• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Peer Reviewed paper claiming evolution is wrong

I'll read it when it gets on NCBI (can't login direct through Springer) but I predict that it'll use the general notions that we already know. Junk DNA isn't all junk, though some of it sure is. That is explicable through evolution.

I think this paper brings nothing new, but it shows that the history of evolution, from Darwin to current Modern Synthesis has seen a shift in explication. I doubt they'll tackle evolution itself and instead tackle ideas from evolution, such as junk DNA. Basically, it demands refinements.

I'd really like to read what they have to say on:

We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.
Click to expand...

Do they think that the conclusion isn't tenable or are they offering other hypothesis?
 
Last edited:
It will probably list several problems that the author has with current theory. One or two of which may actually be valid. :)

That's not the same thing as "claiming evolution is wrong".
 
Here's an example of something from that paper, and I think I was dead on:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darw...r-heres-what-it-says-on-dawkins-selfish-gene/

As much as I hate linking that site.

The paper does nothing to address Dawkin's CORRECT statement that DNA does replicate itself, as part of Dawkin's "selfish gene" hypothesis but instead pisses and moans that its PROMISE of being correct hasn't payed speculative dividends, but then you get this flat out stupidity:

He might say that he means only that genes are self-replicators when all other things are equal. But when all other things are actually made equal by spelling out in detail the developmental process by which genes express traits, any self-replicative privilege assigned to genes disappears completely (Moss 2002).
Click to expand...

No, genes (the DNA that makes a gene rather) will self replicate because that's how biochemistry works. There's "no thing being equal about it" they just do. I don't get why they think the developmental process of gene expression of traits has to do with it, I assume it may be epigenetic handwaving. Disappears completely though? That's ridiculous.

The selfish gene theory isn't supposed to give "purpose" in the traits we see as real selfishness as we consider the emotion though. The genes are selfish in that they're going to obey chemistry whether the organism likes it or not. If it works out, splendid, if it doesn't, sucks to be you. If it works, it's going to keep "doing it" because hey, it worked and it'll DO THAT and either work for better or for worse (it may even do nothing, and if it does nothing, that TOO is "working" then. You can mutate a gene to give a functional ENOUGH protein if the protein can still work if at least not optimally) That's the selfishness. From what I gather this paper chose to ignore that. I don't know why, but it's really stupid AND it's not even new. If this is a part of their argument for the "walls tumbling down on evolutionary theory" then this paper's going to get skewered into hell.

I'm sure somewhere in what SHOULD be the bowels of Hell, (but sadly the lying bastard isn't dead from exhaustion from telling lies) Sarfarti is stroking himself so hard he'll rip his dick off to this paper -.-
 
Last edited:
It's not. It doesn't address biological points. It's a meta-analysis of sorts. Rather than use data for the ToE, it draws on the variations of theories within the ToE.

So far I am not convinced that it has any real conclusive merit anymore than a paper would consider dieting to not be effective at all because the Atkins diet causes other health issues -.-
 
I just noticed this from the paper:

Let us be clear, too, that in saying this we are not saying that Darwinism as such is on its deathbed. Here, we reach a fourth point. The impending demise of various articulations of the genetical theory of natural selection does not in the least imply that the entire Darwinian research tradition is on the verge of failure. ...

This is an important point. When Darwinism’s complex conceptual and discursive history is ignored, critiques of one or another of its many articulations tend to present themselves as falsifications of Darwinism as such. This is just what is wrong with What Darwin Got Wrong, a book recently addressed to the public by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini (2010).
Click to expand...

So yea I'm right. They aren't stabbing at evolution, they're stabbing at some of the articulations of it.
 
Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.
Click to expand...
That's why Evo/Devo was developed! That's how epigenetics was discovered!

Both of which do NOT contradict Darwinism, but work beside it.

They might as well try to argue "Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of gravity in many physical processes."

We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing;
Click to expand...
It is possible, though not proven, that Natural Selection could be a special case of a grander self-organizing process. But, that wouldn't contradict the theory, either.

They might as well question "if gravity can be part of a new relativistic framework we just thought of".
 
I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one that has a problem with the term "darwinism". They do go to the extent of defining what they mean by the term, but there's no point in using a term that will only serve to confuse people and attempt to belittle a field of science.

As someone noted, sure if you're talking about the findings specifically of Darwin, but clearly this paper is not doing so as stated by the explanation of the word in the paper.
 
The Iders are all ablog about the paper. That suggest junk science but I'll have to take a closer look at the paper later. Remember, Michael Behe had published peer reviewed papers on irreducible complexity. Good science does not always mean valid conclusions.
 
Lowpro said:
We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This is a clownishly idiotic statement by them. Genetic algorithms in computer science explore the theory behind evolution, and do so quite successfully.

The math of evolution is solid. If evolution doesn't happen, God would have to be actively thwarting it.


