09 Nov 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziBritish Biologist Denis Noble Debunks Neo Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
The "Modern Synthesis" (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-twentieth century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection. Any role of physiological function in influencing genetic inheritance was excluded. The organism became a mere carrier of the real objects of selection: its genes. We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual. Molecular genetics and genome sequencing have deconstructed this unnecessarily restrictive view of evolution in a way that reintroduces physiological function and interactions with the environment as factors influencing the speed and nature of inherited change. Acquired characteristics can be inherited, and in a few but growing number of cases that inheritance has now been shown to be robust for many generations. The twenty-first century can look forward to a new synthesis that will reintegrate physiology with evolutionary biology.
09 Nov 14
Originally posted by josephwAre you kidding? There is an entire political movement devoted to bringing down evolution. Evolution studies are not like NASA or the military where projects costing billions of dollars are done all across the country.
Can you imagine the financial hit the scientific community would take if they didn't keep the party line?
Not much money in the belief that the universe was created. Evolution is a very lucrative hoax.
If you tracked the money, I think you will find the anti-evolution nutters outspend the entire evolution science budget. You have a a twisted view of life.
For instance, there was a study as to why there were no papers written about creation science and the results was not a bunch of rejected papers. The result was a bunch of NOT SUBMITTED. NOBODY in science is submitting papers to the journals, you can count them on the fingers of one hand. They are simply not there.
Submissions are not summarily destroyed, they are kept just as well as the rejections.
What is not there is the number of submissions to science journals.
That would be because there IS NO SCIENCE in creationism and those Phd's you tout, all 400 of them, NONE have submitted papers for review.
ALL those Phd's you tout, they just put up video's with the built in agenda of destroying a science, not learning truth. That at the outset is the OPPOSITE of science. You start out with an agenda, you will be caught out.
Especially with BS video's that have been refuted time and again but they just keep repeating the same party line, totally ignoring any medical benefits of the study of evolution. That is politics in action, going for votes, not going for truth.
10 Nov 14
Originally posted by stellspalfieis it the mystrons captain.?
it would be even more lucrative for the scientist who could prove evolution is wrong. the scientists of the world are not a team, they have no 'party line' to tow. if one scientist can prove another wrong and make a name for himself thats exactly what he will do. to get the majority of scientist in the world to join what would be the biggest cover up in ...[text shortened]... the globe making sure that scientists dont step out of line and develop their own research?????
11 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsAdmit it, you didn't understand a word of that. I know this because nothing in that paragraph supports your beliefs, in fact, quite the opposite.
[b]British Biologist Denis Noble Debunks Neo Darwinism
The "Modern Synthesis" (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-twentieth century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection. Any role of physiological function in influencing genetic inheritance was excluded. The organism became a me ...[text shortened]... can look forward to a new synthesis that will reintegrate physiology with evolutionary biology.[/b]
11 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI admit I do not agree with his attempt to hang on to an evolutionary theory, but at least he gives evidence against the gradual random idea associated with modern evolutionary theory in his lecture.
Admit it, you didn't understand a word of that. I know this because nothing in that paragraph supports your beliefs, in fact, quite the opposite.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
11 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, he's not providing evidence, but arguments that we need to change existing paradigms, and that Neo-Darwinism is lacking expressive power to fully understand biological complexity. He's suggested a list of ten principles of systems biology. Let's see how many items you agree with:
I admit I do not agree with his attempt to hang on to an evolutionary theory, but at least he gives evidence against the gradual random idea associated with modern evolutionary theory in his lecture.
1. Biological functionality is multi-level
2. Transmission of information is not one way
3. DNA is not the sole transmitter of inheritance
4. There is no privileged level of causality
5, Gene ontology will fail without higher-level insight
6. There is no genetic program
7. There are no programs at any other level
8. There are no programs in the brain
9. The self is not an object
10. There are many more to be discovered; a genuine ‘theory of biology’ does not yet exist
He has interesting ideas yet to be examined by scientists who fully comprehend what he's talking about. Somehow I doubt you fall into that category. I know I don't.
11 Nov 14
Originally posted by C HessI agree with about 4. But as you say we don't fully understand him.
No, he's not providing evidence, but arguments that we need to change existing paradigms, and that Neo-Darwinism is lacking expressive power to fully understand biological complexity. He's suggested a list of ten principles of systems biology. Let's see how many items you agree with:
1. Biological functionality is multi-level
2. Transmission of informatio ...[text shortened]... comprehend what he's talking about. Somehow I doubt you fall into that category. I know I don't.