Unbelievable !!!

[Jorge]

Nature article says that an urgent rethink is being sought on evolution theory but … it might make people think they support ID.

This article from NATURE journal illustrates the hysteria - the FEAR - that grips those even thinking of being unfaithful to the Evolutionary Sacred Cow.

Below I've highlighted certain sections of that article.
It's the kind of stuff that you have to see to believe.
I have the following all-encompassing comment:

If "scientists" won’t look for fear of what they might find ... if "scientists" won't follow the evidence to its logical conclusion ... if "scientists" won't speak out supporting what is patently obvious ... then what the devil are they doing in science? What kind of "science" are they practicing?

However, I know all-too-well that the Evo-Faithful here at TWeb will deny, Deny, DENY and fight this tooth and nail. As I have stated on numerous occasions, such are the 'ethics' of the Evo-Flock.
.
.
The latest issue of Nature has a point-counterpoint on the question “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Answering “Yes, urgently” are Kevin Laland (professor of behavioral and evolutionary biology at the University of St. Andrews), Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee. These "scientists" are proposing/promoting what they call the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (“EES”).

Here we go AGAIN - yet another version of Darwinism in which the goalposts will undoubtedly be placed into the next county. The "EES" is essentially a new evolutionary synthesis that rejects some of the core tenets of neo-Darwinism (like the views that natural selection is the dominant force guiding evolution, or that there is a “tree of life”). The Nature article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some scientists avoid making criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution lest they give the appearance of supporting ID


FROM THE NATURE ARTICLE:

"The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.

Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.

However, another factor is more important: many conventional evolutionary biologists study the processes that we claim are neglected, but they comprehend them very differently (see ‘No, all is well’). This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline. – Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently,” Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014)
"

With this I can pretty much close my case - thank you.
WOW !!!

Jorge

[seer]

But I thought "science" was pure and non-bias?

[HMS_Beagle]

I see is still • Edited by a Moderator •. Here is the Nature commentary that was too dishonest to provide a link to.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.

YES, URGENTLY — Kevin Laland and colleagues

NO, ALL IS WELL — Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra and colleagues

Moderated By: rogue06

You really need to find another expression.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

The article is a commentary with pros and cons of expanding what are considered the basic processes of evolution to include additional factors like epigenetics. A few scientist from each camp offer their YES or NO opinions. Nothing Earth shattering, nothing that casts the slightest doubt that evolution happens. Just an honest and interesting exchange of scientific ideas.

As usual didn't read the commentary and has misrepresented what actually was being discussed. Typical Clucky in other words.

[shunyadragon]

But I thought "science" was pure and non-bias?

The sarcasm needle just pegged and broke in the ridiculous zone.

[oxmixmudd]

Nature article says that an urgent rethink is being sought on evolution theory but … it might make people think they support ID.

This article from NATURE journal illustrates the hysteria - the FEAR - that grips those even thinking of being unfaithful to the Evolutionary Sacred Cow.

Below I've highlighted certain sections of that article.
It's the kind of stuff that you have to see to believe.
I have the following all-encompassing comment:

If "scientists" won’t look for fear of what they might find ... if "scientists" won't follow the evidence to its logical conclusion ... if "scientists" won't speak out supporting what is patently obvious ... then what the devil are they doing in science? What kind of "science" are they practicing?

However, I know all-too-well that the Evo-Faithful here at TWeb will deny, Deny, DENY and fight this tooth and nail. As I have stated on numerous occasions, such are the 'ethics' of the Evo-Flock.
.
.
The latest issue of Nature has a point-counterpoint on the question “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Answering “Yes, urgently” are Kevin Laland (professor of behavioral and evolutionary biology at the University of St. Andrews), Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee. These "scientists" are proposing/promoting what they call the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (“EES”).

Here we go AGAIN - yet another version of Darwinism in which the goalposts will undoubtedly be placed into the next county. The "EES" is essentially a new evolutionary synthesis that rejects some of the core tenets of neo-Darwinism (like the views that natural selection is the dominant force guiding evolution, or that there is a “tree of life”). The Nature article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some scientists avoid making criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution lest they give the appearance of supporting ID


FROM THE NATURE ARTICLE:

"The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.

Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.

However, another factor is more important: many conventional evolutionary biologists study the processes that we claim are neglected, but they comprehend them very differently (see ‘No, all is well’). This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline. – Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently,” Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014)
"

With this I can pretty much close my case - thank you.
WOW !!!

Jorge

Well Jorge, If you just could read a little more and actually understand what you read, you'd just might realize how little this actually fits the hype you have tried to create.

Do you not understand that this little conversation has NO effect whatsoever on the elements that are challenging to YEC?

Let me try an analogy: What do you suppose two Christians debating the precise methodology of Baptism has to do with whether or not Christ is Divine?

Applying your thought processes here directed at evolution to that same debate, someone hostile to Christian faith could legitimately conclude such a disagreement is proof Christianity is about to fail and is fundamentally flawed.

Jim

[Jorge]

But I thought "science" was pure and non-bias?

That's a trick question, yes?

Most people think of science as some sort of "Disembodied Entity" that has a life of its own - a pure, objective, impartial life. The simple fact of the matter is that science ONLY exists when performed by people and people are NEVER "pure, objective or impartial". People carry all of their biases, beliefs (yes, that includes metaphysical beliefs be these Theistic or Materialistic) and desires everywhere they go.

So much for the MYTH of "pure, objective science".

