Denis noble debunks neo-Darwinism (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Thursday, August 29, 2013, 19:32 (4104 days ago)
edited by unknown, Thursday, August 29, 2013, 20:07
Watch this all the way through. It shows how complex genome interaction is with the cell cytoplasm. It shows Lamark was partially correct. This is a concise 38 minute discussion. well worth it:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eJhotrNeYGE-Note how many tims he quotes James Shapiro's book. I can tell you that the old-line Darwinists don't buy Shapiro.
Denis noble debunks neo-Darwinism
DAVID: Watch this all the way through. It shows how complex genome interaction is with the cell cytoplasm. It shows Lamark was partially correct. This is a concise 38 minute discussion. well worth it:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eJhotrNeYGE-Note how many tims he quotes James Shapiro's book. I can tell you that the old-line Darwinists don't buy Shapiro-Thank you for this. As you say, Denis Noble stresses cooperation and interaction as major factors in change and in speciation. I heard nothing against the concepts of common descent and natural selection. The whole lecture seemed to be concerned with HOW evolution happens, and with the case against random mutations, which you and I have long since jettisoned. He made a very revealing comment towards the end, but I was too slow off the mark fetching pen and paper, and couldn't find a way to reverse the video. It was along the lines of:-"The genome is an organ of the cell not its dictator. Control is distributed. The genome is not isolated from .... the environment."-If the genome interacts with the rest of the cell, and if their joint interaction with the environment is able to produce inheritable changes (Lamarckism), can anyone seriously doubt that the prime mechanism in evolution is the creative intelligence of the cell?-You and Noble mention James A. Shapiro, and out of interest I looked him up on Wikipedia, where I was astonished to find the following paragraph: "Later, Shapiro showed that bacteria cooperate in communities that exhibit complex behavior such as hunting, building protective structures, and spreading spores, and in which individual bacteria may sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the larger community.[14][15][16] Based on this work, Shapiro believes that cooperative behavior is a fundamental organizing concept for biological activity at all levels of complexity.[17]"-This directly echoes the Lynn Margulis quote I reproduced a few days ago, and obviously both of them were following precisely the same line of evolutionary thought: cooperation between cells is the key to evolutionary progress, and there is no way you can have cooperation without intelligence. Margulis goes so far as to call it consciousness.-We do not know where that consciousness originated, and I'd go so far as to suggest we shall never know. The focus here is purely on how evolution works. And it's out with random mutations and the selfish gene, and in with the intelligent cell!-Thank you again for all these updates.
Denis noble debunks neo-Darwinism
by David Turell , Saturday, August 31, 2013, 16:23 (4102 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Denis Noble stresses cooperation and interaction as major factors in change and in speciation. I heard nothing against the concepts of common descent and natural selection. The whole lecture seemed to be concerned with HOW evolution happens, and with the case against random mutations, > If the genome interacts with the rest of the cell, and if their joint interaction with the environment is able to produce inheritable changes (Lamarckism), can anyone seriously doubt that the prime mechanism in evolution is the creative intelligence of the cell? > > This directly echoes the Lynn Margulis quote : cooperation between cells is the key to evolutionary progress, and there is no way you can have cooperation without intelligence. Margulis goes so far as to call it consciousness. > > We do not know where that consciousness originated, and I'd go so far as to suggest we shall never know. The focus here is purely on how evolution works. And it's out with random mutations and the selfish gene, and in with the intelligent cell!-I've summarized your comments and your conclusion. I come away with a slightly different slant. Noble shows the marvelous complexity of the interactions in the cell, the speed of reproduciton of cells, the marvelous feedback mechanisms, the control loops. And you rightly comment about the obvious intelligence at work in the cells in the enormous amount of information being used by the second. It takes just 20 minutes to reproduce a cell. Are these cells autodidacts or puppets given direction? That is the true issue raised. By what mechanism did cells develop to that level of complexity? If not by chance mutation, how?
