William Provine, Evolutionist from Cornell drops Neo-Darwinism

[supersport]

William Provine, a hightone evolutionist from Cornell, has recently proclaimed that he no longer believes in natural selection: “I no longer see natural selection as a mechanism, or an active cause of evolution.”

Not only that but proclaims that a new theory of evolution is needed.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/04/) :
Quote:

Steve Meyer’s criticism of neo-Darwinism was surprisingly narrow, emphasizing natural selection acting upon mutations. I have a far deeper quarrel with the evolutionary biology of the 1960s. I no longer see natural selection as a mechanism, or an active cause of evolution. Natural selection (or adaptation) is a result of many interacting ecological and genetic causes and does not “work upon” individual genes. I reject random genetic drift and see the movement of neutral DNA by hitchhiking with pieces of chromosome with high or low survival rates. I reject gene pools, genetic homeostasis, am critical of the biological species concept and all hopes of generating robust phylogenetic trees older than 700 million years ago because of the wide exchange of DNA and RNA between one-celled organisms. Thus I turn out much more critical of neo-Darwinism than does Steve Meyer. None of my criticisms, however, suggest a ID creator, but a more lively and realistic view of evolution than I learned in graduate school.

When a highly credentialed Darwinian guy like Provine indicates that he no longer believes in natural selection, why should little guys in debate forums feel guilty about disbelieving at as well? Natural Selection is nothing but tautology....a fairytale for grownups.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00020722-64FD-12BC-A0E483414B7FFE87&pageNumber=8&catID=4

The final day of the conference began with a completely unorthodox lecture by Cornell University evolutionary theorist William Provine. From the projection booth he provided periodic voice-over commentary on text slides we were supposed to read to ourselves ("I don't read slides" he proclaimed), but for which he left on the screen for a few fleeting seconds inadequate for reading (and compounded with loud music that forced him to shout into the microphone). The gist of his talk was that we need a new theory of evolution, after which he listed 11 problems that included this statement: "Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."

Without Natural Selection there is no evolution. Richard Dawkins

 

[BandyOne]

William Provine, a hightone evolutionist from Cornell, has recently proclaimed that he no longer believes in natural selection: “I no longer see natural selection as a mechanism, or an active cause of evolution.”

Not only that but proclaims that a new theory of evolution is needed.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/04/) :
Quote:

Steve Meyer’s criticism of neo-Darwinism was surprisingly narrow, emphasizing natural selection acting upon mutations. I have a far deeper quarrel with the evolutionary biology of the 1960s. I no longer see natural selection as a mechanism, or an active cause of evolution. Natural selection (or adaptation) is a result of many interacting ecological and genetic causes and does not “work upon” individual genes. I reject random genetic drift and see the movement of neutral DNA by hitchhiking with pieces of chromosome with high or low survival rates. I reject gene pools, genetic homeostasis, am critical of the biological species concept and all hopes of generating robust phylogenetic trees older than 700 million years ago because of the wide exchange of DNA and RNA between one-celled organisms. Thus I turn out much more critical of neo-Darwinism than does Steve Meyer. None of my criticisms, however, suggest a ID creator, but a more lively and realistic view of evolution than I learned in graduate school.

When a highly credentialed Darwinian guy like Provine indicates that he no longer believes in natural selection, why should little guys in debate forums feel guilty about disbelieving at as well? Natural Selection is nothing but tautology....a fairytale for grownups.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00020722-64FD-12BC-A0E483414B7FFE87&pageNumber=8&catID=4

The final day of the conference began with a completely unorthodox lecture by Cornell University evolutionary theorist William Provine. From the projection booth he provided periodic voice-over commentary on text slides we were supposed to read to ourselves ("I don't read slides" he proclaimed), but for which he left on the screen for a few fleeting seconds inadequate for reading (and compounded with loud music that forced him to shout into the microphone). The gist of his talk was that we need a new theory of evolution, after which he listed 11 problems that included this statement: "Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."

Without Natural Selection there is no evolution. Richard Dawkins

Perhaps you can get this guy to be spokesman for the creationists, or does his doubts about Natural Selection not include a complete breakdown in his way of thinking.

It's a Huge jump from doubt to creationism.

You are already trying to twist it for your own ends:

"""When a highly credentialed Darwinian guy like Provine indicates that he no longer believes in natural selection, why should little guys in debate forums feel guilty about disbelieving at as well? Natural Selection is nothing but tautology....a fairytale for grownups."""

he did not say he didn't believe it, he said he had doubts.

 

[supersport]

lol......The theory of evoution is dying a slow painful death and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The whole thing is in utter turmoil. S

 

[A4C]

Scientists are not renowned for being faith people yet it takes lab-fulls of faith to believe in evolution -it is no wonder that there are those beginning to question their faith.

 

[Dragar]

In other news, another Doctor named Steve has signed onto project Steve, bringing the total to 773. How many scientists* with PhDs** named anything are creationists in all the world, supersport?


* People who have real PhDs

** From a real university, not Bible College.

 

[BandyOne]

lol......The theory of evoution is dying a slow painful death and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The whole thing is in utter turmoil. S

YOU WISH.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The theory of evoution is dying a slow painful death and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The whole thing is in utter turmoil.

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

 

[supersport]

don't you guys think that if Natural selection was the "fact" that it is proclaimed to be that there would be no way an atheist professor could turn his back on it????

 

[Asimov]

How do you know he is an atheist?

