Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Jimmy D]

Sure, if it's only ToE. Where ToE has problems is with origins. ToE argumentators usually avoid it, but they can't avoid chemical evolution. This is where the creationist, such as myself, brings in origins.

However, yesterday I heard a simpler argument. Who better to argue against ToE than an evolutionist.

Evolutionary scientist admits theory’s major flaws
EVOLUTION | Gerd Müller notes evolution doesn’t adequately explain life’s origins or complexity
by Julie Borg
Posted 9/07/17, 12:33 pm
Gerd Müller, a highly regarded Austrian evolutionary theorist, recently gave a presentation, published in Interface Focus, in which he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.

Müller did not espouse any creationist or design beliefs, but his presentation demonstrated that even the most staunch advocates of evolution are forced to admit the theory has many holes. The presentation was devastating “for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out,” Discovery Institute experts wrote on their organization’s blog.

Müller’s admission offers a particularly damning critique since answers to questions about how things originated and how complexity developed form the basis for all origin theories. He also referred to the concept of macroevolution, the idea that one species can evolve into a totally different species, as “vague” and advised proponents of an expanded framework of evolution to avoid the term altogether.

Many Christians reject the theory of macroevolution because the Bible teaches that God created everything according to its kind. Somewhat less controversial is the theory of microevolution, which refers to changes or adaptations within a species. For example, dog breeders can breed a dog that sheds less, but it’s still a dog. But they can’t breed a dog that can fly. Many evolutionists believe microevolutionary changes lead to macroevolution, but Müller admitted even evolutionary experts argue among themselves about whether microevolutionary adaptations actually produce macroevolution.

Even within evolutionary circles, Müller noted, a large number of scientists recognize that the standard theory of evolution needs to be revised or replaced altogether: “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.”

Canadian musician Leonard Cohen once said, “There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.” Perhaps the ever-widening cracks in the theory of evolution will let some of the light of God’s truth shine into the scientific world.

I’d be more interested to read what Muller actually wrote rather than what some D.I. propagandist says about what he wrote, do you have a link?

I wonder if he’s being *brace yourself* misrepresented?

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, I found the article and surprisingly Jamesbond’s write up is nothing more than propagandist rubbish....

Where did he state that “he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.”?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree it's important to have a good definition, and one would typically invoke an authoritative source for the definition based on the context in which it is being used.

Where I find arguments over definitions arise is when people either have made up their own definition for something, or they are attempting to equivocate over a definition usually based on incorrect contextual usage. It is in these cases where arguing over a definition makes for a poor argument.

Such as the definition of life to include rocks as being alive...

 

[tulipbee]

Is there a sleeping serpent, coiled 3.5 times, at the base of the spine as explained in the kundulini circles?

 

[jamesbond007]

Yes, the link was under your nose the entire time. What else did you miss?

For those who did not read the OP, here is what Gerd Mueller wrote.

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

I’d be more interested to read what Muller actually wrote rather than what some D.I. propagandist says about what he wrote, do you have a link?

I wonder if he’s being *brace yourself* misrepresented?

++++++++

What do you mean by "propagandist rubbish?" Here's a snippet from Gerd Mueller's presentation to the Royal Society.

As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behaviour—whose variation it describes—actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences.

...

This is an exciting period in evolutionary biology. The principal Darwinian research tradition is upheld, but the specifics of evolutionary theory structure are undergoing ferment, including the revision of some of its traditional elements and the incorporation of new elements. Instead of privileging selected mechanisms such as random variation, genetic control and natural selection, the multitude of factors that dynamically interact in the evolutionary process will be better expounded by a pluralistic theory framework. Current evolutionary research already reflects this pluralism, and as many of its underlying concepts have drifted from the standard theoretical paradigm, an adjusted evolutionary framework that adequately synthesizes the multitude of new theoretical elements has become a necessity. The EES represents one possibility for such integration.

Well, I found the article and surprisingly Jamesbond’s write up is nothing more than propagandist rubbish....

Where did he state that “he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.”?

 

[USincognito]

Sure, if it's only ToE. Where ToE has problems is with origins.

That's like saying Germ Theory of Disease "has problems with 'origins'" because it does not explain how bacteria and viruses came to be or that Plate Tectonic Theory "had problems with 'origins'" because it does not explain how the earth came to be. Creationists don't seem to understand that scientific theories are not meant to explain everything. They are meant to explain a body of observations. In the case of evolution it explains the diversity of life we observe now and in the fossil record. The origin of life, whatever it was has absolutely no effect on evolution.

