Denis noble debunks neo-Darwinism (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 03, 2013, 18:32 (4099 days ago) @ David Turell

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!