 

[Tomk80]

don't you guys think that if Natural selection was the "fact" that it is proclaimed to be that there would be no way an atheist professor could turn his back on it????

no, I don't think that. Anyone can turn his back to anything despite the evidence. You are a prime example.

 

[Dragar]

No, I think that if it is false I think there would be no way 700 scientists named Steve could voice their support of it.

Even assuming you (or your source) haven't just lied about the whole thing, or misprepresented what he said, as is the creationist MO.

In fact, I'd place money on the notion you've done that.

 

[Dragar]

Oh, what I surprise - I read a little more closely and find:

"It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."

So he's not saying natural selection is non-existent, only that evolution needs to be viewed as a result of various causes which result in natural selection. Not particularly profound, nor in contradiction with the theory of evolution.

But just as expected, the creationist MO.

 

[supersport]

Oh, what I surprise - I read a little more closely and find:

"It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."

So he's not saying natural selection is non-existent, only that evolution needs to be viewed as a result of various causes which result in natural selection. Not particularly profound, nor in contradiction with the theory of evolution.

But just as expected, the creationist MO.

who says it's non-existent...not me. What he's saying is that it's not a creative mechanism -- which is what I've long said. NS is nothing more than the weeding out of the drastically weak or freaks of nature. It creates nothing.

 

[Dragar]

More dishonesty? Tut tut, but alas, expected.

You said "William Provine, a hightone evolutionist from Cornell, has recently proclaimed that he no longer believes in natural selection". This is false, and backed up by out of context, misrepresented, misemhpasised, misread quotes. It's typcial creationist dishonesty, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Elduran]

Hmm, was this yet another quote mine project then?

 

[supersport]

More dishonesty? Tut tut, but alas, expected.

You said "William Provine, a hightone evolutionist from Cornell, has recently proclaimed that he no longer believes in natural selection". This is false, and backed up by out of context, misrepresented, misemhpasised, misread quotes. It's typcial creationist dishonesty, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

read his words yourself. I just repeated them.

I no longer see natural selection as a mechanism, or an active cause of evolution.”

 

[Tomk80]

Also from the sciam article:
"Since this is all beyond my pay scale, and since no one challenged him or even had a question in the discussion session, I privately canvassed the evolutionary theorists present for their opinion. With the exception of Lynn Margulis--who said she thinks that Provine is basically right even if he doesn't communicate it clearly--no one else present thought that there was any merit to Provine's challenges to modern evolutionary theory."

To answer your 'challenge': When a highly credentialed Darwinian guy like Provine indicates that he no longer believes in natural selection, why should little guys in debate forums feel guilty about disbelieving at as well?

If noone else takes him seriously, why should I? To me, it seems more like he is just taking the individual components of natural selection and, instead of putting them all under one umbrella, describes them seperately. I don't really see him saying anything that is really far out, except for some things that seem like strawmen to me (like the 'natural selection working on individual genes' bit, I have no idea who actually says such a thing). But that's just my own impression.

And no, natural selection is not a tautology. Survival of the fittest is, but then that doesn't matter. Even if natural selection is a tautology, it's the description of a mechanism. Tautologies can happen.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

First to point out a few factual errors with the OP.

William Provine is a philosopher and historian of science, he is not a PhD scientist (in one of the sciences) per se, but a historian of science.

evolutionnews, the source for the first quote is a blog put out by the Discovery Institute, it is not a news service but a organ of one of the parties to the discussion and ought to be treated as a very biased source of information.

NOTE: Intelligent Design (ID) has become the issue du jour with the mainstream media. Earlier this year we launched a blog to critique the media coverage of this issue. Be sure to visit Evolution News & Views, www.evolutionnews.org for regular updates.

from: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2372

the last line of the quote is the summary

Thus I turn out much more critical of neo-Darwinism than does Steve Meyer. None of my criticisms, however, suggest a ID creator, but a more lively and realistic view of evolution than I learned in graduate school.

a more lively and realistic view of evolution is not the same thing as When a highly credentialed Darwinian guy like Provine indicates that he no longer believes in natural selection, why should little guys in debate forums feel guilty about disbelieving at as well? Natural Selection is nothing but tautology....a fairytale for grownups.

so even if Provine is right, supersport is wrong to use him as support against the TofE.

 

[supersport]

williams...and then further down -- on the next page -- you'll find this:


Lynn Margulis, famous for her pioneering research on symbiogenesis. Margulis began graciously by acknowledging the conference hosts and saying, "This is the most wonderful conference I've ever been to, and I've been to a lot of conferences." She then got to work, pronouncing the death of neo-Darwinism.....

....There were no direct challenges to Margulis in the discussion period that followed, so I once again queried a number of the experts in this area after the lecture. The overall impression I received was that Margulis goes too far in her rejection of neo-Darwinism, but because she was right about the role of symbiogenesis in the origin of the first eukaryote cells, they are taking a wait-and-see approach. One scientist added that since Margulis was to receive an honorary doctorate that afternoon, it seemed inappropriate to challenge her in this venue. The final talk was delivered by evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden, from Stanford University. Evolutionary skepticism must have been in the air, for on the heals of Margulis' pronouncement of the death of neo-Darwinism, Roughgarden proclaimed the death of Darwin's theory of sexual selection. Darwin said that males have stronger passions than females, that females are coy, and that females choose mates who are more attractive, vigorous and well-armed. "

This is not good at a conference from high-toned evolutionists. At this point shouldn't they all be on the same page if ToE were true?

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

She then got to work, pronouncing the death of neo-Darwinism.....

By having BASF making houses 80% more energy efficient?

ok ok that was a joke on his cut and paste.