paradigm shift is on the way for Evolution

paradigm shift is on the way for Evolution

www.scoop.co.nz

Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?
By Suzan Mazur
It's not Yasgur's Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let's call them "the Altenberg 16" – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in exis.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This may be an earth shaking change.

www.scoop.co.nz
(visit the link for the full news article)

can someone describe this in more "person to person term", evolution? change? Confused. And its a looong read. Lol.

To me this article appears to say not very much in a very long winded way.
Let me see if I have the gist of it..

Darwin was too simplistic?
Natural selection as we think about it doesn;t really apply and there is another evolutionary force at work?

It's an interesting idea and has certainly got my attention but I wish there was more flesh to what was being reported if you know what I mean.

Like nuclear_terrorism has said above, could somebody with a scientific background perhaps paraphrase this and pull out what they consider to bethe key points because I'm sttuggling with what is actually being said and that is very very rare for me (I am loathe to admit this in public, but there you go).

I was intrigued by the part about Darwin skirting the issue of where 'life' actually comes from, but I'm sure that I read somewhere it was all to do with chemical reactions in the primordial soup.

I fully expect and hope to be enlighted in a constructive way.

Cheers,.

MSP

Edit to add - another NIN fan above - always good :-)

[edit on 4-3-2008 by more_serotonin_pls]

Well this is going to catch the attention of scientist and a few christians alike. I can't wait till there papers are published, I'm a bit saddened it will be in 2009, but hopefully it will give an in-depth anaylsis of what they talked about in the conference/meeting/whatever you want to call it.

I wonder what people will say when the paper is published.

reply to post by nuclear_terrorism


The present believed mechanism that drives evolutionary change. (mutation and natural selection) Is no longer adequate, even non-existent; in the light of the latest discoveries,
and challenges brought up in debate over evolution theory.
A new paradigm must be invented. A paradigm that may be totally removed from Darwinism.
Off course, this will not include ID. Which is automatically, outlawed,
by the materialist mindset and control.

P.S. Many of the things that creationist have been accusing scientific establishment of; is admitted to, by the scientist that where interviewed. So it is worth the long read!

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Howie47]

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Howie47]

Yep - the paper will certainly be a great help.

Is it just me or are they keeping their cards very close to their chests indeed here? Makes you wonder why doesn't it?

Perhaps theya re unsure and need to discuss things? Or - perhaps, for once, we may actually witness a GENUINE paradigm shift...

Unless science now involves sitting around and talking, I don't see any paradigm shift on the way.

All the real discussions are at the moment are of the different levels of selection, and other influences on evolution. Thus, this isn't some form of creationist meeting, but a small number of scientists and philosophers talking about different influences on evolution. Thus, evo-devo, epigenetics, along with sexual, group, and natural selection.

This isn't going to give any aid to creationists (just a note for Howie). If anyone is interested (m_s_p?), Pigliucci (the meeting's organiser) published a paper on his ideas of 'extended evolutionary synthesis' a few months back, linky below:

DO WE NEED AN EXTENDED EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS?
Massimo Pigliucci

Accepted August 16, 2007

The Modern Synthesis (MS) is the current paradigm in evolutionary biology. It was actually built by expanding on the conceptual foundations laid out by its predecessors, Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. For sometime now there has been talk of a new Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), and this article begins to outline why we may need such an extension, and how it may come about. As philosopher Karl Popper has noticed, the current evolutionary theory is a theory of genes, and we still lack a theory of forms. The field began, in fact, as a theory of forms in Darwin’s days, and the major goal that an EES will aim for is a unification of our theories of genes and of forms. This may be achieved through an organic grafting of novel concepts onto the foundational structure of the MS, particularly evolvability, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetic inheritance, complexity theory, and the theory of evolution in highly dimensional adaptive landscapes.

linky

Should give an idea what is on the agenda.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]

Here are some notable quotes from this article. So you don't have to read the whole thing, so what a big shift it is.

Notable quotes, form this article.

Notable quotes, form this article.

who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence


despite the fact that organizers are downplaying the Altenberg meeting as a discussion about whether there should be a new theory, it already appears a done deal.

A central issue in making a new theory of evolution

A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it.

Stanley Salthe, a natural philosopher at Binghamton University with a Ph.D. in zoology -- who says he can't get published in the main stream media with his views


"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations

Fodor -- who told me he left MIT because he wanted to be closer to opera in New York -- essentially argues that biologists increasingly see the central story of Darwin as wrong in a way that can't be repaired.

