Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (38266)	6/29/2013 5:51:11 PM
From: 2MAR$	1 Recommendation Recommended By Solon Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

This is the full sentence: ...."I am in agreement with Stephen C. Meyer that Neo-Darwinism fails to explain the Cambrian explosion, but his over-all conclusion of intelligent design being the solution to the riddle I also disagree with." You forgot to include his special exception = disagreement with meyer's solution in the same sentence, how handy this example proving cherry picking propaganda & selective quoting? We know u can't help yourself seems to be the hallmark of insufficiency, why ID proponents are not trusted & their solution always of "its too complex, therefore God did it" rejected. Thanks, you made the perfect case yourself for lack of honesty & showed zero effort to explore all those great links he provided for where the state of science is now, and it certainly isn't with Meyer's deliberate selective examples, conclusions. ~~~~~~~~~~* He also talks about the "non-adaptive" theory of evolution of Michael Lynch in great detail but ends up criticising and rejecting it! Meyer seems to reject evolutionary mechanisms even if they are non-Darwinian! Likewise he rejects the "neo-Lamarckian" epigenetic mechanisms proposed by Eva Jablonka in her books Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimension and Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in Biology and Psychology). I am currently reading Jablonka's books and as it currently stands I believe Meyer has been too quick in rejecting all of her research into epigenetics. Meyer surveys the above non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms as well as the controversial natural genetic engineering of James Shapiro, and the neo-Lamarckian "epigenetic" inheritance of Eva Jablonka such as DNA methylation processes and RNA-mediated inheritance. He also talks about how evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology) scientists have broken classical assumptions of the neo-Darwinism synthesis as some of their research into developmental processes has suggested mechanisms of large-scale change in animal form opposed to strict gradual change. However, Meyer ends up rejecting the work of the evo-devo scientists claiming no mutations can produce viable major changes that are needed for new body plans. He also rejects the theories of Jeffrey Schwartz into Hox genes to explain the sudden appearance of animal forms in the fossil record. He is more sympathetic to the natural genetic engineering of Shapiro but ends up rejecting it. He also talks about the "non-adaptive" theory of evolution of Michael Lynch in great detail but ends up criticising and rejecting it! Meyer seems to reject evolutionary mechanisms even if they are non-Darwinian! Likewise he rejects the "neo-Lamarckian" epigenetic mechanisms proposed by Eva Jablonka in her books Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimension and Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in Biology and Psychology). I am currently reading Jablonka's books and as it currently stands I believe Meyer has been too quick in rejecting all of her research into epigenetics. So in short Meyer comes to the conclusion that no naturalistic evolutionary mechanism or process (whether it be neo-Darwinian or totally non-Darwinian) can explain the Cambrian explosion. It is unclear if Meyer accepts common descent or not, probably not from some of his comments. He dedicates only a small part of the book to his own hypothesis of intelligent design. I say hypothesis because that it what it is, but it probably would be criticised as a non-testable hypothesis. He talks about signs of design in the cambrian explosion. His design hypothesis is a supposition for a baseline or starting point for further investigation, it certainly is interesting but I find it hard to see how he can test his design hypothesis or how any further research into "design" is going to explain anything as it attempts to explain everything in one go, he actually discusses similar things in a chapter called "Rules of Science" near the end of his book. Because of this many reviewers will probably claim Meyer is indulging in pseudoscience. The physicist John Davidson in his little known book Natural Creation or Natural Selection?: A Complete New Theory of Evolution also proposed that an intelligent process was behind the Cambrian explosion and also argued for design but the explanation was no different than just saying God did it (i.e. some transcendent metaphysical force or "universal mind" caused the explosion, the criticism of such supernatural explanations is that that they should not be taught in the science room because they are metaphysical not empirical science. Because I accept evolution in my opinion if intelligent design exists then evolution would have brought it about. I am more open-minded to the possibility of theistic evolution I guess. I don't think design should be ruled out altogether (perhaps some form of design and evolution are compatible?), it is not impossible but common descent and evolution are facts. I am certainly not going to deny the evidence for naturalistic evolution. So where are we left? I believe the Cambrian explosion is still a mystery and we only have pieces of the puzzle but science is bringing us closer to solving the riddle, who knows what further research will discover? I am currently looking into the various alternative environmental, developmental, and ecological explanations for the explosion (some are listed on Wikipedia). Andrew Parker wrote a very interesting book found here In The Blink Of An Eye and proposed an entirely naturalistic explanation to explain all of the facts of the Cambrian explosion. Just because neo-Darwinism is false does not mean evolution is not true. Other interesting books: The Music of Life: Biology Beyond Genes (Denis Noble explains how all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven, also see his lecture "Physiology and Evolution" at the major international Congress in Suzhou, China on how Neo-Darwinism has been replaced.) Mutation-Driven Evolution (Nei has developed a new mutation theory of evolution, may be of interest? This is controversial!). A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance (Meyer did not mention the "heretical" ideas of Rupert Sheldrake in his book, I would be interested in knowing what he thinks about Sheldrake's hypothesis of Morphic Resonance.)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (38266)	6/29/2013 6:26:50 PM
From: 2MAR$	1 Recommendation Recommended By Solon Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Here's Nicholas J. Matzke review on Amazon, note there is no name calling or rant or rails, he keeps it neat concise & professional. As we know that Discovery.org dunces are inevitably whining about or pointing to some name calling, here u find none but we do note Meyer making the most simple errors & great number of omissions amazon.com 1.0 out of 5 stars Incompetent and wrong, June 20, 2013By Nicholas J. Matzke - See all my reviews (REAL NAME) This review is from: Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (Hardcover) I have just read the book. Meyer's book does not fairly represent the scientific fields he is attacking, nor the data and methods underlying them, most of which he does not understand in any depth. He makes basic errors like calling Anomalocaris an arthropod and calling lobopods a "phylum", not noting for the readers that Anomalocaris falls well outside of the crown arthropod phylum, far down in the lobopods, and that the phylum Arthropoda is thought to have evolved from lobopods, as did one or two other phyla. The lobopods are a paraphyletic assemblage of stem taxa, i.e. the very "transitional forms" between phyla that Stephen Meyer claims to be looking for! This is Cambrian Explosion 101 stuff that Meyer gets wrong. There are numerous other errors and fatal, painful omissions of crucial information that would have to be given to readers to make this even a vaguely competent attempt at overturning the reigning scientific paradigm. Instead we just get warmed over creationism disguised in ID terminology. Again. Thus, 1 star. P.S.: I've written a more detailed review at the Panda's Thumb blog.