Had Evolution Moved Beyond Neo-Darwinism?

[sman]

Firstly you need to assume good faith and perhaps read over the posts in this thread again. Nowhere did I say "Darwinism no longer exists"

 

There is no such thing as Darwinism anymore, that truely is dead...

 

You[Rade] are ignoring this becuase this is what happens when you clearly subscribe to a dogmatic framework and you choose to ignore any evidence against that view...

 

So, I may have been paraphrasing loosely - from memory - but I wasn’t making it up.

 

Perhaps I’m bias; prejudice; jaded by experiences with evolution trolls, but when someone comes on hypography with a many-thread campaign against Darwin/Darwinism and shows little interest in anything else here... I think “troll”. Like I said, maybe I’m wrong. You should show me so.

 

The good faith you ask of me is instantiated in the post you quote - and by the fact that I’m giving you my time at all.

[forests]

So, I may have been paraphrasing loosely - from memory - but I wasn’t making it up.

 

Perhaps I’m bias; prejudice; jaded by experiences with evolution trolls, but when someone comes on hypography with a many-thread campaign against Darwin/Darwinism and shows little interest in anything else here... I think “troll”. Like I said, maybe I’m wrong. You should show me so.

 

The good faith you ask of me is instantiated in the post you quote - and by the fact that I’m giving you my time at all.

 

No comment about any part of my other post? Infact you have not commented on the topic of the OP at all. I think we should keep to the topic of the thread.

 

Let's go back to your comment about Darwinism, first please define "Darwinism", you would find it means evolution by natural selection and nothing else. That is over 130 years ago when a certain group of scientists knew very little about evolution. No scientist today would describe themselves as a believer in just "Darwinism". There are many more mechanisms than just natural selection now. So in a strict sense yes "Darwinism" is dead and if you look back a few pages you should quote the rest of my post not just a selective quote mine. There is nothing wrong with that statement. Many scientists have even proposed neo-Darwinian is outdated, incomplete or has been replaced, are you going to call all of these scientists trolls?

 

In the period between 1930 and 1950 we discovered more about genetics and the neo-Darwinian synthesis was invented which merged evolution via natural selection with population genetics. But once again that is outdated now, that is over 70 years ago.

 

Now don't just disgard what here I say here actually read this:

 

Here is Eugene Koonin in 2009 who has claimed evolution HAS moved beyond neo-Darwinism you can read his paper here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/ or here http://bama.ua.edu/~rlearley/Koonin_2009.pdf

 

A couple of quotes for you with highlighted words.

 

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.

 

more

 

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.

 

also

 

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.

 

 

See 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

 

By the way Koonin also states in the above paper "The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair".

 

Are you going to call Koonin a troll as well just becuase he has proposed evolution has moved beyond a strict Darwinian framework?

[forests]

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

[forests]

Sman I know you are ignoring posts becuase you want to ignore the evidence but what is your comments on the following paper?

 

The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis

 

Michael R Rose1* and Todd H Oakley2

 

Abstract: 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.

 

Please read the entire paper here: http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/30/

 

And check out the section called "Dead parts of the Modern Synthesis"

 

Both Rose and Oakley are highly qualified biologists, so are you calling them trolls as well, just becuase they have proposed evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian limited framework? You do realise science isn't static don't you?

[sman]

Sman I know you are ignoring posts becuase you want to ignore the evidence but ...

 

No, I’m ignoring you, because I feel my comments, and the time I spend expounding them, will go unheeded/unappreciated. My time on hypography must be shoehorned in between jobs, home projects, family-time... etc - you know how it is. So I just need to know that this thread is worth my time. When I suggested that you “show me” that you’re not a troll, your subsequent three posts are not what I had in mind. I was looking for something like: “geeze, I’m sorry if it seems like I’m trolling... I could be off-base... I’m really just here to try & understand these things better...” or anything like that. And, certainly, offending members does not encourage their participation. I can think of many other ways to phrase the above quote.

 

Both Rose and Oakley are highly qualified biologists, so are you calling them trolls as well, just becuase they have proposed evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian limited framework?

 

Trolling =/= disagreement. What I mean by the term is, strictly, internet troll. I would broaden the definition to include anyone who elicits responses from forum members without really intending to learn from them, thus wasting our time. So, no, Oakley & Rose would not be considered trolls. Aggrandizers, sensationalists - maybe, but not trolls. Not, at least, until they come ‘round here & start trolling.