When I called Fodor to discuss his article, he joked that he was now in the Witness Protection Program

Fodor also told me that "you can't put this stuff in the press because it's an attack on the theory of natural selection"

Thus the scramble at Altenberg for a new theory of evolution.

"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. Are you stunned?"

"Gould took issue with those who used natural selection carelessly as a mantra, as in the evidence-free "just-so stories" concocted out of thin air by mentally lazy adaptationists".

"Steve was one of the first evolutionary biologists, with Richard Lewontin, to publish the view that biology offered no plausible mechanism – a missing "theory of form," if you will – for how these genomic "blueprints" are followed in constructing phenotypes of living organisms."

Richard Lewontin resigned from NAS over the issue of one branch of NAS accepting government funds for secret weapons programs.

Curiously, when I called Kevin Padian, president of NCSE's board of directors and a witness at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial on Intelligent Design, to ask him about the evolution debate among scientists – he said, "On some things there is not a debate." He then hung up.
I also spoke with evolutionary biologist Michael Lynch at his lab at Indiana University to get his perspective on the evolution debate.

the most important factor yet to be included into evolutionary theory is self determined evolution,that behaviour drives evolution.

darwinism is very much a random process,organisms randomly adapting to surroundings when infact the organisms are making choices,they are deciding how to act thus are determining thier own evolution.the organisms that make the most benificial choices tend to be the ones who outlive and thus outbreed the others.

sure benificial mutations and chance play a part but it is self dertermined thought that drive actions thus ones behaviour and genes/evolution.why do you think animals including humans have certain behaviours called instincts?,where did they start?,they started from one,the one who had the intelligence to start that behaviour/action.

for example,a bull sees a tall shrub with a succulent flowering fruit he cannot reach,he could walk away and eat some less nutritous grass,yet if he chooses to knock the shrub down with his sturdy girth to get to the fruit he will benifit,and then he will repeat that action whenever he sees a similar shrub and learn from it and gain an advantage over the poor cows eating the gruelish grass.he will be healthier,more verile,his coat will be sauve,his eyes bright and many a lady cow will desire his fattened loins.his offspring will learn from his behaviour and reap his benifits too.eventually those that have this behavorial trait will out compete the others who dont and this actions will become dominant and thus an insinct,common to all future cows thanks to that one smart bull.




[edit on 4-3-2008 by welivefortheson]

reply to post by welivefortheson


Uh, this is incorrect. You're describing Lamarkian evolution. Giraffes grew longer necks by reaching for branches.

This is not how the process is thought to occur. There is no biochemical basis to support this.

Basically we can trace back the evolutionary roots, but we can't go in the reverse direction. IOW, we can't explain how apes may have evolved into humans. Also, we can't connect all the dots.

reply to post by Badge01


let me elaborate,im saying behaviour is an important factor,not the mechanism.

i am saying it is intellectual choices that decide behaviour,and behaviour dictates survivability thus ploferation of ones genes.im not saying behaviour dictates evolution,i am saying it creates a much higher chance ones genes will survive.

if one has a higher chance of surviving due to ones behaviour,any benificial genes created by the other mechanisms such as mutations would survive and become dominant,and since behaviour can be taught that increased probability can be localised into the social community and that community would have an advantage over the other communities who dont use that benifical behavourial trait.

think of behaviour as an exaggerator of traits,it accelerates the diversity and distinctness of genes by rewarding those who use correct behaviour.
the important factor is learnability of behaviour,benificial behaviour would be localised to ones community,the ones who learn it, compared to the ones who dont.

its an acclerator of diversity due to the the localised nature of benificial behaviour,do you understand?, i know i dont make myself clear enough very often!


evolution perhaps is the result of a multitude of factors,a very complex system.


[edit on 4-3-2008 by welivefortheson]

epigenetics would also be highly exaggerated by benificial localised behaviour due to transgenerational inheritance.

Pigliucci cites epigenetic inheritance as one of the mechanisms that Darwin knew nothing about. He says there is mounting empirical evidence to "suspect" there's a whole additional layer chemically on top of the genes that is inherited but is not DNA. Darwin, of course, did not even know of the existence of DNA.

en.wikipedia.org...

Because atheism is the fervent 'religion' of peer reviewed scientists, they got themselves bottled up in a failed paradigm due to their fanaticism. You can't even touch the idea of the slightest deviation from Darwinism without getting flamed. This my friends is how science really works, by the agreement of the scientists, not necessarily by the evidence. Don't let facts get in the way of a good theory.