Of course, evolution happens because it has been observed in the wild, and been forced in captivity -- we call this "breeding", and it's been a successful process by humans for thousands of years.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The Iders are all ablog about the paper. That suggest junk science but I'll have to take a closer look at the paper later. Remember, Michael Behe had published peer reviewed papers on irreducible complexity. Good science does not always mean valid conclusions.
Click to expand...

Irreducible Complexity was a decent enough idea -- if someone designed life, then there might (note: not necessarily will) be some structures that could not have evolved as they are too complicated and thus incremental steps could not have arrived at them as there are no useful intermediates.


The only problem was they list all kinds of examples...which then start getting shot down one by one as scientists figure out how these things evolved.


Thus IC's "predictive power" begins to evaporate. At this point, no honest scientist would have any statistical reason to believe any remaining IC examples would continue to withstand scrutiny indefinitely.

Moreover, that so many examples on the list got shot down indicates the theory is very poor at defining methods of determining items in its class, also a red flag that it...needs some serious work.
 
Beerina said:
Irreducible Complexity was a decent enough idea -- if someone designed life, then there might (note: not necessarily will) be some structures that could not have evolved as they are too complicated and thus incremental steps could not have arrived at them as there are no useful intermediates.


The only problem was they list all kinds of examples...which then start getting shot down one by one as scientists figure out how these things evolved.


Thus IC's "predictive power" begins to evaporate. At this point, no honest scientist would have any statistical reason to believe any remaining IC examples would continue to withstand scrutiny indefinitely.

Moreover, that so many examples on the list got shot down indicates the theory is very poor at defining methods of determining items in its class, also a red flag that it...needs some serious work.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was and took a scientist to demonstrate this could be a counter example. :D

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Click to expand...

But if Lowpro is correct in that this is not an attack on Evolutionary Theory they are making a hash of it.

They immediately launch into the 'Darwinism is an ideology' nonsense and compare and are obviously trying to conflate it with Marxism and leftist Liberals.

Before the first page is finished they claim it 'undeniably comforted racists', 'sanctioned imperialism' and 'actively promoted eugenics'.

I wouldn't pay a penny for the second page and if it was free would be reluctant to expend any more time on this exacrable scholarship.

The only interest is in the motives of the authors. Did they want to get publicity and think they would write something controversial, are they converts to goddidit, perhaps they are just crazy.

jasonpatterson notes that it isn't in the Science category and wonders if it has been miscategorised. I think it has, Fiction would accommodate it neatly.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
I am not about to pay $35 to read this paper after reading the nonsense in the abstract, but was wondering if anyone has and if they could offer some insight into what the paper says?
Click to expand...

Why did you choose that title for the thread? It is not supported by the abstract.
 
The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see the evidence for this. Like the OP, I'm not going to give these people $35 just for the privilege of seeing the latest flawed idea, but I am curious about what developmental biology is incompatible with natural selection.

We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing;
Click to expand...
They're either incredibly (and inexcusably) sloppy with their diction or they have no idea what natural selection is.

and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Because natural selection means that it's not self-organizing!!!

Acleron said:
Before the first page is finished they claim it 'undeniably comforted racists', 'sanctioned imperialism' and 'actively promoted eugenics'.
Click to expand...
Hm. I've now lost all interest in reading it. Anyone stupid enough to make such arguments is most likely going to be incapable of giving an actual critique of modern evolutionary theory. These ideas were disproven by Darwin himself (he was a soppy liberal for his day), and frankly racists and eugenicists were going to find anything they could to support their obviously flawed ideas. Sure, evolution comforted the racists and others--because those people failed to understand evolution, not because evolution is flawed.

Wowbagger said:
That's why Evo/Devo was developed! That's how epigenetics was discovered!
Click to expand...
Another reason to not read the paper: they focused on one aspect of evolutionary theory, and ignored everything going on around it. A proper approach would be to look at ALL of evolutionary theory, not just the Central Dogma (which isn't dogmatic in the least). If they're going to ignore all of the fields of biology that don't deal specifically with replicating genes they can come up with any conclusion they want. It's quote-mining, nothing more.
 
Well like I said, this is a meta-analysis of sorts.It has no merit to biology. It might as well be a paper of the lack of efficacy in dieting because the Atkin's Diet increased the likelihood of cardiovascular disease; dieting doesn't work.
 
paiute said:
Why did you choose that title for the thread? It is not supported by the abstract.
Click to expand...

It's the headline that all the creationist sites that are promoting it use. And the Abstract certainly makes it clear the Authors see Evolution (or Darwinism as they call it) on it's last legs.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
It's the headline that all the creationist sites that are promoting it use. And the Abstract certainly makes it clear the Authors see Evolution (or Darwinism as they call it) on it's last legs.
Click to expand...

From the abstract: "[Genetical Darwinism] can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory."

You are reading it wrong, no doubt the way you wish it would read. Regardless what arguments the authors present, it is clear from the abstract that they have no problem with the theory of evolution - they are going to quibble about exactly which mechanisms drive it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom