Sunday, September 14, 2014

Evolutionist Says Evolution’s “Traditional Framework” Must Go

Is This the Third Stage?

Why is it that the same structures in similar species are constructed, during embryonic development, in different ways? Why is it that the master control genes which direct the embryonic development of complex structures, such as the eye, must have arisen long before those complex structures arose, if evolution is true? One might have thought that the much celebrated field of evodevo (the study of the evolution of embryonic development) might have resolved such thorny questions. Instead it seems to have simply raised more questions about evolutionary theory. In fact one recent review reads like something out of the Intelligent Design movement:

much research in contemporary evodevo remains steeped in a traditional framework that views traits and trait differences as being caused by genes and genetic variation, and the environment as providing an external context in which development and evolution unfold. … we remain rather convinced that organisms, traits, and differences in traits reside in, and are controlled by, genes and genetic variation. … [evolutionary thinking entails] the basic notion that the essences of organisms, traits, and trait differences ultimately reside in genes and genetic variation and that development is determined and directed by genes or their immediate products.

This was written by an evolutionist and his point was that this “traditional framework” is a clearly a problem that needs to be rectified. Strange, that is exactly what skeptics of creation by chance have been saying for years.

As the old saying goes:

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed;
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

Perhaps we are moving into the third stage.


  1. It is interesting to note that, while they concede that,,,

    "genes do not “code” for form"

    they still try to save 'variation of form' with this argument,,

    "form emerges out of an interaction between gene products and environment",,,
    "change arises through heritable changes in developmental systems enabled by environmental and genetic contributions'

    Thus, despite their concession that genes are not the be all, end all, explanation for morphology, as envisioned by the modern synthesis, they still think morphological 'form' is ultimately reducible to some type of 'interlocking' materialistic framework in which, "change arises through heritable changes in developmental systems enabled by environmental and genetic contributions",,,
    This is simply wrong. Developmental systems are now shown to be highly resistant to change. Far more resistant to variation than genes themselves are,,, (Stephen Meyer - Darwin's Doubt, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, etc..)

    A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013
    Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." -
    Eric Davidson

    Stephen Meyer - Responding to Critics: Marshall, Part 2 (developmental Gene Regulatory Networks) - video

    Moreover, 'form', or a body plan, is not completely reducible to a materialistic framework, but is something that transcends the material substrate and dictates the 'morphological boundaries' in which genes, proteins, etc.., can be expressed. (Stephen Talbott).

    Excerpt: ,,, The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?”
    The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.

    Thus, while their honesty about the inadequacy of the gene-centric view of the modern synthesis, (neo-Darwinism), is refreshing, their paper still fails to appreciate how complete the separation is between ANY type of reductive materialism and the unlimited variation of 'form' that was originally envisioned by Charles Darwin.

    1. OT: From whales to larvae, study finds common principles at work in swimming - Sept. 15, 2014
      Excerpt: At nearly 100 feet long and weighing as much as 170 tons, the blue whale is the largest creature on the planet, and by far the heaviest living thing ever seen on Earth. So there's no way it could have anything in common with the tiniest fish larvae, which measure millimeters in length and tip the scales at a fraction of a gram, right?
      Not so fast,,,
      ,,,the researchers found that the swimming speed of virtually every organism, from fish larvae to frogs to birds, amphibians and even whales, could be described by one of the two equations.
      The same also held true, Mahadevan said, when Gazzola created complex computer models to solve the governing equations of fluid dynamics to describe how different organisms swim.
      "What is particularly interesting is that all the organisms essentially reach the hydrodynamic limits of performance," he said. "Our simple theory, which doesn't distinguish in any detailed way between something like a blue whale and fish larvae, except in the parameters of how large you are, much you move and how quickly you move, can describe all this diversity. That suggests there are general principles at work here." (such a principle as say,, 'all these creatures were designed to 'reach the hydrodynamic limits of performance?')

  2. I'm not sure this is favorable to ID or not? From reading the article I suspect that Armin Moczek despite favoring a new framework is still likely to favor naturalistic explanations.

    Besides, if ID proponents such as yourself have issues with evolution why don't you propose new research frameworks like this of your own rather than wait for mainstream science to do this?

    Mozcek suggests three different complementary theories. What do you think of them? What would you suggest instead?

  3. "I'm not sure this is favorable to ID or not? From reading the article I suspect that Armin Moczek despite favoring a new framework is still likely to favor naturalistic explanations."

    Well of course. He would lose his job or be bullied into quitting if he were to be less than negative towards ID.

    As a scientist, he feels he must have a totally natural explanation for the effect in question, therefore his proposed ideas have nothing to do with ID.

    But so what? The fact is that what he is saying DOES agree with or fit together nicely with ID ideas.

    1. I suspect the reason his ideas have nothing to do with ID is because he sees no relevancy or explanatory power in ID. But we would have to ask him.

      The point still remains - why aren't IDers providing these ideas for new frameworks? If the ID camp is correct and that one day evolution is going to just collapse, what will replace it? The ID community should be leading here, but it seems content to just throw rocks and not actually offer any constructive ideas.

    2. JD:

      I guess you haven't read my ideas, such as:

    3. JDR...
      Isn't it kind of like "throwing rocks" to say ID is just "throwing rocks"? Or is it Ok just when you do it?

  4. CH: "I guess you haven't read my ideas, such as:"

    I think this is good. You should write more positive pieces like this, so it's notable that this from over two years ago. If you are trying to influence mainstream science (not sure), I think they are more likely to be persuaded by positive suggestions of possible new research than criticism. But if you are trying to make people listen to you, please dispense with the "religion drives science" schtick. It's not a compelling argument and really doesn't add anything to the conversation, particularly if you are trying to change minds.

    1. JD:

      It's not a compelling argument ...

      Yes, it may not be compelling. It is, however, true.

    2. If you say so, then must be so! I don't wish to be mean, but the irony behind using this argument is pretty amusing.

  5. The more serious research is done the more evolution will be undone.
    A prediction.