Do believe me? Answer this question. How do any of the following three origins of life on earth effect the theory of evolution if at all?
- abiogenesis
- Creation by God (or another deity of one so chooses)
- panspermia

 

[jamesbond007]

That's like saying Germ Theory of Disease "has problems with 'origins'" because it does not explain how bacteria and viruses came to be or that Plate Tectonic Theory "had problems with 'origins'" because it does not explain how the earth came to be. Creationists don't seem to understand that scientific theories are not meant to explain everything. They are meant to explain a body of observations. In the case of evolution it explains the diversity of life we observe now and in the fossil record. The origin of life, whatever it was has absolutely no effect on evolution.

Do believe me? Answer this question. How do any of the following three origins of life on earth effect the theory of evolution if at all?
- abiogenesis
- Creation by God (or another deity of one so chooses)
- panspermia

Abiogenesis evolved from chemical evolution. Chemical evolution evolved from spontaneous generation.

Chemical evolution also evolved into mutation. The latter is part of ToE.

Two pathways
1. Spontaneous generation ==> Chemical evolution ==> Abiogenesis
2. Spontaneous generation ==> Chemical evolution ==> Mutation ==> ToE

1.
spontaneous generation | Examples & Experiments ==>

What is Chemical Evolution? ==>

From soup to cells — the origin of life

2.
Same as 1, but includes
Mutation theory | biology

and Mutationism or ToE
Mutationism - Wikipedia

 

[USincognito]

Abiogenesis evolved from chemical evolution. Chemical evolution evolved from spontaneous generation.

Chemical evolution also evolved into mutation. The latter is part of ToE.

Two pathways
1. Spontaneous generation ==> Chemical evolution ==> Abiogenesis
2. Spontaneous generation ==> Chemical evolution ==> Mutation ==> ToE

1.
spontaneous generation | Examples & Experiments ==>

What is Chemical Evolution? ==>

From soup to cells — the origin of life

2.
Same as 1, but includes
Mutation theory | biology

and Mutationism or ToE
Mutationism - Wikipedia

Leaving aside for a moment the fact everything in this post is wrong, what the heck does it does it have to do with the question I asked?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Gerd Müller, a highly regarded Austrian evolutionary theorist, recently gave a presentation, published in Interface Focus, in which he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.

..."admitted"?? the Theory of Evolution has **NEVER** addressed abiogenesis, let alone incorporated it in any way. Anyone who has ever claimed otherwise, was wrong.

Wrong. Atheists are usually wrong. At least, Gerd Mueller is honest enough to admit ToE's weaknesses.

If you do not understand ToE sufficiently to be able to argue origins, then we can start with chemical evolution. Prior to it was the pseudoscientific spontaneous generation which was part of ToE.

Wow! You have completely come out of left field on this one, and in a thundering great drag-racing tractor kinda way too... You've really missed the mark.

Yes, the link was under your nose the entire time. What else did you miss?

For those who did not read the OP, here is what Gerd Mueller wrote.

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

++++++++

What do you mean by "propagandist rubbish?" Here's a snippet from Gerd Mueller's presentation to the Royal Society.
...

Nope, I'm not seeing it - can you quote the part where he "admits" that the ToE no longer addresses abiogenesis? (or for that matter, any reference anywhere that the ToE has EVER addressed abiogenesis at all??)

Abiogenesis evolved from chemical evolution. Chemical evolution evolved from spontaneous generation.

Chemical evolution also evolved into mutation. The latter is part of ToE.

Two pathways
1. Spontaneous generation ==> Chemical evolution ==> Abiogenesis
2. Spontaneous generation ==> Chemical evolution ==> Mutation ==> ToE

1.
spontaneous generation | Examples & Experiments ==>

What is Chemical Evolution? ==>

From soup to cells — the origin of life

2.
Same as 1, but includes
Mutation theory | biology

and Mutationism or ToE
Mutationism - Wikipedia

Are you a conspiracy theorist by chance? Where on earth do you get this stuff from??

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes, the link was under your nose the entire time. What else did you miss?

You link didn't take me to the article in question but never mind.

What do you mean by "propagandist rubbish?" Here's a snippet from Gerd Mueller's presentation to the Royal Society.

