The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.
– Eugene Koonin (2009)
Does this make Eugene Koonin an evolution skeptic?
The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.
I’m still struggling to incorporate Alan Fox’s allegation that I am an evolution skeptic. I still don’t really know what it means to be an evolution skeptic. Eugene Koonin rather obviously rejects the view of evolution held by Alan Fox. Is Eugene Koonin an evolution skeptic?
Or is this just another example of Creationist quote mining. Maybe it’s both.
What say you, “skeptics”?
The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?
Koonin asks:
The “skeptical” response? The modern synthesis is as robust and fruitful as ever, there’s no reason to change it?
Eugene Koonin, Interview with Suzan Mazur, 2017
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/14597840
I don’t see here any sort of retraction of what he said earlier. Do you?
…all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.
If the modern synthesis is gone, what replaced it?
Yet another theory of evolution. Or more than one. Who the hell knows.
Maybe you should actually read the interview?
So Koonin was merely saying that the Modern Synthesis is a population genetics theory that does not capture all aspects of biological evolution and as such, alone won’t make you understand all evolutionary change.
So in answer to the OP, which asks “Does this make Eugene Koonin an evolution skeptic?”.
No, it doesn’t.
What view of evolution is held by Alan Fox?
Sad bastard.
Shorter OP
Mung–just Koonin without, you know, the knowledge and insight.
Glen Davidson
That is pretty much my position as well.
Does that make me an evolution skeptic?
peace
Mung,
Me. I do.
I don’t know why you go so far out of your way to confuse yourself, or feign confusion.
That is also my position. So no just as for me, and Eugene Koonin, I don’t think it does.
Nope. Welcome to the club. Here’s your card.
Attention whore. It’s always been that way. I bet Mung was pleased as punch when the charts of who replied to who were published.
Every group needs an inside joke.
In these statements Eugene Koonin is giving a ringing endorsement to population genetics. And to common ancestry.
So he doesn’t think that evolution occurred? Hard for me to see that in these statements.
From Amazon.com:
See, Frankie, I know where to look for the new theory of evolution.
I did not say and I would never say that Koonin doesn’t think evolution occurred. I do however think it’s worth noting that someone might think that was the intended point of the OP.
For the record, again, I think evolution occurred and I accept common ancestry.
Is that the meaning of ‘evolution skeptic”? Someone who denies that evolution occurred? I guess I’m not an evolution skeptic then.
Mung,
I have generally accepted common ancestry too.
One problem is that cells appear designed to minimize variation both with the DNA repair mechanism and apoptosis.
It’s not clear to me how speciation occurs based on these mechanisms that are restricting variation. Then we get two species to mate like a donkey and a horse but the mule offspring is sterile.
Well, I believe evolution has magical powers and so can overcome such difficulties.
🙂
No you haven’t. You have argued against it and have suggested that the preponderance of evidence is against it on several occasions. You may recall that you have demanded evidence of common descent many times, and have rejected or ignored that evidence each time.
Cells are not designed to minimize variation. DNA repair reduces the mutation rate, but that mutation rate is still high enough for the human population (for example) to experience every possible point mutation in every generation. Apoptosis has nothing at all to do with minimizing variation and nothing to do with speciation. And your comment about mules seems a non sequitur too.
It may be unclear to you how speciation occurs, but that’s just you. Again, I suggest you read Speciation by Coyne & Orr before interpreting your ignorance as everyone’s ignorance. To simplify: mutations happen at a rate sufficient to cause divergence between geographically isolated populations in thousands of generations purely by drift, and more quickly if acted upon by selection, sufficient to result in reproductive incompatibility between those populations.
I guess we need a clearer idea of what’s meant by “evolution skeptic.” Seems clear to me that evolution happens, that common ancestry is by now a slam dunk, and that perhaps most of the mechanisms (considered in isolation) have been identified if not perfectly quantified. If an “evolution skeptic” is anyone who suspects that our understanding of the process of evolution isn’t complete and perfect, then we are all evolution skeptics. No scientific theory CAN ever be complete and perfect, everything is subject to improvement.
So what, exactly, is the difference between one who accepts (albeit tentatively) our best current understanding, and an “evolution skeptic”? Near as I can tell, in the context of most of these discussions anyway, an “evolution skeptic” is someone who rejects the notion that evolution happens, and has always happened, without any diddling by some supernatural agency. The skeptic, as we know him, is absolutely positive, not skeptical at all that his god is involved in the process somehow. Conversely, the non-skeptic “has no need of that hypothesis.”
Far from it as no one can account for the anatomical and physiological differences between two allegedly related species like chimps and humans. The “science” behind common ancestry is on the level of astrology
But is it a scientific theory?
Probably. 🙂 Thanks for the link.
So Frankie, and Bill, and I (and others) come here to get educated and to find out “how it works.” Perhaps we should be more tolerant to those who just take it on faith when they can’t explain it to us, because “communicating modern evolutionary biology (as opposed to deceptively simple antiquated ideas) is indeed a daunting task.”
But then perhaps those who are “in the know” could be a bit more tolerant of us for pointing out the “antiquated ideas” that continue to riddle discussions about evolution at this site.
So that ought to settle that.
