Interbane wrote: Will the paradigm of evolution change? Possibly, but the true agnostic will admit that this is something we can't know. What we do know is that if evolution is to undergo a paradigm shift, it will not shift backwards. To say that evolution doesn't explain whales, as Flann mentions, is simply false. Any paradigm shift that evolution may possibly undergo will not make it true.

I've used the analogy of a river before. The fact that erosion is much simpler than evolution isn't a mark against this analogy. I'm picking a simple analogy to explain a complex point. We haven't witnessed a river carving a canyon. All we've ever seen is "micro" erosion. But how can micro erosion possibly explain "macro" erosion? You can see the parallel arguments.

What theists fail to see here is that the process itself is an explanation of instances of things; of whales, of germs, of humans. We haven't witnessed the erosion of the grand canyon. Yet we understand the process of erosion well enough to know that it's capable of creating a canyon. We know the process creates instances of things, even if we've never seen it happened.

Why is it false,Interbane?
What needs to be demonstrated is that the mechanisms of random variation and natural selection,and you can add on whatever other factors many biologists now think are involved,are sufficient and capable of producing the kinds of coordinated changes for a land dwelling mammal to evolve into a whale.
There are time constraints also. You can question Sternberg's data assumptions but even if you were massively over generous you still have a whopping inadequacy.
Two coordinated mutations would take 43 million years he thinks to become fixed in a population.
How many coordinated mutations do you think would be required to transform entire biological systems of animals from land mammal to whale? Surely vast numbers.
And how do partial changes to these systems actually work if it's gradual and incremental?
Your river canyon analogy is not the same. Where there is severe flooding such comparable phenomena can be observed though on a lesser scale.
Hydrolics are measurable in terms of force and volume and effects on various materials.
What you have in evolutionary theory is an extrapolation which laboratory work with fruit flies and bacteria do not indicate will produce fundamental changes in the nature in these things.

Flann wrote:What needs to be demonstrated is that the mechanisms of random variation and natural selection,and you can add on whatever other factors many biologists now think are involved,are sufficient and capable of producing the kinds of coordinated changes for a land dwelling mammal to evolve into a whale.

This is like saying we must demonstrate how water could have eroded granite before certain canyons are explained. No Flann, it simply isn't necessary. You missed my point entirely. You're imagining a false ceiling on what evolution can do, in spite of what we see it's capable of.

For example, we've seen speciation in under a century. I've posted a dozen or so links twice before to these examples. Such speciation has multiple parallel mutations that have occurred. And here you believe the lone wolf who says multiple mutations need 43 million years to happen? Pay attention to reality and the argument falls apart.

ant wrote:Science has not announced where the origin of life occurred. You might want to send them a selfie and ask for it to be published in Nature mag before someone beats you to it.

On any planet where life is found, that life is also evidence that it originated on that planet. It is not proof, but it is obviously evidence. Only someone who doesn't understand what the word "evidence" means would argue otherwise.

ant wrote:I think maybe Berlinski is convinced the current theory of evolution is an oversimplified explanation of the enormous complexity of life and most certainly is not near an explanation for the origin of life.

That's to be expected. Life is complex. Though the Greeks intuited evolution long before Darwin, for the sake of simplicity, let's say Darwin got things rolling. Almost immediately evolutionary theory was taken up by the science of genetics. And in the 150 years since we've learned about other mechanisms that come into play. This doesn't mean Darwin was wrong, as creationists desperately want to believe, only that evolutionary theory is delving further into how evolution works. Science is always a work in progress. We never get to a point and say, okay we're finished. This attitude that the whole theory is about to be tossed out for a newer, better theory is based on motivated ignorance.

So, of course the current theory of evolution is an oversimplified explanation. Just as Newtonian physics was an oversimplified explanation. But Newtonian physics is still correct up to a point. It was the best theory at the time. General Relativity doesn't supplant Newton's laws, but delves more deeply into the complex nature of the universe.

But even that's a poor comparison to evolutionary theory because there are no competing theories, nothing on the horizon that threatens to supplant evolutionary theory. Nothing at all. It's silly to say that evolution is due for a paradigm change when all of the basic conclusions of evolutionary theory continue to be supported by the evidence. Evolution is already a fact, something even Chesterton acknowledged 100 years ago. The theory, of course, will continue to be refined. I remember some time back, Flann posted something about epigenetics, saying that it "challenges aspects of the the reigning paradigm of neo Darwinism." No it actually doesn't. It adds another piece to a puzzle that will never actually be finished.

