The broken paradigm of Neo-Darwinism: The fight for the future of biology

#1
C C Offline
https://iai.tv/articles/denis-noble-the-...-auid-2210

The Neo-Darwinist paradigm maintains that natural selection is the sole driving force in evolution.  This paradigm is not only wrong, but untrue to Darwin’s theory of evolution which made room for  Lamarck’s suggestion that acquired characteristics can also be inherited. The side-lining any research into Lamarckian evolution has stifled the fruitful work of generations of researchers, limiting our understanding of how inheritance really works, argues Denis Noble.

INTRO: The Neo-Darwinist paradigm of evolutionary biology is almost defined by its view of inheritance. That view is that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, and that the organism itself has no active role in the evolution of the species. One of its founders, August Weismann, created the break with the ideas of Charles Darwin in 1883, just a year following Darwin’s death in 1882. He did so by inventing the Weismann Barrier, which he claimed protects the germ-line, the future eggs and sperm, from any influences of use-disuse features acquired by the organism during its lifetime. He was therefore going against the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics that Darwin had accepted and later expanded upon in his writings on heredity. There was no experimental evidence for Weismann’s idea. He even wrote that it was a “necessary” idea, whether or not any experiments supported it.

Had Darwin lived, we can be sure he would have promptly disagreed. For, during the last decade of his life, he worked assiduously with the young physiologist George Romanes on experiments designed to test his theory for how the inheritance of acquired characteristics could occur. In his 1868 book, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, he postulated the existence of tiny particles derived from the cells of the body that could transfer use-disuse memory to the germ line. To Darwin, there was no barrier.

Modern physiology has vindicated Darwin’s idea. The small vesicles, called exosomes or extracellular vesicles, poured out by all cells of the body can function precisely as Darwin’s idea proposed... (MORE - details)
Reply
#2
confused2 Offline
Nice one CC (as usual).
So Darwin wasn't quite so fixated on survival of the fittest determined by reproductive capacity. Or was he? Evidence that a thing might do something is far from evidence that that ii actually does it. Turning genes on and off is only fiddling with what is already there - as a result of survival of the fittest? - otherwise they wouldn't be there to be turned on and off.
Looking at Dennis noble
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Noble

He suggests (among other things):
There is no genetic program
There are no programs at any other level
There are no programs in the brain

Whenever I got a new hamster they would hide and I would give them nesting material and they would build an nest pretty much like he last hamster and after a day or two they would appear when spoken to and I would give them peanuts and after that they were hooked*.I'm probably more programmed (hard wired) to respond to the hamster than the hamster is to me. So I think he is simply wrong about about the points I extracted.
* There was an exception which may or may not prove the rule.
Reply
#3
C C Offline
(Aug 8, 2022 12:48 AM)confused2 Wrote: Nice one CC (as usual).
So Darwin wasn't quite so fixated on survival of the fittest determined by reproductive capacity. Or was he? Evidence that a thing might do something is far from evidence that that ii actually does it. Turning genes on and off is only fiddling with what is already there - as a result of survival of the fittest? - otherwise they wouldn't be there to be turned on and off.
Looking at Dennis noble
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Noble

He suggests (among other things):
There is no genetic program
There are no programs at any other level
There are no programs in the brain

Whenever I got a new hamster they would hide and I would give them nesting material and they would build an nest pretty much like he last hamster and after a day or two they would appear when spoken to and I would give them peanuts and after that they were hooked*.I'm probably more programmed (hard wired) to respond to the hamster than the hamster is to me. So I think he is simply wrong about about the points I extracted.
* There was an exception which may or may not prove the rule.

Unsurprisingly, Jerry Siegel's radar picked up the article and issued a response to it...
- - - - - -

Denis Noble goes after Darwinian evolution again, scores own goal
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/08/0...-own-goal/

EXCERPTS (Jerry Siegel): Denis Noble (born 1936) is a British physiologist highly regarded for his work in that field (he has an FRS). Wikipedia notes his accomplishments:

"He is one of the pioneers of systems biology and developed the first viable mathematical model of the working heart in 1960."


What the article doesn’t discuss is that Noble has spent the last period of his life attacking neo-Darwinism, asserting that its most important foundations are either wrong or overemphasized. Noble is regarded by colleagues I respect as a bit of an enthusiast, bordering on an unhealthy obsession, though he’s much admired by the “Third Way of Evolution” group who argue that neo-Darwinism either needs a serious revision or a trip to the garbage can.  Noble shows us that you can be a great physiologist but a lousy evolutionary biologist.

In an earlier post I wrote, “Famous physiologist embarrasses himself by claiming that the modern theory of evolution is in tatters“, I emphasized five assertions Noble made in a 2013 paper in Experimental Physiology, and then I criticized them as being either deeply misguided or flat wrong. Noble’s claims: [...]

[...] Noble continues to bang on about “the broken paradigm of Neo-Darwinism,” which happens to be the subtitle of his new article in IAI News, usually a respectable website run by the Institute of Art and Ideas... (MORE - missing details)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Biology's uncertainty principle + Life's explosion linked to Earth’s center + Forests C C 0 18 Jul 4, 2022 08:14 PM
Last Post: C C
  Zombie genes lurch into action in dead brains + Weird biology of asexual lizards C C 0 33 Mar 23, 2021 11:23 PM
Last Post: C C
  What is life? Its vast diversity defies easy definition. (philosophy of biology) C C 7 285 Mar 14, 2021 02:32 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Synthetic biology: building new chromosomes from scratch C C 0 156 Oct 30, 2019 07:02 PM
Last Post: C C
  Species: Doing away with the most "important" (and ambiguous?) concept in biology C C 2 219 Jul 18, 2019 04:27 AM
Last Post: Yazata
  Teleology in Biology Secular Sanity 3 624 Sep 17, 2018 03:27 AM
Last Post: Secular Sanity
  Evolutionary biology makes us existentialists + We can't engineer cleverness C C 1 439 Dec 20, 2017 09:28 PM
Last Post: Secular Sanity
  Hybrids Play a Vital Role in Evolution + Recreating Bonds Broken by Slavery C C 0 232 Sep 1, 2017 05:34 PM
Last Post: C C
  How a Guy From a Montana Trailer Park Overturned 150 Years of Biology C C 1 383 Jul 26, 2017 01:10 AM
Last Post: Carol



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)