were all pretty much arguing over which of the new mechanisms are correct and which ones are wrong...

 

Gert Korthof whos owns the website www.wasdarwinwrong.com talks about how the new synthesis is becoming visible and lists many of these new ideas.

 

 

Dr. A.P. JHA, Professor of Zoology, who has nearly fifty published papers on genes and evolution to his credit in his book called as 'Genes and Evolution' has a seperate chapter for 'Modification Of Neo-Darwinism: The New Synthesis'

 

 

Thanks for mentioning this, I am going to check it out!

 

 

This would seem to be an incredibly misleading assertion, the link you gave also gives many links to creation science which is not science but a denial of science. While "Darwinism" has changed over the years I have yet to see any evidence that anything guides evolution other than natural processes which are indeed covered if not explained in detail by the term "natural selection".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This would seem to be an incredibly misleading assertion, the link you gave also

gives many links to creation science which is not science but a denial of

science. While "Darwinism" has changed over the years I have yet to see any

evidence that anything guides evolution other than natural processes which are

indeed covered if not explained in detail by the term "natural

selection".

 

 

You may be confused. If you think Gert Korthof has anything to do with "creation science" then you have made a terrible mistake and that will probably just turn this thread into a troll zone. Gert Korthof debunks creationism on his website and his website is the only website on the internet which includes all of the updates about recent mechanisms in evolution, Korthof is well qualifed and has spent most of his life researching evolution - all of the mechanisms on his website are natural. Please see his introduction section. I think that you are not aware about the current debate within evolution, reading over his introduction section will make things clear, that is not only "one position" on evolution. Have you seen how many mechanisms there are?

 

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof.htm#C5

 

See sections "Against natural selection" and "Against gradualism" and "Extensions"

 

As you can see many scientists there with many different views wanting to extend neo-Darwinism and improve evolution.

Edited by darryl88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be confused. If you think Gert Korthof has anything to do with "creation science" then you have made a terrible mistake and that will probably just turn this thread into a troll zone. Gert Korthof debunks creationism on his website and his website is the only website on the internet which includes all of the updates about recent mechanisms in evolution, Korthof is well qualifed and has spent most of his life researching evolution - all of the mechanisms on his website are natural. Please see his introduction section. I think that you are not aware about the current debate within evolution, reading over his introduction section will make things clear, that is not only "one position" on evolution. Have you seen how many mechanisms there are?

 

 

Probably not but can you name one that is outside the paradigm of natural selection? This link is provided on that site

 

http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Perspectives/Origins_and_Creation/Creation_vs_Evolution/

 

and there is no attempt to show it as anything other than a valid critique of evolution. The title of the site is, if not misleading, inflammatory. Neo-Darwinism would include all the possible mechanisms suggested by the author of the site, the site would seem to exist only as a way for others to advertise anti science views veiled in the cloak of real science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not but can you name one that is outside the paradigm of natural selection? This link is provided on that site

 

http://www.dmoz.org/...n_vs_Evolution/

 

and there is no attempt to show it as anything other than a valid critique of evolution. The title of the site is, if not misleading, inflammatory. Neo-Darwinism would include all the possible mechanisms suggested by the author of the site, the site would seem to exist only as a way for others to advertise anti science views veiled in the cloak of real science.

 

 

As I showed above, see this Extensions, revisions & alternative evolutionary theories

 

http://home.planet.n.../korthof.htm#C5 its all there.

 

Neo-Darwinism would include all the possible mechanisms suggested by the

author of the site

 

 

read wallace arthur he explains why recent finds in evo-devo can not fit into a neo-darwinian framework, and that is why neo-darwinian framework is incomplete and needs to be extended and revised with a new synthesis. there is no conspiracy... scientists have said it. a new synthesis is needed.

 

Eugene Koonin, in his research paper, titled "Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics", published 12 Feb 2009, says:

 

 

 

"Now, 50 years after the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis, evolutionary biology undoubtedly faces a new major challenge and, at the same time, the prospect of a new conceptual breakthrough"....."By contrast, the insistence on adaptation being the primary mode of evolution that is apparent in the Origin, but especially in the Modern Synthesis, became deeply suspicious if not outright obsolete, making room for a new worldview that gives much more prominence to non-adaptive processes"......"Collectively, the developments in evolutionary genomics and systems biology outlined here seem to suggest that, although at present only isolated elements of a new, 'postmodern' synthesis of evolutionary biology are starting to be formulated, such a synthesis is indeed feasible. Moreover, it is likely to assume definitive shape long before Darwin's 250th anniversary"

 

 

http://nar.oxfordjou.../37/4/1011.full

 

 

 

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".

 

 

http://www.biology-d...content/2/1/30/

 

 

Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern SynthesisEva Jablonka and Marion J. Lambhttp://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/soft1.pdf

 

 

 

 

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 forevolutionary biology.

 

Edited by darryl88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daryl,

 

I've been considering this topic for many years - since I was also a university student, but dropped out because I read books not acceptable at the university. Since then, I did get a BS in Psychology and I did continue to study the books that are not read at universities. As a result, in 1995, I had an epiphany. I am always on the prowl via the internet for people who might enjoy or find some use for the work that I did outside acceptable forms of study.

 

My website at External advertising link removed by moderator has a quick overview of my understanding and other work online can be found by searching with the word: girasas.

 

The drawback, I think, to the work that I am doing, is that I am not so much tooting my horn and saying, "Look at this wonderful discovery I made." Instead, I am asking for help. If the view of evolution that I am presenting is correct, we need human beings to work together to bring about a new philosophy and a new outlook. Knowing a new kingdom: the girasas kingdom could be very challenging and very beneficial, but it hurts me when people instead want to shut down any channels of communication with them.

 

According to this way of thinking, a new kingdom is descending into the human world and replacing us on this planet. We, and all the natural forms around us (the angels or involving lives) are affected by the descent of a girasas kingdom. We have to figure out the details of our own ascension through the girasas (and their involving environments or angels). When one kingdom comes to earth (with angels), the other kingdom leaves. Simple concept, I know, but the details of working with new forms and a higher kingdom are what I need help with. I need to see practical solutions put into effect in the world.

 

After having an epiphany of sorts, I began to break away from the organizations which don't teach these concepts openly and work on my own to try to reach a population that could better explore this work from a practical standpoint. The organizations wouldn't teach what I have to say because they wouldn't see any benefit from teaching the work of someone like myself, but I implore you to examine the books I have studied and try to make use of the understandings I have reached.

 

If it were possible for a higher kingdom to replace the lower kingdom, then years and years ago, humans replaced evolving animals on earth and in the process our angels took away the natural forms that were being used by the "evolving animals' angels". I need help because I am a novice at science and communication living more along the lines of a student of the wisdom. I just want to see people helping each other and if I through my efforts created an opportunity for a girasas kingdom to reach unsuspecting humans, I need people to understand how I got into this position and to help me to work with possible outcomes. Do you see my position?

 

Brenda Tucker

Edited by Phi for All
Advertising link removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not but can you name one that is outside the paradigm of natural selection? This link is provided on that site

 

http://www.dmoz.org/...n_vs_Evolution/

 

and there is no attempt to show it as anything other than a valid critique of evolution. The title of the site is, if not misleading, inflammatory. Neo-Darwinism would include all the possible mechanisms suggested by the author of the site, the site would seem to exist only as a way for others to advertise anti science views veiled in the cloak of real science.

I have not read the posted websites, but I am at least partially familiar with the group(s) involved in calling for a new synthesis (I do not know anything about Gert Korthof, though). The biggest issue is still how to integrate the different kind of information we have into coherent model. I share much with Koonin's view due to the work with prokaryotic systems and the fact that the modern synthesis does not apply well to them. Among the reasons is the high rate of horizontal gene transfer (that is quite a bit of a problem to integrate in basically all models) as well as the problems applying a species concept to prokaryotes.

The point is that the modern synthesis simply does not account for the molecular data (including functions as well as sequence information). A part that is mostly accepted (again, driven by molecular information) is the neutral theory of evolution, rather than a strongly Darwinian one (in which positive selection dominates).

The problem is that many of these issues are in a certain sense subtle that one would not easily notice unless one actually works in the area (or in my case, spend coffee breaks with colleagues that do). As such it is too easy to sensationalize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it not just an explanation of how evolution happened?

 

in other words they are just working to create a description of how "everything" could have evolved

 

the "theory of evolution" is a work in progress, its not really finished and doesn’t explain all events

sort of like the "theory of everything" for biologists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is just an attempt to integrate existing knowledge into a more comprehensive theoretical framework and potentially discarding or limiting prior assumptions that are not found to be universal (e.g. species concepts and similar issues).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American biologist James A. Shapiro described the following non-Darwinian Evolutionary Scientists and their mechanisms.

 

William Bateson (1861-1926) & Huge de Vries (1848-1935): abrupt variation as a source of evolutionary novelty.

 

Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958): altering developmental processes as a source of rapid evolutionary novelty ("hopeful monsters" and Evo-Devo).

 

Barbara McClintock (1902-1992): genetic change as a biological response to danger and evolutionary novelty through genome restructuring resulting from "shocks".

 

G. Ledyard Stebbins (1906-2000): hybridization between species as a source of evolutionary novelty.

 

Carl Woese (1928- ): molecular phylogeny and the existence of at least three distinct cell kingdoms.

 

Lynn Margulis (1938-2011): cell mergers/symbiogenesis as a source of evolutionary novelty.

 

American biologist James A. Shapiro in his book Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (2011) has written that evolutionary mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer, symbiogenesis, whole genome doubling and natural genetic engineering are all non-Darwinian and can not be fitted into the modern evolutionary synthesis as the modern synthesis is still working in a Darwinian framework. Shapiro believes many of these mechanisms fit better with a saltationist school rather than Darwin's strict advocacy of gradualism via "numerous, successive, slight variations".