Koonin thinks the chance hypothesis ought to be the null. Now this is funny, in light of all the crap that creationists have taken through the years for allegedly claiming that evolution is chance-based and random.
So if evolution is not “a tornado in a junkyard,” what is it, rust in a junk yard?
In the OP, Mung asks:
I didn’t and don’t allege you are an evolution skeptic. I don’t know if you are an evolution skeptic. That’s for you to say. I merely mentioned your name when looking for responses in an OP
That, in my view, would be someone not convinced that there is a process, usually summarized as RM + NS, that has resulted in descent with modification producing the diversity of life on Earth that we see.
My comprehension of the over-arching theory may be flawed and is certainly not complete. If Mung has any doubts about what Dr Koonin’s current views are, he could always ask him. Here is a link to his email.
Is a tornado the result of intelligent design, or is a tornado the result of a tornado in a junkyard.
And if the tornado is a result of a tornado in a junkyard, where did the first tornado come from. Or is it
turtlestornadoes in junkyards all the way down.Instead of calling us “evolution skeptics” wouldn’t it be better to call yourselves “supernatural diddling” skeptics ?
That would seem to be a better way forward. There are lots of ways a supernatural agent can “diddle” that are consistent with evolution
peace
I would thumbnail an evolution skeptic as someone who has need of that hypothesis.
A mainstream evilutionist is someone who expects knowledge gaps to be filled by regular processes.
By regular you mean non-mental, correct?
peace
Alan Fox,
6 months ago I was in complete agreement with this position. Evolution was real science and we just had not discovered the mechanism. I read James Shapiro’s evolution of the 21st century and then corresponded with him over some ideas I had come up with i.e. the spliceosome is a mechanism of evolution. Since you could change sequences with alternative splicing it was much easier to get a new animal vs wholesale genome changes. This was not the ultimate mechanism but there were several papers that supported that between reptiles, mammals, primates and man the alternative splicing frequency went up. This paper summarizes the findings.
The Evolutionary Landscape of Alternative Splicing in Vertebrate Species
Science
http://www.sciencemag.org
Science 21 December 2012:
Vol. 338 no. 6114 pp. 1587-1593 DOI: 10.1126/science.1230612
Over the last 6-12 months doing research on the cell cycle for a study on vitamin D levels correlation with colorectal and other cancers I started to become skeptical of the overall theory. Vitamin D was implicated in controlling the cell cycle, DNA repair and apoptosis. So the cell is designed to minimize variation by either repairing DNA or killing itself (apoptosis) when the DNA cannot be repaired.
These cellular mechanisms fly in the face of evolutionary theory that requires variation.
The mechanism has to have forward engineering capability as Shapiro has been advocating but is their evidence of this? I am now very skeptical that there is a materialist explanation for how new animal types are formed.
Is there a non-materialist explanation for how new animal types are formed?
Who is convinced by that untestable concept? And seeing that NS includes RM isn’t “RM + NS” unnecessarily redundant? (and yes I know many people do it, just as many people say “PIN number” and “ATM machine”) The point being it should be NS + drift or just blind and mindless processes,
OMagain,
Not a detailed one I am aware of.
Explain the psychological contortions you go through to give yourself permission to lie in this fashion. I couldn’t do it, so when I see it so obvious I find it perplexing.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Trying to save souls from hell, is that it?
He doesn’t even know when he “gave up” evolutionary theory. Here he is almost a year ago:
Feb. 20, 2016, UD
Aside from the mindless prattle written there, apparently he can’t keep track of time.
Needless to say, I don’t really buy into his “I once was an evolutionist” shtik. If he were, clearly he didn’t understand it or how science operates (look at the BS about inference in that comment), and at most assented to it. But I don’t know if that’s true, either, as he’s so entrenched in the usual inability to understand science seen in creationists that it’s hard to believe that he’s ever not been creationist. Certainly one who never grasped science, anyhow.
Glen Davidson
Yes, the mechanism of poofing. And we now know enough about evolution to know that this is how evolution works and we also now know that materialists are fine with it.
🙂
I think TSZ is hell. If I can get someone to leave then I have saved them from hell.
You are free to leave at any time.
Haven’t you heard that Jesus went and preached to the souls in hell? Just carrying on the tradition Neil. 🙂
I should bother the man because some “skeptics” on an internet blog question whether he actually meant what he said in some book or paper? I’m trying to imagine what my initial email to him might look like.
Koonin:
And:
Koonin also writes of “…the overhaul of evolutionary biology…”
Now to me it seems that IDists are leading the way in trying to bring attention to this “paradigm shift” while the old school Darwinists and their materialist friends are trying desperately to keep it all a secret or denying that it even exists.
If the evolutionists here don’t want to be relegated to the venerable museum halls along with the dinosaurs, they should join with us in exploring this exciting new science.
Now please don’t blame me for pointing out when people here cling to the naive dogmatism of the past. That doesn’t make me an evolution skeptic or anti-science.
John Harshman,
Do you understand the concept of variation?
colewd, to John Harshman:
Oh, the frikkin’ irony.
Mung citing Koonin:
This comes up in Nick Lane’s book that I’m currently reading. Horizontal gene transfer would be expected to show different paths for different genes. This is what the evidence shows. We’re off out for a walk now but I’ll look up the reference when I have more time.