Denis noble debunks neo-Darwinism
dhw: This directly echoes the Lynn Margulis quote : cooperation between cells is the key to evolutionary progress, and there is no way you can have cooperation without intelligence. Margulis goes so far as to call it consciousness.-We do not know where that consciousness originated, and I'd go so far as to suggest we shall never know. The focus here is purely on how evolution works. And it's out with random mutations and the selfish gene, and in with the intelligent cell!-DAVID: I've summarized your comments and your conclusion. I come away with a slightly different slant. Noble shows the marvelous complexity of the interactions in the cell, the speed of reproduciton of cells, the marvelous feedback mechanisms, the control loops. And you rightly comment about the obvious intelligence at work in the cells in the enormous amount of information being used by the second. It takes just 20 minutes to reproduce a cell. Are these cells autodidacts or puppets given direction? That is the true issue raised. By what mechanism did cells develop to that level of complexity? If not by chance mutation, how?-You have reproduced my comments and virtually ignored my conclusion! Noble debunks random mutations, but he doesn't tell us by what mechanism cells did develop their complexity. I have gone so far as to suggest we shall never know. His lecture focuses on how evolution works, not on how cells, intelligence, consciousness originated. There are issues and issues. Darwin's Origin of Species doesn't deal with the origin of life and cells either, but that doesn't mean that the subject of evolution itself is not a "true issue".
Denis noble debunks neo-Darwinism
by David Turell , Sunday, September 01, 2013, 18:40 (4101 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You have reproduced my comments and virtually ignored my conclusion! Noble debunks random mutations, but he doesn't tell us by what mechanism cells did develop their complexity. I have gone so far as to suggest we shall never know. His lecture focuses on how evolution works, not on how cells, intelligence, consciousness originated. There are issues and issues. Darwin's Origin of Species doesn't deal with the origin of life and cells either, but that doesn't mean that the subject of evolution itself is not a "true issue".-I'm not ignoring your conclusion. It was incomplete. Your current discussion is not. I fully agree we will never have full scientific proof or any other kind of proof about the evolutionary processes. From single cell to here is an amazing journey. But even the single cell has been shown to be a highly complex information-filled factory. Darwin didn't know that. As a result his philosophic musing about evolution, based as they are on his time in knowledge of geology, paleontology, biology, and even history, are not worth much. You have admitted natural selection is a weak arbiter. We are left with a Darwin who championed the idea that some how or other evolution went from cell to us. Most of us have accepted the idea that life, once started, evolved. In that sense and only that sense only we have accepted Darwin. Debate of mechanisms must leave him behind.
Denis noble debunks neo-Darwinism
DAVID: I fully agree we will never have full scientific proof or any other kind of proof about the evolutionary processes. From single cell to here is an amazing journey. But even the single cell has been shown to be a highly complex information-filled factory. Darwin didn't know that. As a result his philosophic musing about evolution, based as they are on his time in knowledge of geology, paleontology, biology, and even history, are not worth much. You have admitted natural selection is a weak arbiter. We are left with a Darwin who championed the idea that some how or other evolution went from cell to us. Most of us have accepted the idea that life, once started, evolved. In that sense and only that sense only we have accepted Darwin. Debate of mechanisms must leave him behind.-I'm surprised that someone who lives in the heart of Creationist country thinks that Darwin's philosophical musings about evolution "are not worth much", when they have spawned a veritable industry of debate and research. In his conclusion, he writes: "...when we regard every production of nature as one which has a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor [...] when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting [...] will the study of natural history become. / A grand and almost untrodden field of inquiry will be opened, on the causes and laws of variation, on correlation of growth, on the effects of use and disuse, on the direct action of external conditions, and so forth." Not worth much? How many avenues of inquiry has Darwin opened up because of his theory? Of course he didn't know what we know now. That's why he talked of an "untrodden field". But the fact of the matter is that his championship of "the idea that some how or other evolution went from cell to us" has revolutionized our way of thinking, we STILL don't know the "somehow" (and many scientists still agree with most of his "musings"), and even you agree we shall never have proof of what it is. I can understand why, with your beliefs, you feel the "true issue" is the interpretation of evolution as a reflection of your God's ingenuity, but I see the course and workings of evolution as a subject in itself, and worth a great deal, even if we never get to discover the "first cause".