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Darwinian_evolution

 

 

Eugene Koonin has said that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is wrong.

 

See his papers 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

 

 

He says in these papers:

 

 

In the post-genomic era, all the major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.

 

 

The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics

of the genetic universe destroys not only the tree of life as we

knew it but also another central tenet of the modern synthesis

inherited from Darwin, namely gradualism. In a

world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss and

such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution

being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable

changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.

 

 

Equally outdated is the (neo-) Darwinian notion of the

adaptive nature of evolution; clearly, genomes show very

little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift

constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes

(much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to ask this and sound ignorant but... what's your point?

Darwin theory of evolution was written 150 years ago with only observable facts, it was pretty accurate, but not the complete picture(due to the lack of science in that era)

 

*i am not saying there was no science in the Victorian era, just not that advanced

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the less sensationalist way of putting it would be is "Evolution is more complicated than most people's understanding of Darwinian Evolution is, especially when you look at non-vertebrate organisms".

 

Most of the empirical data which support the theory behind the modern synthesis has been conducted on model animal systems. In these biological systems, the basic principles of Darwinian evolution hold up pretty well. When you start to try and apply the same principles to say, prokaryotes and viruses, you start to see a breakdown of the slow, accumulation of mutations, and a much more significant role of horizontal gene transfer, ectopic recombination, transduction, etc. appear. http://www.panspermia.org/virus.htm

 

When we start to look at the tree of life in the context of whole organism diversity, these processes of laterally distributing genetic material amongst lineages are much more prevalent than a traditional textbook might lead one to believe. http://www.pnas.org/...3/12/1116871109

 

1) I don't think biologists have been necessarily ignorant of this, nor should any be particularly surprised by it. Prokaryotes and viruses have never really fit the standard definitions of species, so an expectation that they would conform to the same governing processes doesn't really hold.

 

2) Increasing the prevalence of lateral gene transfer doesn't fundamentally change the basic underpinnings of selection on which Darwinian processes are based. Regardless of how genetic material is being moved between organisms (either laterally or vertically) the governing force which determines those that persist is environmental selection.

 

So a more realistic way of describing the new discoveries put forth as examples in the OP is probably more along the lines of "Strict models of Darwinian evolution reliant on Mendelian inheritance only hold up in a subset of biological systems and the inheritance component of evolution is more complex than that, especially in organisms where there's a lot of horizontal gene transfer."

Edited by Arete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was researching in a field that has been evolving for well over a century and had contributed to that evolution I might wish to emphasise the novelty of my contribution.

 

If I was the personality type that enjoyed, even required, battling authority I might wish to challenge the validity of the current consensus view.

 

If I had a philosophical bent and was a fan of Khun I might wish to think I was in the midst of a paradigm shift.

 

If I was a pedant who thought what we called things was more important than what they actually were, I might try to artificially classify recent advances in the field with a new name.

 

If we were a group of individuals with these viewpoints and predilictions, providing mutual support and encouragement, pretty soon we might find disciples willing to promote these concepts on science forums with posts that had titles such as Evolution is not Darwinian. But that's all hypothetical, far-fetched and unlikely to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate to ask this and

sound ignorant but... what's your point?

Darwin theory of evolution was

written 150 years ago with only observable facts, it was pretty accurate, but

not the complete picture(due to the lack of science in that

era)

 

The facts show that the neo-Darwinian synthesis (also called modern synthesis) is outdated and wrong in some areas becuase it is still working in a strict Darwinian framework. The neo-Darwinian synthesis in the 1940's attempted to reconcile genetics with natural selection. We know however that natural selection no longer has a primary role in evolution like the neo-Darwinian synthesis said becuase there are many other important mechanisms. The idea that evolution is nothing more than some mutations and natural selection like the neo-Darwinian view said is a set-back for science, we have come a long way since then.

 

There is a new synthesis being developed and it will not work in a strict Darwinian framework like the neo-Darwinian synthesis, instead it is much more open minded and not-limited to just a few mechanisms.

Edited by darryl88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

darryl88, what is it you hope to discuss that is different from the other three threads you have open on the same subject in March and again in July, and on evolutionary synthesis earlier this month?

Non Darwinian evolution theories

Has evolution moved beyond neo-darwinism?

Extended evolutionary synthesis

It's always better to simply bump one thread than to start a whole new discussion. Are you asking anything diffferent in this new thread or should we just merge the threads so all the replies are in a single, easily found and understood place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been mentioned numerous times on the boards. Molecular biology has opened up new perspectives in the study of evolution and people are trying to set up a new frame work that actually accommodate the new findings. However, considering the complex nature it is far from trivial to do so. The modern synthesis has remained popular as it is (relatively) concise. Now we find bits and pieces that cannot be easily integrated into an universal frame work that is useful for every application.

Oftentimes we are on the empirical level of things and have not yet managed to derive a higher abstraction from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.