It would be foolish for me to try to predict what the twenty first century's theory of origins will be, but I can tell you one thing: it will be called evolution.In their new book What Darwin Got Wrong Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini argue that twentieth century evolutionary theory--the result of the forced marriage between Mendelian genetics and Darwinism--is substantially flawed. Peter Forbes's candid review of the book is worth a look. Forbes explains the crux (or at least one of the cruxes) of the problem:
The problem is that the source of novelty is so dammed elusive. Most genes don't change very much at all, even the body-plan genes seem to be very similar in the mouse and blue whale. Or, to compare even less similar creatures: a mouse gene essential for building the eye can be inserted into the fruit fly to produce a fly eye! This refutes a key prediction of Neo-Darwinism, Ernst's Mayr's statement that it would be futile to look for similar genes in different creatures. Neo-Darwinism predicted that random mutations would pile up until the genes of mice and men were as different as, say, the Finno-Ugric and the English languages.
The best bet at the moment seems to lie in the altered timing of processes involving cascades of many genes. And what alters the timing? Well, now we're at the frontline of research, and there are candidates but no certainties. One of the most dramatic possibilities is that elements of DNA have entered the germline from viruses. Putting this together with Margulis's ideas on the evolution of the ancestral single cell, we can see that viruses and bacteria are starting to loom very large in the picture of evolution.
False predictions, absence of a credible mechanism, and unfounded speculation--these well sum up evolutionary theory. Evolutionists, however, can take solace that this is a friendly attack. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are not questioning the ultimate truth of evolution. Evolution may be all wrong, but it is still true. That we know. As Forbes explains:
Given the provocative title, it's important to stress what Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini's polemic is not. From the outset, they assert that they have no quarrel with the course of evolution and its timescale, only its mechanism. Furthermore, they affirm that they are "outright, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists." For that small relief, much thanks.
Evolution may make no sense, but it will always be true. It must be, for god would never make this world. So evolution will flit from nonsensical idea to nonsensical idea in its never ending attempt to make sense. Who knows what the theory of origins will be in the future, but it will be called evolution. And it will be true. Religion drives science and it matters.
The usual suspects should be along any minute to tell you that that is how science works and of course evolution is true.....heh!
ReplyDeleteI have ordered the book and I can't wait to read it. From the quote above it seems to address the same kind of questions that I have been asking in the "Evolution of Serendipity" post.
ReplyDeleteSimply put my question is this:
Does science yet know enough about the information in the cell, where all of it is located, and how it is translated into building a body such that science can complete its rather sketchy explanation for the history of life?
My contention is that until science can get some kind of handle on this problem, the theory of evolution is an empty theory; it is an “explanation” that does not explain what it purports to explain.
Hello I comment from Spain. Here in Spain professor Maximo Sandin (University of Madrid) has been writing for year about the necessary main rol of virus and bacterias in a saltational evolution scenario.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion a saltational scenario where biological novelties arise abruptly thanks to the biological "meaning" of molecular sequences kept for millions of years in the capside of a virus is exactly what we need to vindicate overwhelming evidence for design (platonic latent patterns coming to act from potential)
Darwinism is flawed, and that does not mean that evolution as abstract filosofical hypothesis is false but it means that metaphysical consequences of darwinism (no design, only chance and necessity)are also flawed.
The mechanisms of evolution will come and go until kingdom comes, but the axiom will stay, the axiom that life in it's complexity and diversity is the result of blind material processes in one way or another with or without common descent, with natural selection as the primary driving force or as a secondary complementary force.
ReplyDelete--Johan--
Dear Johan
ReplyDeleteAs Cornelius uses to say, religion drives science, and it matters. Your axionatic sentence is the most clear proof of it.
Or, to further summarize Johan's point: the central and inviolate axiom of 'modern evolutionary theory' is, and will always be: "God didn't do it!"
ReplyDeleteIlion -
ReplyDelete"Or, to further summarize Johan's point: the central and inviolate axiom of 'modern evolutionary theory' is, and will always be: "God didn't do it!""
A beautiful summation. And it seems to me you probably do not see the irony of your own post...
"And it seems to me you probably do not see the irony of your own post..."
ReplyDeleteLet's see:
'modern evolutionary theory' is:
1) not modern
2) not evolutionary
3) not a scientific theory
That's a lot of irony, right there!
Ilion -
ReplyDelete"Let's see:
'modern evolutionary theory' is:
1) not modern
2) not evolutionary
3) not a scientific theory"
If anyone could possibly demonstrate their ignorance more poetically, I've yet to see it.
1) Modern evolutionary theory is modern. That's why it's called modern.
2) Modern evolutionary theory is evolutionary. That's why it's called evolutionary.
3) Modern evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. That's why it's called a theory.
You poor, poor, misguided person.
ReplyDelete*I* invented the phrase 'modern evolutionary theory' (years ago, on the ARN discussion board) to denote the ever-shifting anti-scientific non-falsifiable non-theory toward which Darwinists will always gravitate -- it's in quote marks to mock the pretentions of you Darwinists. That some Darwinists have adopted the phrase is amusing.