Denis noble debunks neo-Darwinism
by David Turell , Monday, September 02, 2013, 15:29 (4101 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I'm surprised that someone who lives in the heart of Creationist country thinks that Darwin's philosophical musings about evolution "are not worth much", when they have spawned a veritable industry of debate and research. In his conclusion, he writes: > > "...when we regard every production of nature as one which has a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor [...] when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting [...] will the study of natural history become. / A grand and almost untrodden field of inquiry will be opened, on the causes and laws of variation, on correlation of growth, on the effects of use and disuse, on the direct action of external conditions, and so forth." > > dhw: Not worth much? How many avenues of inquiry has Darwin opened up because of his theory? -I was referring to his conclusions and you overestimate him. Evolution preceded him by 100 years inthe appearance of the idea. Alfred Russel Wallace had a better understanding of the subject, and was only overshadowed by his lower social position. My thought is clearly we would be at this same point today if Darwin never existed. Clearly he did and was very influential. The problem today is that influence is holding back progress since so many researchers are beholden to Neo-Darwinism and are fighting those who would move on. Thomas Kuhn's observation at work. We are in the middle of the next revolution.
Denis noble debunks neo-Darwinism
dhw: Not worth much? How many avenues of inquiry has Darwin opened up because of his theory? DAVID: I was referring to his conclusions and you overestimate him. Evolution preceded him by 100 years inthe appearance of the idea. Alfred Russel Wallace had a better understanding of the subject, and was only overshadowed by his lower social position. My thought is clearly we would be at this same point today if Darwin never existed. Clearly he did and was very influential. The problem today is that influence is holding back progress since so many researchers are beholden to Neo-Darwinism and are fighting those who would move on. Thomas Kuhn's observation at work. We are in the middle of the next revolution.-The two threads "Denis Noble debunks neo-Darwinism" (he debunks one aspect of it - random mutations - and stresses complexity and cooperation between cells), and "Sticking a fork in Natural Selection" (in my view, the fork misses by a mile) do not disprove Darwin's theories of common descent or natural selection. Subjective judgements like "you overestimate him" or "we would have been at this same point" without him, and the fact that others pursued the same ideas before him, are irrelevant to the impact of evolutionary theory. Even the suggestion that his ideas are holding back progress is debatable, since research and discussion go on. The fact is that among scientists there is still no consensus as to HOW the evolutionary mechanism works or HOW it originated, and you yourself don't think there will ever be scientific proof of any theory. In other words, despite the huge advances in genetics and other sciences, we are still left with "the idea that somehow or other evolution went from cell to us". We have agreed a thousand times over that Darwin's own "somehow" (the gradual accumulation of random mutations) is highly suspect, and we have even agreed ... in the company of Margulis and Shapiro and Noble ... that there is some kind of intelligence or consciousness at work. But of course you will not be satisfied until all of us accept your own personal theory that the source of the intelligence is your God. In the meantime, I guess sniping at the agnostic Darwin is as good a way as any to attack his atheistic interpreters!
Denis noble debunks neo-Darwinism
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 03, 2013, 22:48 (4099 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw;The two threads "Denis Noble debunks neo-Darwinism" (he debunks one aspect of it - random mutations - and stresses complexity and cooperation between cells), and "Sticking a fork in Natural Selection" (in my view, the fork misses by a mile) do not disprove Darwin's theories of common descent or natural selection. ..... I guess sniping at the agnostic Darwin is as good a way as any to attack his atheistic interpreters!-I'm just looking ahead to future progress. Look how far we have dismantled Darwin in our discussions, and I have pointed out the frantic wails from the atheists.
Denis noble debunks neo-Darwinism
"The fact is that among scientists there is still no consensus as to HOW the evolutionary mechanism works or HOW it originated"-You are right that we don't know the origin of evolutionary mechanisms, but we certainly know what these mechanisms are and how they work. We have yet to learn how cells control and direct these mechanisms in the course of evolution. I recommend the following review paper by James Shapiro —> http://goo.gl/oYhLsc
Denis noble debunks neo-Darwinism
by David Turell , Saturday, April 12, 2014, 04:39 (3879 days ago) @ agnostic
Agnostic: We have yet to learn how cells control and direct these mechanisms in the course of evolution. I recommend the following review paper by James Shapiro —> http://goo.gl/oYhLsc-Thank you for the reference. If you poke though our many past discussions, James Shapiro has played a prominent role in demonstrating epigenetic mechanisms. He is far in advance of the average Darwinist scientist.