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?…
Frankie,
Just so we are clear, Joe, I happen to think that repeating refuted claims often enough is akin to spamming the site. You can tell us you are not convinced by the evidence and arguments that support the theory of evolution. you could even try telling us why you’re not convinced. But please stop with the “there is no theory of evolution” nonsense.
Alan Fox,
No that is bullshit Allan. If you ask ten evolutionists what the theory of evolution is you get ten answers.
It goes about like this:
“Random mutations or genetic drift, or something or something we don’t know yet, or combinations of things we don’t know yet, but are finding and still looking, causes change. The change might be beneficial enough or at least not detrimental enough, or sometimes not detrimental enough to last longer, then something else might cause some changes (you can’t prove its impossible) then one day you have new things.”
That’s pretty much the gist of it.
If pointing that out is spam, then this whole site is spam Alan.
Alan Fox,
Alan, it is very telling that neither you nor anyone else can link to this alleged theory of evolution. And until you do my claim is not refuted. You can’t refute a claim by making unsupported announcements. So either ante up with the theory or admit that you might be wrong.
BTW I have told you why I am unconvinced by the claims of evolutionism-> they cannot be tested. For example no one knows how to test the claim that ATP synthase arose via stochastic processes.
Well then! That amounts to ten theories, not none.
Ideas and concepts do not amount to scientific theories. Scientific theories require testable claims. Evolutionism doesn’t have that
Why can’t anyone find the theory of evolution? My answer is because it doesn’t exist. What do you say?
Joe, Charles Darwin published the first comprehensive exposition of his theory of natural selection in 1859. That has been built on and improved, notably to incorporate genetic inheritance, the mechanism of which Darwin was unaware.
But given that you are a pseudo-anonymous internet commenter who has displayed no understanding of the debate over the past decade or so and who has never done the work to make their opinion count, what does it matter that your claim is not refuted to your satisfaction?
I’ll tell you. It matters not a whit.
Frankie,
Find another way of saying it. Claiming the theory of evolution does not exist is nonsensical.
Alan- link to it or admit that I am right. It is that easy- and Darwin’s wasn’t a theory in the scientific sense- no testable hypotheses.
I can quote biologists who agree with me. How can that be?
So what? If you had contributed to the debate by doing some original research or some meta research and had come up with something novel that nobody had thought of before and contributed to the body of knowledge we call science then it might matter to more then just you that you are unconvinced by the claims of evolutionism.
As it stands, my pet dog and you are both unconvinced by the claims of evolution and the consequences of that are exactly the same for both you and the dog. None whatsoever.
Your opinion is not one that is counted Joe. It does not count now and it never has counted. So remain unconvinced, it matters not.
Continuing to claim the theory of evolution exists without actually linking to it is a sign of desperation. Your alleged authority is not an argument nor does it refute my claim
Alan Fox,
Right, so which one is correct? All? None?
You have not understood what those biologists are saying. It’s simple really.
Is it? Then I guess that Intelligent Design must be suicidal.
That’s all you really want out of this Joe, and it’s terribly sad. I actually often feel sorry for you. All you want is for someone, even a random internet commenter, to say that Joe is right for once.
poor baby. Was your recent hiatus due to a medical condition? Physical or mental? I know what my money is on….
Frankie,
The theory of evolution is not fixed from when Darwin proposed the idea of selection acting on variation to produce change. Later developments in genetics revealed the mechanism and the explosion of information resulting from genome sequencing means the theory has developed and may change again in the light of future discoveries. But the basic idea of selection acting on heritable variation has stood the test of time and evidence.
LoL! Natural selection is passive and doesn’t act on anything. Link to the theory, Alan. Or apologize to me.
“There is no theory of evolution”- cytologist Jerome Lejeune at the 1982 close of the meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (no one disagreed and the meeting ended)
“There never really has been a scientific “theory” of evolution.” geneticist and former editor of a peer-review journal, Giuseppe Semonti, in “Why is a fly not a horse?”
Frankie,
Would you agree this is the theory of Intelligent Design?
If not, can you link me to the real theory officially approved by you?
Natural selection has never been observed to create functional multiprotein complexes. No one even knows how to test the claim- so what, exactly, has stood the test of time and evidence?
The essential idea that variation in individuals in a population is subject to a selective process of differential reproduction is well documented. The Lenski LTEE being one neat example of supporting evidence.
Lenski has proven that evolution is very limited. He has all but proven the Creationist concept of variation within the Kind.
That is not a claim of evolutionary theory. Variation occurs by various mechanisms, selection biases survival.
You have the claim wrong so. Darwin’s essential idea about selection has stood the test of time.