I read the article thanks. Mueller's message is summed up in the conclusion...

This is an exciting period in evolutionary biology. The principal Darwinian research tradition is upheld, but the specifics of evolutionary theory structure are undergoing ferment, including the revision of some of its traditional elements and the incorporation of new elements. Instead of privileging selected mechanisms such as random variation, genetic control and natural selection, the multitude of factors that dynamically interact in the evolutionary process will be better expounded by a pluralistic theory framework. Current evolutionary research already reflects this pluralism, and as many of its underlying concepts have drifted from the standard theoretical paradigm, an adjusted evolutionary framework that adequately synthesizes the multitude of new theoretical elements has become a necessity. The EES represents one possibility for such integration.


If you'd like to know why I said Borg's article is propagandist rubbish....


Gerd Müller, a highly regarded Austrian evolutionary theorist, recently gave a presentation, published in Interface Focus, in which he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.

He "admitted" no such thing, Darwin's theory didn't deal with abiogenesis, why would he need to make such an admission?

I'd be interested to see where you think he "admits" that "Charles Darwin's theory" avoids explaining how complexity developed, I couldn't see where he said that.

..................................

Müller did not espouse any creationist or design beliefs, but his presentation demonstrated that even the most staunch advocates of evolution are forced to admit the theory has many holes. The presentation was devastating “for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out,” Discovery Institute experts wrote on their organization’s blog.

Where is the implication that there are "many holes"? Or that anyone is forced to admit that there are "many holes"....

Nowhere.

Where does he mention origins?

Nowhere.

Who thought that evolutionary theory had "it all figured out"?

No one.

......................................

Müller’s admission offers a particularly damning critique since answers to questions about how things originated and how complexity developed form the basis for all origin theories. He also referred to the concept of macroevolution, the idea that one species can evolve into a totally different species, as “vague” and advised proponents of an expanded framework of evolution to avoid the term altogether.


This is a complete misrepresentation of Mueller's article to try to imply that there is some sort of doubt or lack of evidence for "one species evolving into a totally different species".

In the article Mueller is describing the issues that can occur due to the term "macroevolution" being ill-defined.

...................................

Many Christians reject the theory of macroevolution because the Bible teaches that God created everything according to its kind. Somewhat less controversial is the theory of microevolution, which refers to changes or adaptations within a species. For example, dog breeders can breed a dog that sheds less, but it’s still a dog. But they can’t breed a dog that can fly. Many evolutionists believe microevolutionary changes lead to macroevolution, but Müller admitted even evolutionary experts argue among themselves about whether microevolutionary adaptations actually produce macroevolution.

LOL, utter rubbish, this is not discussed, hinted at, or implied by Mueller. The sad thing is that creationists eat this crap up because it's what they want to hear.

Mueller admitted no such thing, it's pure propaganda.

...................................

Even within evolutionary circles, Müller noted, a large number of scientists recognize that the standard theory of evolution needs to be revised or replaced altogether: “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.”

Well, that's the point of his essay, he goes on to say...

In the present essay, I will concentrate on the arguments and debates triggered by one particular alternative to the standard theory that has become known under the term extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). This proposal for an integration of revised and additional components of evolutionary theory into a coherent explanatory framework, as recently elaborated by Laland et al.

How is incorporating new areas of research into the theory a bad thing?


The whole tone of Borg's article is that a "leading evolutionist" is somehow admitting that the theory of evolution is flawed, whereas the whole point of Mueller's article is that...

"Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and multiple inheritance systems, the ‘-omics’ revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge about the factors responsible for evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process. A renewed and extended theoretical synthesis, advocated by several authors in this issue, aims to unite pertinent concepts that emerge from the novel fields with elements of the standard theory."

 

[Ophiolite]

You link didn't take me to the article in question but never mind.



I read the article thanks. Mueller's message is summed up in the conclusion...

This is an exciting period in evolutionary biology. The principal Darwinian research tradition is upheld, but the specifics of evolutionary theory structure are undergoing ferment, including the revision of some of its traditional elements and the incorporation of new elements. Instead of privileging selected mechanisms such as random variation, genetic control and natural selection, the multitude of factors that dynamically interact in the evolutionary process will be better expounded by a pluralistic theory framework. Current evolutionary research already reflects this pluralism, and as many of its underlying concepts have drifted from the standard theoretical paradigm, an adjusted evolutionary framework that adequately synthesizes the multitude of new theoretical elements has become a necessity. The EES represents one possibility for such integration.