Edited October 3, 2012 by sman

[forests]

According to wikipedia:

 

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[3] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum

 

I think that description would fit you Sman ie posting the off topic messages part. Face it you came to this thread and ignored every scientific paper I cited, is that open minded? You did not come to this thread to discuss or learn, you came to spout personal attacks. You were then asked kindly to give your comments on these papers twice but you still ignored them. You obviously did not like what was in the papers so then resorted to calling me a troll. Your anti-scientific behavior has been exposed. And please don't bother replying again becuase nothing you post is on-topic and you refuse to comment on any of the cited scientific papers. Your behavior is no different than a religious creationist who refuses to even look at any of the evidence, and it is very disappointing to see this on a science forum.

[Eclogite]

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

I find this post puzzling. Given the title of the thread and your early posts in it, the implication here is that justification of your implicit thesis is provided, in part, by these authors. If that is the case many of their hypotheses can be dismissed as irrelevant to evolution as currently seen. If it is not the case then why even mention them? Perhaps you can de-puzzle me.

[forests]

If it is not the case then why even mention them? Perhaps you can de-puzzle me.

 

There is much evidence for the non-Darwinian mechanisms which James A. Shapiro lists, scientific papers showing so etc, ie for saltationism, directed mutagenesis, hybridization or symbiogenesis etc. These mechanisms and processes have been denied and ignored by the neo-Darwinian synthesis, but many new researchers are studying these mechanisms again and instead of denying them are calling for a new synthesis which incorporates these mechanisms.

[maddog]

Well saltation is evolution by jumps or large changes opposed to any strict gradual basis, a recent mechanism which was proposed was a form of saltational symbiosis and the evolutionary biologist Frank Ryan discusses it in his papers and his book "Darwin's Blind Spot" I am currently researching this at the moment so hopefully I will be able to discuss it in more detail.

Ok using this definition of Saltational type of Evolution (jumps), I would like to know more about the "leap" life took when the symbiosis between cellular life (bacteria) and mitochondrial like life into the type of cellular life we call the class of eukaryote cellular life. Do we know anything about how this whole thing/process came about ? When was approximate 1 billion years or so I was told. If Archea type of life is even older how did that come into play?

 

Call me curious... B)

 

maddog

[Eclogite]

Forests, the issue here is that your definition of Darwinisim is so narrow that your case is automatically proven. Apply an appropriate definition that recognises the evolution of evolutionary theory and your entire argument evaporates. That is an assertion I shall justify with a longer post in the next day or two.

[forests]

I would like to know more about the "leap"

 

If you search, you should be able to find this information. I will personally message you a scientific paper about this I was sent recently.

 

Forests, the issue here is that your definition of Darwinisim is so narrow that your case is automatically proven. Apply an appropriate definition that recognises the evolution of evolutionary theory and your entire argument evaporates.

 

Nobody is talking about Darwinism in this thread, we were talking about neo-Darwinism also known as the "modern synthesis". You know what that model of evolution says, this information can easily be found infact Ernst Mayr even summarised "neo-Darwinism" in 5 bullet points. Now one of these points he said that "saltational events" never occur and that all evolution is gradual. We know Mayr and the other neo-Darwinists have been wrong on this (saltational evolution is a reality) and that has already been explained why the neo-Darwinian limited model is wrong for denying evolutionary mechanisms and that evolution is far more complex than those scientists believed, but we have to remember the neo-Darwinian synthesis was presented in the 1940's, it is outdated.

 

There are a group of scientists calling for an extended evolutionary synthesis, see here:

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis

 

But there are others calling for a totally new synthesis, see here:

 

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

Edited October 20, 2012 by forests

[forests]

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. Autopoiesis and Natural Drift: Genetic Information, Reproduction, and Evolution Revisited. Artifical Life. 10/3, 2004.

 

Gilbert, Scott and Sahorta Sarkar. Embracing Complexity: Organicism for the 21st Century. Developmental Dynamics. 219/1, 2000.

 

Gilbert, Scott, et al. Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology. Developmental Biology. 173/357, 1996.

 

Gilbert SF. Developmental Biology. 6th edition.