Alan, until you link to the theory of evolution you don’t get to say what it says.
BTW Darwin’s claim was that NS is a designer mimic and it can produce what we observe in biology. ATP synthase is part of biology and must be explained. If the alleged theory of evolution doesn’t cover that then it is clear it isn’t a scientific theory and doesn’t apply to the bulk of biology
Hardly
From a French recording of internationally recognised geneticist, Professor Jerome Lejeune, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco.
Just think Joe, if you could come up with that other, better, theory then your name would ring alongside Darwin’s for all time.
But it won’t. All you are left with are pathetic quote mines.
ATP synthase is part of biology and must be explained. If the alleged theory of Intelligent Design doesn’t cover that then it is clear it isn’t a scientific theory and doesn’t apply to the bulk of biology.
How does ID explain ATP synthase Frankie?
Alan’s refusal or inability to link to the (alleged) theory of evolution speaks volumes. If this was a formal debate Alan would have lost, miserably.
Evolution? What’s that? Can you link to the theory of evolution? If not, what are you talking about? How can something undefined also be very limited?
Alan Fox,
If the variation is teleological in nature, is it still the theory of evolution?
As OM points out, ToE is not a complete explanation of everything biological. But it is a good start. What alternatives are there? Creationism, for instance, is childish nonsense when it comes to explaining past and current diversity of life on Earth and explaining why it is found when and where it is.
We can look at how his work has been received in the past, you know that right?
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/of-form-over-su.html
I’m not surprised you hang on his every word Frankie. And yet words from people with actual relevant work are ignored by you. How very strange. It’s almost as if the veracity of what people are saying is directly related to if you agree with what they are saying! But knowing you as I do, as an honerable and honest person, I must be mistaken.
LoL! ATP synthase as evidence for ID has been discussed ad nausea. And willful ignorance is not a refutation of such discussions.
There wasn’t any quote-mine of the French cytologist
And one can discuss evolution even in the absence of a theory of evolution
I can’t rule out a God designing the Universe in such a way that life on Earth turned out as it did.
Link to the ToE, Alan. Obviously you can’t. And that speaks volumes about you and your claims.
No, if this was a formal debate you’d have been removed from the premises after your Nth outburst from the audience, after we’ve all had a good laugh at your creationist tropes.
If this was a debate you’d find that the (claimed) lack of support for one position is not support for what you claim as the only alternative. But then again, logic is not really your thing is it?
Link to the ToID, Joe. Obviously you can’t. And that speaks volumes about you and your claims.
Discussed, sure. Scientific work? Not so much.
I just demonstrated otherwise. If there is no theory as you claim, what is he teaching? Answer that simple question why don’t you.
One can, but you can’t. You don’t understand the basics.
OMagain,
You evolutionists have the hardest time following even the simplest of rules. I wonder if it is because of some trauma you suffered.
I open Google search engine. I enter “evidence for evolution”. Try it.
Here’s one source that seems pretty simple to follow.
Put him on ignore.
Joe says there is no theory of evolution.
Professor Jerome Lejeune says he teaches the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one.
Who to believe, Joe or the professor’s own words, Joe or a professor….
Yeah, you know what Joe, given your total credibility and honesty coupled with your demonstrable honourable behaviour over many years it has to be you!
LoL! So “evidence for evolution” is now the ToE? Really? UC Berkeley does not offer up a ToE. They don’t even cite it.
You do realize that ID is not anti-evolution and even YECs accept a change in allele frequency over time…
phoodoo,
Dunning–Kruger effect much?
Just curious, phoodoo. Are you aware of an alternative scientific theory for evolution of life on Earth? Or are you opposed to ToE on religious grounds only?
What theory of evolution is ID not anti?
There isn’t a scientific ToE, Alan. However ID explains the evidence better than natural selection and drift can
Theory:
The Theory of Evolution:
Is that sufficiently simple and bolded for you Joe? If you’d like to know more there are many textbooks available that go into as much detail as you like.
http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html
That’s demonstrably untrue. And you know it.
Let’s play a game. Search for “evidence for evolution” and pick something. Then show how ID explains that more convincingly?
Then why is ID failing so badly? Even Dembski has abandoned it.
This is plainly nonsense. Please stop repeating it. As I’ve said already, you can find vast resources merely by googling “theory of evolution” and “evidence for evolution”.
Well let me make the same challenge to you. I’ve not seen a scientific theory of “Intelligent Design” that purports to offer an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that has existed and that we see today. Can you link to it?
ETA
PS and is there an ID explanation for the existence of ATP synthase
you get to choose between ‘poof’ and ‘POOF’.