'Modern evolutionary theory' is ancient -- the central and non-negotiable core of 'modern evolutionary theory' is that "stuff happens" for no reason and to no end. The odd belief that life arose-and-developed-all-on-its-own is at the basis of classical paganism. Face it: you Darwinists hold to a primative and backward belief-system.
'Modern evolutionary theory' is anti-evolutionary -- why do you think Saint Chuckie used the combersome phrase "descent with modification?" It's because the term 'evolution' already had a meaning, a teloeological meaning.
'Modern evolutionary theory' is anti-scientific -- it's not merely that there is no scientific theory there, it's that Darwinism (in all its forms) is an impediment to the scientific enterprise. An *actual* scientific theory makes actual empirical predictions; 'modern evolutionary theory' does not. An *actual* scientific theory does not "predict" both 'A' and 'not-A' simultaneously or as being caused by the same "mechanism;" 'modern evolutionary theory' does. An *actual* scientific theory has actual mechanisms; 'modern evolutionary theory' does not, it has Just-So Stories.
Bummer for you, I'm sure.
No one is impressed by Darwinistic bluster, so you might as well just give it a rest.
ReplyDelete"*I* invented the phrase 'modern evolutionary theory'"
ReplyDeleteWHAT?!?!
The only part of that phrase that is up for negotiation is 'modern', which is a relative term.
It is perfectly respectable to talk of 'modern evolutionary theory' in the sense of 'evolutionary theory with the most up-to-date evidence and sub-theories'. For example, gene-centered evolution was only really popularized with Dawkins in the 70's. Before that, group selection was popular. Yet both are theories 'within' the theory of evolution.
Science tweaks its theories as new evidence comes to light. So it stands to reason that over time theories change slightly, whilst still retaining the central ideas which define them as theories.
"The odd belief that life arose-and-developed-all-on-its-own is at the basis of classical paganism."
Paganism is a religion! Well, maybe a collective name for tribal religions, so you could argue that it represents several religions rather than one. But it remains religion. Typically worship of the spirits of the Earth. It has nothing to do with evolution.
"Face it: you Darwinists hold to a primative and backward belief-system."
It is not a belief system if it is built on evidence, not faith. And just insisting that evolution is not built on evidence does not make it so.
"'Modern evolutionary theory' is anti-evolutionary -- why do you think Saint Chuckie used the combersome phrase "descent with modification?" It's because the term 'evolution' already had a meaning, a teloeological meaning."
You are making less and less sense. Teleological evolution is simply the belief that evolution is driven either by external or internal causes towards a final goal. As opposed to the idea that evolution is directed by random mutation. Both assume the truth that evolution happens!
But perhaps you are referring to the fact that the word 'evolution' has several meanings outside of biology. This is true. However, it is used as short-hand for 'the theory of evolution through natural selection'.
"An *actual* scientific theory makes actual empirical predictions..."
... which the theory of evolution does...
"An *actual* scientific theory does not "predict" both 'A' and 'not-A' simultaneously or as being caused by the same "mechanism..."
... which the theory of evolution does not...
"An *actual* scientific theory has actual mechanisms."
... which the theory of evolution does.
Three points which qualify the theory of evolution as a scientific theory. Though, as an aside, ID fails on these fronts and is therefore (and for other reasons) not one.
It is clear you know nothing of the theory of evolution. Quite a shame then you feel you are able to dispute it.
"No one is impressed by Darwinistic bluster, so you might as well just give it a rest."
If you are so unimpressed with it, then don't read it. After all, it's not as if you're actually going to consider what I'm saying in a fair and reasonable manner anyway...
"It is clear you know nothing of the theory of evolution."
ReplyDeleteDo you really think anyone is impressed by the "Yer stoopid!" rant that you children *always* stoop to?
According to the Holy TalkOrigins site's Introduction to Evolutionary Biology page:
"Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it."
They stamp you ignorant children out in a factory, don't they?
Ilion -
ReplyDeleteI find it laughable you accuse me of being childish after your little "I INVENTED modern evolutionary theory, so ha ha!" debacle.
And what exactly are you trying to show with your quote here? You are not a biologist, therefore you are more likely to understand it than they are? In what kind of world does your mind make sense?
My point was that you demonstrably do not understand the theory of evolution at all, and you have done nothing to counter that. I am not talking in-depth encyclopedia knowledge, but is a high school familiarity too much to ask? Apparently it is...
And exactly how much notice do you take of TalkOrigins? Or do you only look for passages you can quote-mine to make yourself look clever?
Here are a few more passages from the very same page:
"The theory of evolution and common descent were once controversial in scientific circles. This is no longer the case. Debates continue about how various aspects of evolution work. For example, all the details of patterns of relationships are not fully worked out. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community."
"Scientific creationism is 100% crap. So-called "scientific" creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution."
""Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -- Theodosius Dobzhansky"
Do you agree with these? Or do you all of a sudden (and rather conveniently) think TalkOrigins is wrong here?
It would be wise of you to hold your bravado. You are way out of your depth here.