Jorge

[Jorge]

MODERATOR TO Beagle Boy: "You really need to find another expression."

That's asking way too much of Beagle Boy. Don't you know that his vocabulary is
limited by his IQ which, as we all know, struggles to match that of a head of cabbage?

jorge

[jordanriver]

Well Jorge, If you just could read a little more and actually understand what you read, you'd just might realize how little this actually fits the hype you have tried to create.

Do you not understand that this little conversation has NO effect whatsoever on the elements that are challenging to YEC?

Jim

what is challenging to YEC is TIME.

And Jorge's citation of 'EES' includes epigenetics

Epigenetic VARIATION could speed up the time needed for rapid speciation.

and add to that, stress-induced mutation rate increases and discoveries of speciation genes

in David Mittelman's 'STRESS-INDUCED MUTAGENESIS' p 31, a 2001 quote from Marina Chicurel
"....Those who favor models of constant, gradual evolutionary change dislike the idea of stress-induced increase in mutation rate that potentially accelerates evolution"
(or it might be a paraphrase instead of word for word exact quote, I am not going to purchase the NATURE article), but Mittelman is not going to change context as far as I can see.

SO, would it bother you (or any of the other evo-REGS) if it was concluded that evolution takes only thousands instead of billions of years to reach our current diversity.

[phank]

what is challenging to YEC is TIME.

And Jorge's citation of 'EES' includes epigenetics

Epigenetic VARIATION could speed up the time needed for rapid speciation.

SO, would it bother you (or any of the other evo-REGS) if it was concluded that evolution takes only thousands instead of billions of years to reach our current diversity.

Isn't this something that can be investigated? After mass extinction events, we can get some handle on the speed with which surviving species radiated into the suddenly wide-open areas. We might presume that the speed of radiation in the relative absence of competition might represent close to the evolutionary speed limit. After all, without intense competition, "pretty good" was fully adequate. It was only later, when the best of the best of the best of the best remained, that the window for beneficial mutations was nearly closed.

Conversely, the rapid global changes in habitat from human activities is apparently causing yet another mass extinction, so we know the rate of change evolution simply can't track.

Meanwhile, what seems to be disputed in this Nature article is the relative weighting among several known evolutionary mechanisms. Just how influential IS epigenitics in evolution? Has its importance been underestimated? If so, by how much? Possibly an interesting question.

As for Jorge, I like Jim's analogy. My own would be someone finding a dispute about how much a curveball actually curves, and pointing to that dispute as "proof" that there's no such thing as baseball. Talk about seeing what you wish to see no matter what's actually there!

[37818]

Jorge,

Is this the link to the article?

http://www.nature.com/news/does-evol...ethink-1.16080

[klaus54]

But I thought "science" was pure and non-bias?

1) The word is "biased".

2) Why can't evolution (the way nature works!!!) be God's ID? -- doesn't Rogue have that in his siggy?

K54

[klaus54]

what is challenging to YEC is TIME.

And Jorge's citation of 'EES' includes epigenetics

Epigenetic VARIATION could speed up the time needed for rapid speciation.

and add to that, stress-induced mutation rate increases and discoveries of speciation genes

in David Mittelman's 'STRESS-INDUCED MUTAGENESIS' p 31, a 2001 quote from Marina Chicurel
"....Those who favor models of constant, gradual evolutionary change dislike the idea of stress-induced increase in mutation rate that potentially accelerates evolution"
(or it might be a paraphrase instead of word for word exact quote, I am not going to purchase the NATURE article), but Mittelman is not going to change context as far as I can see.

SO, would it bother you (or any of the other evo-REGS) if it was concluded that evolution takes only thousands instead of billions of years to reach our current diversity.

What is even much MUCH more challenging to YEC is HISTORY -- and I don't mean a few pages of an ANE document. I mean the multitude of episodes written in the rocks, stars, and genomes.

The sooner that recalcitrant YEC realize THIS, the sooner they can be released from their risible sect.

K54

[klaus54]

That's asking way too much of Beagle Boy. Don't you know that his vocabulary is
limited by his IQ which, as we all know, struggles to match that of a head of cabbage?

jorge

Cabbage, huh? Pretty original.

Now, how about the Barringer crater and the Appalachian Cyclothems?

K54

[jordanriver]

Isn't this something that can be investigated? After mass extinction events, we can get some handle on the speed with which surviving species radiated into the suddenly wide-open areas. We might presume that the speed of radiation in the relative absence of competition might represent close to the evolutionary speed limit. After all, without intense competition, "pretty good" was fully adequate. It was only later, when the best of the best of the best of the best remained, that the window for beneficial mutations was nearly closed.......

with the "absence of competition" you get population explosion. (notice how sometimes deer hunting season has to be extended when the deer population gets out of control)

once you got population explosion, epigenetic "evolution" (speciation) is environment-driven. Then, I think, is when epigenetic VARIETY kicks in.
And if DNA genome is just computer hard-drive, like analogy in just-so thread, (post 30), then multiple species variation from each genome.

[rwatts]

but … it might make people think they support ID.\

I don't see that at all.

I think they believe the theory needs modifying to take account of new research.

You of all people, given your science background, have never been able to show us how your ID could possibly be included.

So it's hard to see how a revision of ToE means any inclusion of your ID.


It looks to me that the calls for a revamp still envisage a natural process for common descent, because, after all, organisms continue to engage in sex, and other natural means of propagation by common descent.

I think you have been sniffing too much glue Jorge. Sniff it less Jorge and you will be able to write your posts more normally.