Molecular lab Blasts Neo-Darwinism

[supersport]

Towards a Newer Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory

The Computational and Analytical Molecular Evolution Laboratory says Neo-darwinism has run its course as a fairytale for grownups.

http://www.molevol.org/camel/projects/synthesis/

"Why not neo-Darwinism"?

"Evolutionary biology is in a state of transition, based on a new perception of how the process of variation influences evolutionary change. Evolutionary biologists who understand something of this new view (and not all of them do, yet) disagree among themselves over whether it still should be called "Darwinism". Clearly any new view of evolution will still invoke natural selection in populations, yet just as clearly, it would contradict fundamental propositions of the Darwinism of the 19th century as well as the neo-Darwinism of the mid-20th century...."

"....Superficially, at least, it appears that several fundamentally different views of evolution are competing or co-existing in different fields: an "evo-devo" view, a "molecular" view, a "classical" view, maybe even a "systems" view or an "a-life" view. Some authorities tell us that molecular evolution is different from non-molecular evolution. What is the unified theory that provides for both? Familiar icons of neo-Darwinism still write books proclaiming the sufficiency of neo-Darwinism to accomodate new data on molecular evolution and development. Meanwhile, "evo-devo" enthusiasts proclaim a new view that addresses problems "not seen as being soluble by population genetics" (Gilbert, et al., 1996). If population genetics does not provide a unified mathematical framework for addressing evolutionary causes, what body of theory does?"

"The view argued here is that these apparent differences are real, and that the contemporary discord in evolutionary theory hearkens back to the earlier dispute over mutation and the role of variation in evolution."


"To the early neo-Darwinians, the notion that the direction of evolution would be influenced by "internal" factors such as mutation and development seemed not merely wrong, but unscientific."

Now isn't that ironic?????? ...and you guys still believe it!

http://www.molevol.org/camel/

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The whole neo-darwin fairlytale is over. You guys have fallen for the biggest hoax ever told......Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr, and all the other so-called scientific geniuses will go down as a group of mildly entertaining fiction writers who dreamed-up and promoted a nonsensical, brain-dead failed hypothesis. All their books should be rounded up and burned in a giant sacrificial bonfire!

My question is this......when it finally sinks in to you neodarwinists that your theory is a piece of philosophical garbage, what type of religion -- er scientific thoery will you attatch yourself to? Evo Devo? Neutral theory? Gaia theory?? Astrology?? Sun-worshiping? What?

[Wyvern]

And yet evolution itself keeps chugging along. I don't think you understand what is being said in the article you linked, it is not saying the ToE is false at all as it seems you think it is, all it is proposing is yet another synthesis between what was known and what has become known recently about evolution. If you would actually read the articles you like to link instead of just looking at the headlines you would have known this.

Even the part of the article you actually posted states right off the bat that evolution is in a state of transition. Sorry if the idea that knowledge changes all the time and sometimes it causes basic theories to be altered goes against your idea of how things should be. But face it science does not nor has it ever claimed to have all the answers. Science freely accepts this idea that new knowledge may cause us to alter our theories in order to incorporate the new data. Religion is the one that claims ultimate unalterable truth, which is easy to do if you require no knowledge.

[Rob]

All their books should be rounded up and burned in a giant sacrificial bonfire!

The above sounds a lot like facism born of a dogmatic mindset

Imagine if theological facists such as supersport actually had the power to burn books in the name of their blind dogmatic theological beliefs? All the more reason for Americans to wake up and make sure there is a healthy separation of church and state, which is slowly being erroded by the so-called Christian Right and fundamentalist evangelicals.

Darwin's fundamental idea of evolution as "decent with modification" is only the richer and more firmly proven by the new evidence forthcoming from Evolutionary Developmental Biology and molecular biology. These areas of evolutionary science are truly uncovering the forensic evidence of the fact of organic evolution. What next, will supersport claim the earth is flat? That claim is as ludicrous as his claim that the fact of organic evolution is proven false by the new evidence forthcoming from evo-devo and molecular biology.