If you'd like to know why I said Borg's article is propagandist rubbish....


Gerd Müller, a highly regarded Austrian evolutionary theorist, recently gave a presentation, published in Interface Focus, in which he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.

He "admitted" no such thing, Darwin's theory didn't deal with abiogenesis, why would he need to make such an admission?

I'd be interested to see where you think he "admits" that "Charles Darwin's theory" avoids explaining how complexity developed, I couldn't see where he said that.

..................................

Müller did not espouse any creationist or design beliefs, but his presentation demonstrated that even the most staunch advocates of evolution are forced to admit the theory has many holes. The presentation was devastating “for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out,” Discovery Institute experts wrote on their organization’s blog.

Where is the implication that there are "many holes"? Or that anyone is forced to admit that there are "many holes"....

Nowhere.

Where does he mention origins?

Nowhere.

Who thought that evolutionary theory had "it all figured out"?

No one.

......................................

Müller’s admission offers a particularly damning critique since answers to questions about how things originated and how complexity developed form the basis for all origin theories. He also referred to the concept of macroevolution, the idea that one species can evolve into a totally different species, as “vague” and advised proponents of an expanded framework of evolution to avoid the term altogether.


This is a complete misrepresentation of Mueller's article to try to imply that there is some sort of doubt or lack of evidence for "one species evolving into a totally different species".

In the article Mueller is describing the issues that can occur due to the term "macroevolution" being ill-defined.

...................................

Many Christians reject the theory of macroevolution because the Bible teaches that God created everything according to its kind. Somewhat less controversial is the theory of microevolution, which refers to changes or adaptations within a species. For example, dog breeders can breed a dog that sheds less, but it’s still a dog. But they can’t breed a dog that can fly. Many evolutionists believe microevolutionary changes lead to macroevolution, but Müller admitted even evolutionary experts argue among themselves about whether microevolutionary adaptations actually produce macroevolution.

LOL, utter rubbish, this is not discussed, hinted at, or implied by Mueller. The sad thing is that creationists eat this crap up because it's what they want to hear.

Mueller admitted no such thing, it's pure propaganda.

...................................

Even within evolutionary circles, Müller noted, a large number of scientists recognize that the standard theory of evolution needs to be revised or replaced altogether: “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.”

Well, that's the point of his essay, he goes on to say...

In the present essay, I will concentrate on the arguments and debates triggered by one particular alternative to the standard theory that has become known under the term extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). This proposal for an integration of revised and additional components of evolutionary theory into a coherent explanatory framework, as recently elaborated by Laland et al.

How is incorporating new areas of research into the theory a bad thing?


The whole tone of Borg's article is that a "leading evolutionist" is somehow admitting that the theory of evolution is flawed, whereas the whole point of Mueller's article is that...

"Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and multiple inheritance systems, the ‘-omics’ revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge about the factors responsible for evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process. A renewed and extended theoretical synthesis, advocated by several authors in this issue, aims to unite pertinent concepts that emerge from the novel fields with elements of the standard theory."

I almost broke my keyboard trying to get the forum to accept more than one Winner accolade from me for this, but repeated strikes, with many combinations, proved fruitless. Please accept this thank you as meagre compensation.

 

[jamesbond007]

I read the article thanks. Mueller's message is summed up in the conclusion...

This is an exciting period in evolutionary biology. The principal Darwinian research tradition is upheld, but the specifics of evolutionary theory structure are undergoing ferment, including the revision of some of its traditional elements and the incorporation of new elements. Instead of privileging selected mechanisms such as random variation, genetic control and natural selection, the multitude of factors that dynamically interact in the evolutionary process will be better expounded by a pluralistic theory framework. Current evolutionary research already reflects this pluralism, and as many of its underlying concepts have drifted from the standard theoretical paradigm, an adjusted evolutionary framework that adequately synthesizes the multitude of new theoretical elements has become a necessity. The EES represents one possibility for such integration.


If you'd like to know why I said Borg's article is propagandist rubbish....


Gerd Müller, a highly regarded Austrian evolutionary theorist, recently gave a presentation, published in Interface Focus, in which he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.

He "admitted" no such thing, Darwin's theory didn't deal with abiogenesis, why would he need to make such an admission?

