According to Michael Skinner; Darwin’s theory that natural selection drives evolution is incomplete without input from evolution’s anti-hero: Lamarck… Really now?!

Let’s just call this my random act of mischief for the day!                   😉

Michael Skinner, professor of biological science at Washington State University just came out with the following in the popular press:

Unified theory of evolution Darwin’s theory that natural selection drives evolution is incomplete without input from evolution’s anti-hero: Lamarck

Is it indeed time to revise the theory of evolution?  Or… Is Skinner in error and invoking a common misconceived textbook caricature of Lamarck?  IMHO: Short answers = NO! & YES!

I urge any and all to read Mark Ptashne’s insights before weighing in the discussion.

Bottom Line: Nucleosome modifications may be necessary for epigenetic responses, but they are not sufficient.

To quote PZ Myers, who cuts to the chase:

We say epigenetics is really important in development and in physiological adaptation — it’s good to know more about it, and is essential for understanding the state of the organism. But evolution? Meh. Acquiring the process of semi-permanently modifying the cell state is something that was a key innovation (OK, many innovations) in EVOLUTION [emphasis mine], but it’s been overhyped as an information transfer process on evolutionary timescales…

So who got the epigenetics story right? PZ Myers & Mark Ptashne?… or Michael Skinner?…

160 Replies to “According to Michael Skinner; Darwin’s theory that natural selection drives evolution is incomplete without input from evolution’s anti-hero: Lamarck… Really now?!”

  1. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick: More content free bluster.What’s your point in commenting here?

    Your projection is duly noted. And thanks for admitting that your position makes untestable claims.

  2. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick,

    That wouldn’t serve to falsify IDC.

    IDC exists only ion the minds of the willfully ignorant. However we have said exactly what it takes to falsify ID. Your problem is you can’t do so. And that pisses you off.

  3. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    Frankie:
    Patrick,

    IDC exists only ion the minds of the willfully ignorant.

    “cdesign proponentsists” You lose.

    However we have said exactly what it takes to falsify ID. Your problem is you can’t do so. And that pisses you off.

    I have pointed out exactly why what Behe claims as a falsification criteria fails. Your only response has been content free bluster.

  4. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick,

    That wouldn’t serve to falsify IDC.

    Yes it would.

    The problem, aside from there being no scientific theory of ID,

    That is irrelevant as a theory isn’t required before one can make testable claims.

    is that IDCists scrupulously avoid saying anything about the capabilities or limitations of their gods Designer.
    ID isn’t about the designer. That said designers are usually capable of designing the things they do

    That means that if a flagella were to appear under laboratory conditions, there is no way to confirm that god the Designer didn’t cause it to happen.

    You have just admitted that your position is untestable. Nice own goal.

    However if said flagella appeared in a step-wise fashion- meaning each generation added to its construction, then I would rule out random mutations.

  5. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick: “cdesign proponentsists”You lose.

    I have pointed out exactly why what Behe claims as a falsification criteria fails.Your only response has been content free bluster.

    Your whining is not pointing out anything. All you have done is prove your position is untestable.

  6. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick,

    “cdesign proponentsists” You lose.

    And Darwin called directly upon a Creator for first life. that means you are also a creationist. You lose

    here is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

  7. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    Frankie:
    . . .
    However if said flagella appeared in a step-wise fashion- meaning each generation added to its construction, then I would rule out random mutations.

    So you’re agreeing that Behe’s proposed criteria is not sufficient to falsify IDC.

    Without some limits on the capabilities of your purported designer, IDC is untestable by construction. Literally anything could be the result of design.

  8. Frankie Frankie
    Ignored
    says:

    Patrick,

    So you’re agreeing that Behe’s proposed criteria is not sufficient to falsify IDC.

    That doesn’t follow. I just provided a caveat.

    Without some limits on the capabilities of your purported designer, IDC is untestable by construction. Literally anything could be the result of design.

    That is incorrect. Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning from Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton apply.. Not every death is considered to be a murder, not every fire is considered to be an arson and not all rocks are considered to be artifacts.

    We only admit to an intelligent agency when one is required. And even then we admit only if there is something else beyond mere elimination.

    Or are you saying that your position doesn’t make any testable claims and doesn’t belong in a science classroom?

  9. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    Frankie: And even then we admit only if there is something else beyond mere elimination.

    Well, in your example of a worked EF on the moderation thread you do nothing except eliminate. And yet you still infer design and a designer for ATP. You admit a designer despite not even meeting your own criteria.

  10. Patrick Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    Frankie:
    Patrick,

    So you’re agreeing that Behe’s proposed criteria is not sufficient to falsify IDC.

    That doesn’t follow. I just provided a caveat.

    Without some limits on the capabilities of your purported designer, IDC is untestable by construction. Literally anything could be the result of design.

    That is incorrect. Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning from Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton apply.. Not every death is considered to be a murder, not every fire is considered to be an arson and not all rocks are considered to be artifacts.

    We only admit to an intelligent agency when one is required. And even then we admit only if there is something else beyond mere elimination.

    Or are you saying that your position doesn’t make any testable claims and doesn’t belong in a science classroom?

    We’re talking about Behe’s proposed falsification criteria. Without identifying the capabilities and limitations of your gods Designer, it fails.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.