by metatron 7 Replies latest jw friends
See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong
This is exactly where research needs to go - it sounds like Lamarck Reborn! Australia proves that evolution happened but not HOW it happened!
Life is far more clever than we know. This sort of thing agrees with the concept of Pantheism, IMHO.
metatron
I had planned on reading the entire article, but when the writer quoted MF'ing Ann Coulter(!!!) displaying her utter ignorance about evolution, logic, and life in general, and then posited that her comments were "a reasonable criticism of some pop-Darwinism," I almost wretched.
So, as I'm unable to finish the article, though I'm only a few paragraphs from the end--please explain how this intersects with pantheism in your estimation, as I see no overlap personally.
Oliver Burkeman lives up to his name.
His ill informed article was exposed by a proper science journalist at the Guardian, Adam Rutherford at this link
Alas, in his feature, Oliver Burkeman has given, in my view, an insufficiently critical airing to some specious arguments put forward in a new book entitled What Darwin got Wrong. Authors Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini are not evolutionary biologists, and have attempted to scrutinise evolutionary theory whilst simultaneously misrepresenting it.
Fodor and Palamarini's book was thoroughly refuted in this article in The Boston Review
Jerry Coyne has commented on this in his blog last week
Burkeman is not even a science writer—he’s a “features” writer. What business does he have telling the public that everything they know about evolution is wrong? He appears to be motivated far more by an animus against Richard Dawkins, and a desire to write catchy and sensationalistic science journalism, than by a desire to get the facts. Burkeman is an ignorant fool. He belongs not at the Guardian but on page 3 of the Sun, where he can exaggerate and hyperventilate to his heart’s content.
Epi. Genetics.
Horizontal. Gene. Transfer.
BTS
Horizontal Gene Transfer: especially in the earliest stages of life in the microbial world
Epigenetics: I have to admit that this phenomenon could in a sense roughly validate Lamark's view. This wasnt the model of genetics I learned as an undergrad but fascinating.
Exactly. If new experiments prove Lamarck was right, it could change everything. Evolution would make much more sense.
metatron
I'd like to see if there's more experimental evidence for epigenetics thats for sure. Epigenetics may be an additional new mode of change above and beyond the neo-darwinian one that we all know if. I've come across that generational study on one relatively isolated group and their obesity vs other surrounding populations. Curious.
However the classic experiments on bacteria and antibitoic resistance is rock solid that the mutations come first in that case anyway. Which is why I feel the standard neodarwinian model is still the main and basic mean of change.
I am with you, metatron - but I fail to see how Lamarckism could explain NEW species? Explaining micro evolution, yes, no problem - but macro?