I'd be interested to see where you think he "admits" that "Charles Darwin's theory" avoids explaining how complexity developed, I couldn't see where he said that.

You need some background in order to provide context. There was no abiogenesis during Darwin's time. It was pseudoscientific spontaneous generation. This was his origins. We all know that Darwin was interested in origins.

"The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E. My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

Now, I'm going to walk a fine line between what ID said because it is not what creation science states. Today, people have taken out origins from the ToE because the science does not explain. This is not what Darwin was after. What the ToE argumenters today forget is part of ToE is due to mutation and macroevolution theory.

Here's another example of what Darwin said, back in the day,

"Origin of whales
In the first edition of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," he speculated.

The idea didn't go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book."

What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

If one can put 2 + 2 together, then they get that ToE according to Darwin, was interested in origins, mutation and macroevolution theory. (BTW livescience is wrong in their example. It isn't natural selection, but macroevolution, i.e. one species becoming another totally different species in another clade.)

Müller did not espouse any creationist or design beliefs, but his presentation demonstrated that even the most staunch advocates of evolution are forced to admit the theory has many holes. The presentation was devastating “for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out,” Discovery Institute experts wrote on their organization’s blog.

Where is the implication that there are "many holes"? Or that anyone is forced to admit that there are "many holes"....

Nowhere.

Where does he mention origins?

Nowhere.

Who thought that evolutionary theory had "it all figured out"?

No one.

I'd have to guess that the many holes come from Darwin being wrong about many things while the ToE has evolved into ESS.

Müller’s admission offers a particularly damning critique since answers to questions about how things originated and how complexity developed form the basis for all origin theories. He also referred to the concept of macroevolution, the idea that one species can evolve into a totally different species, as “vague” and advised proponents of an expanded framework of evolution to avoid the term altogether.


This is a complete misrepresentation of Mueller's article to try to imply that there is some sort of doubt or lack of evidence for "one species evolving into a totally different species".

In the article Mueller is describing the issues that can occur due to the term "macroevolution" being ill-defined.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Many Christians reject the theory of macroevolution because the Bible teaches that God created everything according to its kind. Somewhat less controversial is the theory of microevolution, which refers to changes or adaptations within a species. For example, dog breeders can breed a dog that sheds less, but it’s still a dog. But they can’t breed a dog that can fly. Many evolutionists believe microevolutionary changes lead to macroevolution, but Müller admitted even evolutionary experts argue among themselves about whether microevolutionary adaptations actually produce macroevolution.

LOL, utter rubbish, this is not discussed, hinted at, or implied by Mueller. The sad thing is that creationists eat this crap up because it's what they want to hear.

Mueller admitted no such thing, it's pure propaganda.

Read what Mueller said. He's comparing today along with ESS with standard evo.

"Whereas ‘microevolution’ is regarded as the continuous change of allele frequencies within a species or population [109], the ill-defined macroevolution concept [36], amalgamates the issue of speciation and the origin of ‘higher taxa’ with so-called ‘major phenotypic change’ or new constructional types. Usually, a cursory acknowledgement of the problem of the origin of phenotypic characters quickly becomes a discussion of population genetic arguments about speciation, often linked to the maligned punctuated equilibria concept [9], in order to finally dismiss any necessity for theory change. The problem of phenotypic complexity thus becomes (in)elegantly bypassed. Inevitably, the conclusion is reached that microevolutionary mechanisms are consistent with macroevolutionary phenomena [36], even though this has very little to do with the structure and predictions of the EES. The real issue is that genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity, not only of something vaguely termed ‘macroevolution’. Hence, the micro–macro distinction only serves to obscure the important issues that emerge from the current challenges to the standard theory. It should not be used in discussion of the EES, which rarely makes any allusions to macroevolution, although it is sometimes forced to do so."

Even within evolutionary circles, Müller noted, a large number of scientists recognize that the standard theory of evolution needs to be revised or replaced altogether: “A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.”

Well, that's the point of his essay, he goes on to say...

In the present essay, I will concentrate on the arguments and debates triggered by one particular alternative to the standard theory that has become known under the term extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). This proposal for an integration of revised and additional components of evolutionary theory into a coherent explanatory framework, as recently elaborated by Laland et al.

How is incorporating new areas of research into the theory a bad thing?


The whole tone of Borg's article is that a "leading evolutionist" is somehow admitting that the theory of evolution is flawed, whereas the whole point of Mueller's article is that...

"Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and multiple inheritance systems, the ‘-omics’ revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge about the factors responsible for evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process. A renewed and extended theoretical synthesis, advocated by several authors in this issue, aims to unite pertinent concepts that emerge from the novel fields with elements of the standard theory."

I don't disagree.

 

[Jimmy D]

You need some background in order to provide context. There was no abiogenesis during Darwin's time. It was pseudoscientific spontaneous generation. This was his origins. We all know that Darwin was interested in origins.

"The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E. My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

Charles Darwin - the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond

To be honest I'm not sure why you're bringing abiogenesis into the discussion. I'm even less sure why you think 19th century views on the origin of life are relevant, maybe you should start a thread on the subject if you wish to discuss it.

Now, I'm going to walk a fine line between what ID said because it is not what creation science states. Today, people have taken out origins from the ToE because the science does not explain. This is not what Darwin was after. What the ToE argumenters today forget is part of ToE is due to mutation and macroevolution theory.

No, the Theory of Evolution deals with evolution, no one's "taken origins" out of it. I notice your Darwin quote came from a letter he wrote, not his writing on evolution, and even then he made it clear he was purely speculating.... "But if (and oh what a big if)".

As you bring it "creation science" and ID up maybe you can inform me exactly what they do say. As far as I'm aware it's very little.

I'm not sure what "What the ToE argumenters today forget is part of ToE is due to mutation and macroevolution theory" is supposed to mean.

Here's another example of what Darwin said, back in the day,

"Origin of whales
In the first edition of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," he speculated.

The idea didn't go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book."

What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

If one can put 2 + 2 together, then they get that ToE according to Darwin, was interested in origins, mutation and macroevolution theory. (BTW livescience is wrong in their example. It isn't natural selection, but macroevolution, i.e. one species becoming another totally different species in another clade.)

You seem to be quoting random articles that have little to do with the topic at hand.

Obviously Darwin was interested in the origin of species, the clue is in the title of his book. It seems that you are conflating the origin of species with the origin of life to prove your original mistaken assertion that abiogenesis has been removed from the TOE.

Does any of this really matter anyway? Biology has moved on since Darwin's time.

I'd have to guess that the many holes come from Darwin being wrong about many things while the ToE has evolved into ESS.

You would have to guess, because Mueller's presentation doesn't mention these holes that Borg is pretending were discussed. If you're not going to acknowledge that then I don't see much point in continuing the discussion.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Disagree away, I don't expect to change your mind. Anyone actually reading both articles with an open mind can see Borg's disingenuous misrepresentation.

Read what Mueller said. He's comparing today along with ESS with standard evo.

I did read what he said, several times to respond to Borg's article.

I stand by my statement.

To be frank, I've spent enough time reading Mueller's presentation by now, as far as I'm concerned you can take what you like from it, but if you think that Mueller has any doubts about common ancestry or the many lines of convergent evidence for it you are sadly mistaken. I does seem amusing though that you (or Borg) seem to accept him as an authority on the subject when you can proclaim "A leading evolutionist admits major flaws in the TOE" yet suddenly doubt him or ignore him where he says things like...

"Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and multiple inheritance systems, the ‘-omics’ revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge about the factors responsible for evolutionary change."

I notice that you bought this article up in response to Pitabread's statement that...

"The Theory of Evolution is foundational to modern biology and an applied science. So yeah, it's kinda relevant."

Which you failed to address.

It is quite amusing that this thread is actually about dishonesty in creationist literature and although your post had little relevance to statement that Pita made, it actually did a great job in highlighting the kind of rubbish that propagandists like Borg will publish. A bit of an own goal wouldn't you say?

 

[jamesbond007]

To be honest I'm not sure why you're bringing abiogenesis into the discussion. I'm even less sure why you think 19th century views on the origin of life are relevant, maybe you should start a thread on the subject if you wish to discuss it.

No, the Theory of Evolution deals with evolution, no one's "taken origins" out of it. I notice your Darwin quote came from a letter he wrote, not his writing on evolution, and even then he made it clear he was purely speculating.... "But if (and oh what a big if)".

As you bring it "creation science" and ID up maybe you can inform me exactly what they do say. As far as I'm aware it's very little.

I'm getting at context. It explains what the IDers wrote.

