stahrwe wrote:Yes, yes, yes, absolutely no reason to question ANYTHING about evolution. Not sure how things veer close to creationism. It's a bit like being a little bit pregnant.
Why not make a list of points of contention, put evolution and move on instead of worrying the same point to exhaustion?
By all means, question evolution. What aspect of evolution do you question, Stahrwe? It would be a refreshing change of pace to talk specifics.
I was merely responding to Ant's assertion that evolution needs an “overhaul.” That’s the word he used. I brought up the following specific points:
1) So far the evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory. There's no real debate here (except those imagined by creationists) and thus no need to challenge our basic assumptions (paradigms).
2) There's no arbitrary timetable that says the theory has to explain everything on the "micro level" or it needs revamping.
3) Evolutionary theory continues to be refined and branch out in new directions. Just as it's supposed to do. Since Ant claimed that natural selection doesn't go far enough to explain the changes of gene frequency in a population (the domain of micro-evolution), I pointed out that natural selection is only one mechanism being studied. And that, for example, mutation and genetic drift also can influence changes in gene frequency.
Ant also stated that evolutionary theory doesn't "adequately" explain embryonic development. “Adequate” for whom? That's a red herring if I ever saw one.
So then I asked Ant again, specifically, is evolutionary theory in crisis. More or less he referred to an article by Massimo Pigliucci. I've read the article and I don't think Pigliucci is saying that evolution is in crisis or in need of a paradigm shift. He seems to be saying that it needs further refinement and clarification (a new conceptual lens), which is exactly what has been happening with evolutionary theory for the past 150 years?
I think we are far from needing an overhaul (paradigm shift) in evolutionary theory. But if we ever do, bring it on. The sooner the better.
Hey, here's that article by Pigliucci:
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/201 ... ry-theory/
His conclusion:
In the end, of course, it doesn’t matter what we call it. Phenotypic plasticity, evolvability, epigenetics, niche construction, facilitated variation and all the rest are here to stay. But, we do usually label different versions of scientific theories with different names, and for good reasons. They mark significant advances in our understanding of the world, and of course recognize the work that went into making those advances, as well as the people who did that work. There certainly is no need for antagonism, on either side of the divide, we can and should all work together to further biological research. But it is hard to see what could possibly justify — given all of the above and much, much more — this recalcitrance to recognize that biology is entering a new phase of its history. It’s a very exciting phase, and one that will, thankfully, soon be in the hands of todays’ graduate students and young researchers.
Note that Pigliucci says that biology is already entering a new phase. There's hesitation by some in the academic community to acknowledge that new phase. That's where the bickering comes in. This is all highly esoteric stuff. This is not a theory in crisis, which would be the prelude to a paradigm shift.
Okay, that last paragraph is point #4.