But even that's a poor comparison to evolutionary theory because there are no competing theories, nothing on the horizon that threatens to supplant evolutionary theory. Nothing at all. It's silly to say that evolution is due for a paradigm change when all of the basic conclusions of evolutionary theory continue to be supported by the evidence

Then you need to respond to scientists that do with your own publication, Geo.

This isn't actually about a new competing theory. It's about a conceptual change.
And you obviously are not familiar with history and how paradigms come and go, or what the definition of a paradigm is.
Rather than arrogantly dismissing it as silly you should educate yourself.

It's so ironic how religious you people are about Darwinian Evolution.
Seriously. Whenever certain aspects of it are questioned you all become religious fanatics.
It's getting real old.

ant wrote:Then you need to respond to scientists that do with your own publication, Geo.

This isn't actually about a new competing theory. It's about a conceptual change.

The theory will, of course, undergo continued conceptual changes. That's exactly my point. That's why I said it's a work in progress. You're chasing your own tail, Ant.

ant wrote: It's so ironic how religious you people are about Darwinian Evolution.
Seriously. Whenever certain aspects of it are questioned you all become religious fanatics.
It's getting real old.

Holy shit, that's what you get out of above post? Did you even read it? Talk about missing the point.

Here's from the Nature article:

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.

Plasticity is something that also mystifies neuroscience. The world "mystify" usually ties atheist's panties into knots because of their insecurities, but it truly is a fitting word.
How the environment influences plasticity and what the mechanism is that controls it is exemplified I think by the appearance, disappearance and reappearance of a trait.
I think Darwinian evolution fails to address this, but attempts to with ad hoc explanations. I'm not familiar with what some might be.

I guess the explanation for fetal development is simply "It's an algorithm" or "it's silly to question it - it just does"

The theory will, of course, undergo continued conceptual changes. That's exactly my point.

Then why are you acting bitchy about it and dismissing it as silly?

I specifically used the words "conceptual change" "lens" "paradigm" and that didn't clue you in?
Did you even read the link I provided to the Nature article? There were two opposing views.

Your reactions are so predictable. Despite my saying what I did you still had to get stuffy and cranky about it like an insecure atheist that doesn't want his world attacked.

seriously, these overreactions and creationist witch hunts whenever darnwinism is mentioned are really old now.


Really.., part of the reason this type of atheism is rejected in society is because of its haughty zealotry.
There's nothing modest about you or any of your teammates here.

Interbane wrote:For example, we've seen speciation in under a century. I've posted a dozen or so links twice before to these examples. Such speciation has multiple parallel mutations that have occurred. And here you believe the lone wolf who says multiple mutations need 43 million years to happen? Pay attention to reality and the argument falls apart.

I think Sternberg was saying based on population genetics and data in relation to mutations that it takes 43 million years for two coordinated mutations to become fixed in a population.
There can be innumerable mutations and multiple mutations in a century but that's not the same thing.
You're saying the process itself is the proof of macro-evolution but as I said the lab work with fruit flies and bacteria suggest limits to variation.
You talk about speciation but this would be exampled in something like finches, who are still finches and birds. Right?
Here's the paper Sternberg used in relation to mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... ool=pubmed

I think the time scales are so large it's nearly impossible to adequately predict anything with any reliability.

I couldn't understand the mathematical modeling Berlinksi was talking about briefly.
Could you, Flann?

ant wrote:I couldn't understand the mathematical modeling Berlinksi was talking about briefly.
Could you, Flann?

I took it he was saying these must be very many changes given the constraints of sea versus land life,ant.
I suppose this challenges the time restrictions and the element of coordination is important given changes to physical systems.
It also implies very large numbers of intermediates.
I guess he's saying just count all the changes needed and fit it into your paradigm and time frame.
I linked the article by Durett and Schmidt in my previous post to show what Sternberg was working from.
A bit technical for me but Sternberg wasn't just pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
I agree with you that there are contemporary biologists challenging the neo -Darwinian model though they don't see this as a challenge to macro-evolution per se and neither does Sternberg in fact.