As in all scientific revolutions, those theories that have for some become dogma, such as the Central Dogma that inheritance is a one-way street from DNA --> protein with no possibility of epigenetics influencing the course of evolution, or that the course of evolution is totally dependent upon isotropic random variations despite the fact of the discovery of a 540 million year old regulatory genome, are all subject to change with the discovery of new facts and evidence.

This is only disturbing to two groups of individuals: first, it is disturbing to fundamentalist religionists of all traditions (Christian & Muslims alike), as they have absolute confidence in religious dogma, and second it is threatening to those Panselectionists who like the fundamentalist Christians who espouse creationist dogma, choose to only view the world in black and white. If an idea does not support blind random mutations as the ultimate cause of direction and change in evolution (and here is the interesting fact, science cannot speak to ultimate causes, only proximate causes), which is itself a pseudo-scientific dogma called Panselectionism espoused by some (not all) Neo-Darwinists, then it must be trying to slip a Creator into the equation or be some form of hidden Intelligent Design argument. So, just as the fundamentalist Christian cannot understand that the discovery of epigenetic inheritance which by its very nature refutes the Central Dogma does not undermine in the least the fact of organic evolution, likewise the narrow minded Panselectionist is blind to the fact that the discovery of 540 million year old regulatory genome which comprise genetic pathways (tracks, albeit not deterministic, but combinatorial) of evolution (and we do not know the ultimate origin of either life or these ancient genetic pathways that existed in the first unicellular organisms, despite the claims of some scientists, which is made obvious by those honest scientists who openly admit we don't really know, but can only speculate on these questions) cannot grasp or accept the fact that evolution indeed may be subject to biological laws (constraining genetic pathways and patterns, ancient regulatory genomes, which provide internal organismal constraints upon evolution) which we are only now beginning to understand.

Both have a priori metaphysical belief systems that they seek to protect at all costs: creationists that God is the ultimate cause, i.e., that humans were specially created apart from the process of organic evolution, and panselectionists that chance and random events are the ultimate cause, i.e., that humans are the product of the material universe and nothing more. One is rooted in religious dogma, and the other is rooted in metaphysical materialism. Creationists are threatened by the fact of organic evolution; panselectionists are threatened by the discovery of any semblance of order or law or non-random causes in the evolutionary process. Hence, creationists ignore the fact of organic evolution by explaining it away, while panselectionists ignore the implications of the fact of ancient genetic pathways and regulatory genomes. Neither is comfortable with simply admiting that when it comes to ultimate origins science cannot provide the answer and that when it comes to proximate origins religion cannot provide the answer. Science is the best tool humans have for answering those questions regarding the material universe that fall within the proximate realm of knowledge, and when both religionists and scientists recognize the strengths and weaknesses, and the limits of both religion and science, then perhaps both can attain a closer approximation to truth (relatively speaking).

Indeed, evolutionary theory as embodied in the current Neo-Darwinian dogma of panselectionists is in the process of change. But it is also a fact that not all Neo-Darwinians are dogmatic minded, and many are able to view and adjust their ideas regarding Neo-Darwinian theory to these new facts. Yes, at the moment there are numerous attempts to accomlish this re-synthesis, and not all of them are compatible with each other. Such is the nature of the competitive world of ideas within the domain of science as a human adventure. And when they do reach a consensus, we can be sure there will arise a "new" dogma, which someday "new" evidence will challenge, and once again our children's children will be able to witness yet another evolution in our understanding of the material world we live within. Such is the nature of the progress of human knowledge; relative though it may be, nevertheless, science as a self-corrective human enterprise does progress.

The idea that the inheritance of acquired characters plays an important role in evolution has been the subject of controversy for over a century. Enthusiasm for the idea, which is usually associated with the name of Lamarck, has sometimes led to charlatanism and fraud, while opposition to it has led to 'Lamarkist' being used as a term of abuse. Nowdays, biologists usually regard ideas about the inheritance of acquired characters as nothing more than an interesting part of the history of biology. Lamarkian evolution is rejected on the grounds that there is no evidence for it, no mechanism that can produce it, and no need for it in evolutionary theory. Some people go even further and argue that the inheritance of acquired characters is theoretically impossible--it is incompatible with what is known about genetics and development.

