Darwinist ignorance, confusion & epigenetics (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, November 03, 2010, 20:09 (5133 days ago) @ dhw

&#13;&#10;> Matt writes: &quot;Natural selection ... despite its flaws ... is still the most usable theory of evolution. Science is, was, and will always be about the most usable explanations.&quot;&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> Natural selection is not THE theory of evolution. It&apos;s PART of the theory. Innovations are brought about by mutations and adaptations to changing conditions, and natural selection - although of course it is integral to the whole process - simply ensures that those creatures/ organs best suited to cope with the conditions will survive. -Epigenetics, the new research field, shows that the original neo-Darwin theory is extremely incomplete:- &quot;Fortunately, there is a new frontier, and still relatively unpopulated. Without a better word to describe it, I&apos;m calling it epi-epigenetics. -That is, when natural selection was the paradigm, then there was no &quot;memory&quot; to evolution. At each point in time, some critters died, some lived, and this decision was made every day of every year independent of what happened the previous year. It was an optimization problem that at most encompassed the fertile periods of a critter&apos;s lifespan. Yes, I know of all the strange contortions that evolutionary biologists use to explain altruism and the survival of the genes in a tribe, but the mathematical support for using these wider population averages rather than the individual&apos;s is thin, and on the whole, unsupported by field work. It remains a theory supported only by computer &quot;simulation&quot;. So my physicist way of describing natural selection then, is that it is local in time and space; it has no long range forces in either space or time. Mathematically it operates like the motion of a gas atom in a room--bouncing randomly in all directions--it can only diffuse. For to deny teleology, in physicspeak, is to deny long-range interactions that would allow <x> to be greater than 0.-In contrast, epigenetic effects are purposeful. When food is in short supply, animals grow smaller, and pass that on to their progeny. The population rapidly shifts as a whole, lurching in ways completely counter to selective death, and in fact, this saltation moves them in jumps toward life. It doesn&apos;t take the death of 95% of the population by freezing to get a longer coat of hair, but within a single generation, every critter is re-adapted to the climate. -So given these non-diffusive, saltational leaps of the genome toward inherited adaptation, what can we say about evolution? Can the progress of evolution from one-celled to Man be an epigenetic purpose? Can we detect some plan in the adaptive responses of animals and people over time? Or narrowing down the discussion to just Man, is there an observable plan to the progress from australopithecus robustus to homo sapiens? What was it that Neanderthals did that was a necessary step before introducing Cro-Magnons? Or narrowing our discussion even further, what was the necessity of the Neolithic Revolution and how did it lead to the flowering of modern civilization?-Notice what I&apos;m doing here. I&apos;m claiming that the demise of natural selection regains teleology as a valuable tool in biology. The recognition of the validity of epigenetics permits us to ask epigenetic questions about epigenetics. If behavior modifies the genes, then what is gene that permits that behavior? We are now on an infinite regression, with behaviors (such as digesting lactose) only possible when genes are present (lactase), and genes are only present when behaviors are possible (drinking milk). Invisibly then, a framework is being constructed, gene by gene, that with proper feedback, leads to the complex behavior and adaptive skills of Man. Evolution reveals not a random search through phase space, but a purposive construction of a complex scaffolding supporting Man. Call it the Strong Anthropic Principle of biology, for everything points to our existence.&quot; -From the Procrustes blog on townhall.com