 

Hoffmeyer, Jesper. Origin of Species by Natural Translation. Petrilli, Susan, ed. Translation Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003.

 

Jablonka, Eva. Extending Darwinism. Seed. October, 2008.

 

Jablonka, Eva and Marion Lamb. Evolution in Four Dimensions.

 

Karsenti, Eric. Self-Organization in Cell Biology. Nature Reviews: Molecular Cell Biology. 9/3, 2008.

 

Mattick, John. A New Paradigm for Developmental Biology. Journal of Experimental Biology. 210/9, 2007.

 

Maze, Jack, et al. The Virtual Mode: a Different Look at Species. Taxon. 54/1, 2005.

 

Muller, Gerd. Where EvoDevo Goes Beyond the Modern Synthesis.

 

Muller, Gerd and Stuart Newman, eds. Origination of Organismal Form. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003

 

Pennisi, Elizabeth. Modernizing the Modern Synthesis. Science. 321/196, 2008.

 

Pigliucci, Massimo. An Extended Synthesis for Evolutionary Biology.

 

Pigliucci, Massimo. Do We Need an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis? Evolution. 61/12, 2007.

 

Pigliucci, Massimo and Gerd Muller, eds. Evolution – the Extended Synthesis. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010.

 

Ramalho-Santos, Miguel. Stem Cells as Probabilistic Self-producing Entities. BioEssays. 26/9, 2004.

 

Waddington, C. H. 1953a. Genetic assimilation of an acquired character. - Evolution, 7: 118-126.

 

Whitfield, John. Postmodern Evolution? Science. 455/281, 2008.

 

Woese, Carl. A New Biology for a New Century. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 68/2, 2004.

 

Kauffman, Stuart A., 1993, Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.

 

Gould, Stephen Jay, 1982, Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory, Science, 216:380-387.

 

Eldredge, Niles, 1985, Unfinished Synthesis: Biological Hierarchies and Modern Evolutionary Theory, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.

 

Carroll, R. L. 2000 Towards a new evolutionary synthesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15, 27-32.

 

Gregory, T. R. 2005 Macroevolution and the genome. In The Evolution of the Genome (ed. T. R. Gregory), pp. 679-729. San Diego: Elsevier.

 

Johnson, N. A. & Porter, A. H. 2001 Toward a new synthesis: population genetics and evolutionary developmental biology. Genetica 112, 45-58.

 

Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN and Feldman MW (2003) Comments on Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

 

Salthe, S. N. 1985. Evolving Hierarchical Systems: Their Structure and Representation. New York: Columbia University Press.

 

Calling for a new synthesis:

 

Rose MR, Oakley TH (2007) The new biology: Beyond the Modern Synthesis. Biol Direct 2:30.

 

Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009.

 

Goodwin, Brian. Beyond the Darwinian Paradigm. Ruse, Michael and Joseph Travis, eds. Evolution: the First Four Billion Years. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009.

 

Goodwin, Brian. How the Leopard Changed Its Spots. New York: Scribner’s, 1994.

 

Fodor, Jerry and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini. What Darwin Got Wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010.

 

Kull K. 1999. Outlines for a post-Darwinian biology. - Folia Baeriana 7, 129-142.

 

Reid, Robert G. B. Biological Emergences. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007.

 

Shapiro, James. A 21st Century View of Evolution: Genome System Architecture, Repetitive DNA, and Natural Genetic Engineering. Gene. 345/1, 2005.

 

Shapiro, James. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press Science, 2011.

 

Webster, Gerald and Brian Goodwin. Form and Transformation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

 

Wasserman, Gerhard D., 1981, On the Nature of the Theory of Evolution, Philosophy of Science, 48:416-437.

 

Ho, Mae-Wan and Saunders, Peter T. (eds.), 1984, Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm, Academic Press, London.

 

Pollard, Jeffrey W. (ed.), 1984, Evolutionary Theory: Paths into the Future, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester and New York.

 

Weiss, Kenneth and Anne Buchanan. The Mermaid’s Tale: Four Billion Years of Cooperation in the Making of Living Things. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009.

 

Margulis, L.& Sagan, D. (2002). Acquiring Genomes, A Theory of the Origin of Species. New York: Basic Books.

Edited November 22, 2012 by forests