... [T]here are now well recognized mechanisms by which some acquired characters can be transmitted to the next generation, and that such characters have probably played a significant role in evolution. We want to make it clear right at the outset that although we argue that some types of Lamarkian evolution are possible, there is nothing in what we say that should be construed as being anti-Darwinian.[1] We are firm believers in the power and importance of natural selection. What we do maintain, however, is that some new inherited variations are not quite as random as is generally assumed, but arise as a direct, and sometimes directed, response to environmental challenge, and that the effects of such induced variations deserve more recognition in evolutionary theory.

[1] We feel it necessary to stress our belief in Darwinian evolution because recent history has shown than any argument suggesting that Darwinian evolutionary theory should be modified is liable to be used by Creationists as evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong. Like most Darwinians, we believe that Darwinian evolutionary theory is a flexible theory, quite capable of accommodating modifications and amendments.

[Similarly, some Panselectionists (such as Jose on this very site) brand any "argument suggesting that Darwinian evolutionary theory should be modified" must be a Creationist or Intelligent Design arguments in disguise, and they therefore distort and twist arguments (like Creationists do with the arguments of scientists, both of which is a dishonest tactic I might add) for their own rhetorical purpose. Indeed, they have a lot in common when it comes to character traits.]

-- Jablonka, Eva and Lamb, Marion J. (1995) Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarkian Dimension. Oxford. p.1.

Towards a Newer Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory

The notion of "synthesis" presupposes discord, conflict or disintegration. In the original "New Synthesis" or "Modern Synthesis" of evolutionary biology (1930-1950), the conflict was between Darwin's original view of evolution, based on a continuous process of environmentally stimulated phenotypic/genotypic variation, and the new findings of genetics, which revealed a discrete and largely spontaneous process ("mutation") of segregated germline variation. Although it has become fashionable in neo-Darwinian historiography to assert that this conflict was only superficial, this assertion is ridiculous. The birth of genetics was widely accepted as the death of Darwinism. The very real conflicts between the two were not resolved for 50 years. The "New Synthesis" was significant precisely because it purported to resolve this long-standing conflict in a manner that, eventually, was widely accepted.

Today, evolutionary biology is once again in a state of discord. Superficially, at least, it appears that several fundamentally different views of evolution are competing or co-existing in different fields: an "evo-devo" view, a "molecular" view, a "classical" view, maybe even a "systems" view or an "a-life" view. Some authorities tell us that molecular evolution is different from non-molecular evolution. What is the unified theory that provides for both? Familiar icons of neo-Darwinism still write books proclaiming the sufficiency of neo-Darwinism to accomodate new data on molecular evolution and development. Meanwhile, "evo-devo" enthusiasts proclaim a new view that addresses problems "not seen as being soluble by population genetics" (Gilbert, et al., 1996). If population genetics does not provide a unified mathematical framework for addressing evolutionary causes, what body of theory does?

The view argued here is that these apparent differences are real, and that the contemporary discord in evolutionary theory hearkens back to the earlier dispute over mutation and the role of variation in evolution. This connection is elucidated in the next section.

Why not neo-Darwinism?

(Note in passing: readers may be unfamiliar with the sometimes confusing use of the word "theory" in science. If this applies to you, please read a brief description of the distinction as it applies to evolutionary theory.)

Evolutionary biology is in a state of transition, based on a new perception of how the process of variation influences evolutionary change. Evolutionary biologists who understand something of this new view (and not all of them do, yet) disagree among themselves over whether it still should be called "Darwinism". Clearly any new view of evolution will still invoke natural selection in populations, yet just as clearly, it would contradict fundamental propositions of the Darwinism of the 19th century as well as the neo-Darwinism of the mid-20th century (in addition to being different from the crude notion of evolution familiar from popular books, magazines and television).