Yes sometimes reality does influence science, but it happens far less than one is taught in lower education. Intelligent design is a better theory for life and will give us a better science. However since the scientists must still dogmatically reject the God of the Bible, perhaps they will welcome a pagan philosophy such as pantheism, to justify their creation. Please note that they will derive a new theory based on a committee, a consensus of eggheads and not necessarily on the facts, though perhaps some of the data might influence the outcome with any luck.

This is a very interesting article. The Holy grail of Science (Natural Selection) may not be so holy after all.

I love how the article pointed out that the majority of these scientists did not rely on grant money to continue their research. No doubt this emboldened them to say in effect "The Emperor has no Clothes!", and publicly lay bare the flaws of Natural selection.

Natural Selection has been the basic doctrine of modern Biology, although it has never been proven to drive the evolutionary process.

I am looking forward to finding what new theories may take its place.

You have my Star.

This is something that I have heard rumblings about in my Philosophy Department. It is becoming quite controversial, something many in the field of Philosophy enjoy.

Because atheism is the fervent 'religion' of peer reviewed scientists, they got themselves bottled up in a failed paradigm due to their fanaticism. You can't even touch the idea of the slightest deviation from Darwinism without getting flamed. This my friends is how science really works, by the agreement of the scientists, not necessarily by the evidence. Don't let facts get in the way of a good theory.

I agree with this statement but it implies that religion, namely Christianity, is free of this attitude. I think scientific communities along with religious communities are very susceptible to this perversion. This kind of reminds me of the whole 'earth is round' controversy. For the record I am not attacking your religious beliefs(I am religious too, often to the dismay of my peers).

I, along with many in the field of philosophy, are waiting patiently for this to be fully released.

for example,a bull sees a tall shrub with a succulent flowering fruit he cannot reach,he could walk away and eat some less nutritous grass,yet if he chooses to knock the shrub down with his sturdy girth to get to the fruit he will benifit,and then he will repeat that action whenever he sees a similar shrub and learn from it and gain an advantage over the poor cows eating the gruelish grass.he will be healthier,more verile,his coat will be sauve,his eyes bright and many a lady cow will desire his fattened loins.his offspring will learn from his behaviour and reap his benifits too.eventually those that have this behavorial trait will out compete the others who dont and this actions will become dominant and thus an insinct,common to all future cows thanks to that one smart bull.

this suggests that new offspring are taught the behavior.
that doesn't cover instinct, however, such as the worker honey bee emerging from its birth cell, and immediately knowing its various jobs, from feeding and helping the queen and drones, building the hexagonal cells, keeping the place clean and defending it, to 3 weeks later, going out in search of honey, finding the source, returning from up to three miles away, to the exact same hive, and doing a dance that gives directions to the other bees for the location of the honey. and they do all this with a brain so small, it defies logic to insist that all that data is programmed instinctually into their brains. and it certainly isn't taught to them once they hatch.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by undo]

reply to post by DINSTAAR


We are sooo in agreement man.
Anyway those are the impressions I have as well about science.
But I on the other hand am not religious.
I prefer spiritualist as I don't belong to any particular religion though I have been known to claim Wicca because I do practice ritual magick (though that is not a good word).
Sorry for the background but I felt it was relevant.

I can't wait for it too. And watch how quickly alot try to kill it.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

From the article:

"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. Are you stunned?"

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty stunning!!

reply to post by Howie47


Howie - as believers in God, we have a mission to be true to the facts, even if they make us uncomfortable. Firstly, we have to acknowledge that Natural Selection is a Law of Nature that will occur in bacteria in the lab under selective stresses and occurs peppered moths. We also have to acknowledge that the Earth is billions of years old. Yes the dating is inaccurate but even if it is a billion years out, it is still far away from 6000 years. Moreover, some of us will have to accept the Creation story as allegory (I already have accepted it as allegory/metaphor).

You have mentioned a paradigm shift in Darwinism and you are correct to an extent. However, the theory is being modified to fit other discoveries as melatonin has mentioned (evo-devo involving Hox genes for example and epigenetics). It is basically a synthesis of different scientific theoretical strands to provide a more unified feel to the evolutionary theory which has depended on mutation and natural selection for so long. It is like the Windows Update for evolutionary theory - nothing more.