If ToE has origins as Darwin speculated, then it has spontaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis. Aren't these more in line with pseudoscience than a valid scientific theory. It's part of the history of evolutionary thought. ToE didn't just spring up one day. You can't just ignore all the crackpot stuff that went on and say it's a better theory today.

Creation science states what is written in the Bible and that while the Bible isn't a science book, science does back up the Bible. In this case, God created humans as a separate species from other land animals.

I'm not sure what "What the ToE argumenters today forget is part of ToE is due to mutation and macroevolution theory" is supposed to mean.

During Darwin's time, mutationism was believed to cause new forms and new species. Isn't mutation what drives ToE today?

Mutation part of evolutionary biology
Mutation - Wikipedia

Mutationism
Mutationism - Wikipedia

You seem to be quoting random articles that have little to do with the topic at hand.

Obviously Darwin was interested in the origin of species, the clue is in the title of his book. It seems that you are conflating the origin of species with the origin of life to prove your original mistaken assertion that abiogenesis has been removed from the TOE.

Does any of this really matter anyway? Biology has moved on since Darwin's time.

Now we're getting somewhere. What has biology moved on to? How does what Gerd Mueller said not fit with what the IDers wrote?

The IDers continue to state that it shed light of the deficiencies in Darwinian theory. They think traditional Darwinian theorists and even the ESSers are still far away. There were two traditional Darwinian theorists at the meeting who poo pooed Mueller.

I think what the IDers wrote was to show the discrepancy as to what evolution apologists present to the media and what they say behind closed doors. IDers state that Mueller was poo-pooed as ESS isn't necessary. Certainly, what he said wasn't reported by major news organizations even though the Royal Society meeting is big stuff in evolutionary circles. How did Mueller's presentation relate to your views on biology today? Is ESS not necessary or valid addition?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Definitely venting*, but I can understand the passion and the anger and the frustration that arises from blatant lies told repeatedly by certain (many) creationists. Their tactics are despicable, their self indulgent ignorance is offensive and their moral position is shameful.

I will agree that the field of evolution is based on a lie (or, more to the point, magic and historical philosophy), as are many of its "Icons", such as Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths, vestigial organs, whale evolution, and junk DNA, to name a few. But after all those embarrassments, the myth that man and ape are 95% genetically similar is still being touted as fact, years after it was demonstrated that there are millions of differences between the two. Even evolutionary geology is based on flaky theories that are easily rebutted.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Okay, let's step through this. Humans and chimpanzees differ (at the single-base level) by ~1%. Your position is that this is largely the result of mutations since they were created.

Just so there is no misunderstanding by new-arrivals, humans and chimps are only about 70% similar. There are many millions of differences, as Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, (PhD Genetics, Clemson U.) explains:

"Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7% with a range of 66.1% to 77.9%, depending on the chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. Chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity. However, overall there is extreme DNA sequence discontinuity between the two genomes. The current study along with several other recent reports confirm this. This defies standard evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor."
. . .
"To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genome’s 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimpanzee genome—that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless “junk DNA”. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules. "

[Jeffrey P. Tomkins, "Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%." Answers in Genesis, 2015]​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

The theory of Evolution includes an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of evolution. In other words, how the process of evolution occurs.

How does the process of evolution occur?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

The origin of life is not within the scope of the ToE.

Have you ever read this by Dr. David N. Mention (PhD Biology, Brown University)?

"Although Darwin spoke longingly of the chance origin of life from simple chemicals in some ‘warm little pond,’ there has never been evidence that anything remotely like this has ever happened. In fact, the evidence for chemical evolution is so embarrassing, some evolutionists insist that the whole idea of the origin of life is not even a part of the theory of evolution but rather is a creationist plot to discredit evolution!" [David Menton, "The Origin of Life." Creation Ministries International, 1993,
Adapted from: St. Louis MetroVoice, August 1993, Vol. 3, No. 8]​

Sound familiar?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Well, I found the article and surprisingly Jamesbond’s write up is nothing more than propagandist rubbish....

Where did he state that “he admitted Charlies Darwin’s theory largely avoids explaining how life originated and how complexity developed.”?

Perhaps here:

"The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behaviour—whose variation it describes—actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences." [Gerd B. Mueller, "Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary." Royal Society of Biological Sciences, 2017, p.3] ​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Creationists don't seem to understand that scientific theories are not meant to explain everything.

It would be helpful if the theory of evolution could explain anything, other than variations within species.

Dan