Darwin assumed that the process of natural selection proceeded from an abundant supply of continuous variation arising each generation by an environmentally stimulated process of phenotypic/genotypic change. However, Darwin had confounded environmental variation and genetic variation, and his view was disqualified at the dawn of the 20th century by the discovery of genetics, and by the acceptance of Weismann's doctrine of germline segregation. For several decades following the demise of Darwin's view, evolutionists debated a new view that would synthesize the new understanding of mutational change as a discrete event that heritably alters a Mendelian factor. Fundamental in this debate were issues such as whether discreteness in the process of variation negated Darwin's assumption of smooth continuous change, whether (contrary to Darwin's belief, based on blending inheritance) evolutionary change could begin with a single event of mutation, and whether novelty and directionality in evolution were due to "external" forces of environmental origin (e.g., selection), or to "internal" forces inherent to the organism (e.g., mutation, development).

The view that subsequently emerged, in 1930-1950, is what we now know as "neo-Darwinism", and is less ambiguously called the "New Synthesis" or "Modern Synthesis" or "Synthetic Theory". The New Synthesis retained Darwin's assumption of abundant "random" variation, but on a mechanistic basis that was more consistent with modern genetics:
rampant recombination in a diverse "gene pool" that would produce abundant slight variations every generation. The crucial common feature of both views-- the feature that distinguished "Darwinism" from alternative schools of thought that placed more emphasis on the process of individual variation-- is that the abundance and "randomness" of variation puts natural selection firmly in the driver's seat in evolution: in this view, selection (not mutation) is seen as the creative process in evolution, and the rate and direction of evolution are seen to be dependent on natural selection, not on the process of individual variation. As S.J. Gould has written,

The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies the raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.

To the early neo-Darwinians, the notion that the direction of evolution would be influenced by "internal" factors such as mutation and development seemed not merely wrong, but unscientific.

Nevertheless, science advances in ways that are not easily anticipated. As the result of their own research, scientists schooled in the "New Synthesis" tradition have recognized that variation is not inevitably abundant, gradual, and continuous, but may be constrained, abrupt, and discrete; that most living organisms are prokaryotes or asexual eukaryotes that simply lack rampant recombination in a "gene pool"; and-- perhaps most importantly-- that rates and patterns of evolutionary change are manifestly dependent on propensities of variation due to mutation and development. The distinction between the older and newer views is apparent in a variety of statements (many examples can be provided) such as the following:

mutations are rarely if ever the direct source of variation upon which evolutionary change is based. Instead, they replenish the supply of variability in the gene pool which is constantly being reduced by selective elimination of unfavorable variants. Because in any one generation the amount of variation contributed to a population by mutation is tiny compared to that brought about by recombination of pre-existing genetic differences, even a doubling or trebling of the mutation rate will have very little effect upon the amount of genetic variability available to the action of natural selection. Consequently, we should not expect to find any relationship between rate of mutation and rate of evolution. There is no evidence that such a relationship exists.

In addition to showing a continued adherence to Darwin's antique principle that single mutations can not initiate evolutionary change (a conclusion that Darwin based on his assumption of gradualism and his mistaken theory of blending inheritance), the above statement emphasizes the hyper-abundant "gene pool", the importance of recombination, and the conclusion that the rate of evolution does not depend on the rate of mutation. While such a statement might not have raised eyebrows in 1966, no evolutionary biologist would make it today, because of the abundant evidence that the rate of evolution depends on the rate of mutation.

Towards a different synthesis

Evolutionary biologists are not at a loss to accomodate the evidence that the rate of evolution is dependent on the rate of mutation. We now understand that, in a finite world, where variation and time are not infinitely abundant, the non-randomness of variation (long recognized by geneticists) is expected to have a crucial influence on the course of evolution.

Indeed, for several decades, molecular evolutionists have relied on an evolutionary view that abandons the Darwinian presumption of abundant pre-existing variation, assuming instead that the rate of evolution depends directly on the rate of introduction of new alleles by mutation. For instance, highly successful modern methods of phylogenetic inference assume such a dependence implicitly when they implement different rates for transition and transversion changes. Likewise, for two decades, developmental evolutionists have been emphasizing the importance of developmental "constraints" that influence course of evolution via their effects on the generation of variation.

Thus, while there are clearly common threads linking past and present thought in evolutionary biology, the evolutionary theory of today is not that of Darwin, nor even that of Darwin's mid-20th-century successors. This yet-to-be-named new view, with its empirical emphasis on rates and patterns of divergence, and its reliance on, not only natural selection, but also mutation biases and developmental constraints as causes of non-randomness in evolution, has already enjoyed considerable success.

From a historical perspective, this new view is not entirely new. In a sense, we have revisited the dispute between the New Synthesis architects and the "mutationists", and discovered that there is some value in the mutationist position.

-- http://www.molevol.org/camel/projects/synthesis/

The ability to recognize patterns which imply something more than simple random mutation (which is certainly a part of the larger reality being uncovered by evo-devo and epigenetics), for example mutation bias or "gene nurseries," (see "Birth of 'human-specific' genes during primate evolution." Nahon, J.L., Genetica 2003, 118: 193-208) or epigenetic inheritance systems is partially dependent upon the ability to compare different phylogenies from a molecular perspective. It is only recently that such an ability due to revolutions in technology has really been possible. With the advent of the Human Genome Project they have launched the Primate Genome Project with the goal of comparing the human and primate genomes. And in this process of comparing different genomes there is developing a new era of scientific studies seeking to understand the evolution of the genome itself. And it is in this data that they are starting to recognize those patterns of mutation that the statements above are based upon.

[McCulloch]

Hey supersport,
You will let us know when the science departments in the major universities give up on evolution.

[Undertow]

Towards a Newer Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory

The Computational and Analytical Molecular Evolution Laboratory says Neo-darwinism has run its course as a fairytale for grownups.

http://www.molevol.org/camel/projects/synthesis/

"Why not neo-Darwinism"?

"Evolutionary biology is in a state of transition, based on a new perception of how the process of variation influences evolutionary change. Evolutionary biologists who understand something of this new view (and not all of them do, yet) disagree among themselves over whether it still should be called "Darwinism". Clearly any new view of evolution will still invoke natural selection in populations, yet just as clearly, it would contradict fundamental propositions of the Darwinism of the 19th century as well as the neo-Darwinism of the mid-20th century...."

"....Superficially, at least, it appears that several fundamentally different views of evolution are competing or co-existing in different fields: an "evo-devo" view, a "molecular" view, a "classical" view, maybe even a "systems" view or an "a-life" view. Some authorities tell us that molecular evolution is different from non-molecular evolution. What is the unified theory that provides for both? Familiar icons of neo-Darwinism still write books proclaiming the sufficiency of neo-Darwinism to accomodate new data on molecular evolution and development. Meanwhile, "evo-devo" enthusiasts proclaim a new view that addresses problems "not seen as being soluble by population genetics" (Gilbert, et al., 1996). If population genetics does not provide a unified mathematical framework for addressing evolutionary causes, what body of theory does?"

"The view argued here is that these apparent differences are real, and that the contemporary discord in evolutionary theory hearkens back to the earlier dispute over mutation and the role of variation in evolution."


"To the early neo-Darwinians, the notion that the direction of evolution would be influenced by "internal" factors such as mutation and development seemed not merely wrong, but unscientific."

Now isn't that ironic?????? ...and you guys still believe it!

http://www.molevol.org/camel/

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The whole neo-darwin fairlytale is over. You guys have fallen for the biggest hoax ever told......Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr, and all the other so-called scientific geniuses will go down as a group of mildly entertaining fiction writers who dreamed-up and promoted a nonsensical, brain-dead failed hypothesis. All their books should be rounded up and burned in a giant sacrificial bonfire!

My question is this......when it finally sinks in to you neodarwinists that your theory is a piece of philosophical garbage, what type of religion -- er scientific thoery will you attatch yourself to? Evo Devo? Neutral theory? Gaia theory?? Astrology?? Sun-worshiping? What?

Even if it is the biggest hoax in history, which it's not, explain how your ideas help humanity better than evolution has.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... opic_id=47

Can't do it? Didn't think so.