The Third Way

#2
Good news! One of my favourite biologists James Shapiro is on board.
It can no longer be said that it is just an ideological agenda to "dump" on Darwinism (modern synthesis). Even these guys who are physicalists recognize what most of the public don't know, that it never ever was up to the task of explaining evolution. It was outdated decades ago. And that we have much to learn.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#3
I look forward to seeing what sort of things show up at the site. I'm not completely convinced, since the home page has such crap as:

"The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems."

There is no need to state untruths to justify the goals of the site.

~~ Paul
 
#4
I look forward to seeing what sort of things show up at the site. I'm not completely convinced, since the home page has such crap as:

"The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems."

There is no need to state untruths to justify the goals of the site.

~~ Paul
Plus you were no doubt disappointed that Darwin's Doubt wasn't listed under the recommended Books section, right? ;-)
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#5
#6
I also look forward to seeing where this will go. It is a nice chance for dialogue if they don't start ideological battles and are able to fulfill their rationale by providing resources to continue the discussion in a direction that is different from natural selection or creationism.

"The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems."

Agree with Paul on this one - what a silly statement. :P

Does anybody think natural selection has been shown to be a "unique creative force" or is this just a biased opinion? State why.

Does anybody on skeptiko-forums feel a different path in terms of evolution is a good idea, or should we be looking for a mechanism for life diversity elsewhere?



I just want dialogue on any interesting subject lol
 
#7
Yes I think Natural selection happens but is given undue powers. Again even among physicalists this is an issue. Popular spokesmen such as Richard Dawkins have echoed the suggestive problem solving of NS. It is touted as being the offsett to random mutation in a way.

Shapiro calls his theory natural genetic engineering. The cell can rewrite its own genome, it is a read write memory system. Think of it like the immune system that can stitch together a solution amongst millions from a tool kit of parts. It adapts to the enviroment through organized cellular processes.
You could say the Intelligence is in the cell itself.

I know they call it a third way, but IMO it only compounds the ID argument. But I do think there is some middle ground there. That would be a good start.
 
Last edited:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#8
Yes I think Natural selection happens but is given undue powers. Again even among physicalists this is an issue. Popular spokemen such ss Richard Dawkins have echoed the suggedtive problem solving of NS. It is touted as being the offsett to random mutation in a way.
And natural selection does have amazing power. But the theory has moved on to include genetic drift, neutral theory, nearly neutral theory, epigenetics, gene transfer, sexual selection, and so on. It's disingenuous to say the theory of evolution = mutation + natural selection.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...onary-theory-may-not-be-what-you-think-it-is/

Biochemistry is willing to grab on to anything that works. It has no theory dogma.

~~ Paul
 
#10
Natural selection does not create, it eliminates and maintains. For natural selection to take place functions must first emerge. It has no creative power. There are evolutionary biologists that have questioned its role including the ones involved in the third way. This is not to say it does not happen. Elimination and maintaing are important. And as in the immunology model it can be exploited to refine.

But without natural selection Richard Dawkins has stated it would be absurd to think blind random mutation could accomplish anything at all.
E
Paul says.

And natural selection does have amazing power. But the theory has moved on to include genetic drift, neutral theory, nearly neutral theory, epigenetics, gene transfer, sexual selection, and so on. It's disingenuous to say the theory of evolution = mutation + natural selection.
This is just mixinging terms while misrepresenting the original statement with a strawman argument.

You equating NS with evolution when it is an aspect of evolution. And sexual selection has obvious agency.

Epigenetics and gene transfer? These seem to be just thrown in to make it sound nice. You can't just include them in and say look how powerful it is! You are no longer talking about NS! Epigenetics! Seriously!

You also seem to contradict youself Paul. You claim the statement that NS has been elevated to the position of creative problem solving to be false. An untruth. Yet you then imply that it does actually have that power. Amazing power as you call it. That ìs hypocrisy plain as day. Or maybe you believe it does have amazing power as you say, which only supports their statement as true. Which it certainly is.

And as a noob working towards a biochemistry degree, I can say evolution is a minor, minor part of the study. It has no real relevance in understanding the workings of the cell.

BTW, this is in other stuff. Spare me the excuses.

The fact the function must logically come first, is all that is needed to show the limits of NS. Nothing evolves unless it already exists.

Shapiro's theory involves regulated cellular processes, mutations are not truly random. In fact mutations are for the most part confined to tissue specific genes while crucial house keeping genes are protected. This is synonymous with how the immune system uses targeted randomization to refine an antibody.

Adapative mutations, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, endo symbiosis, genome doubling etc.. these are all part of the tool kit. That are side line adhocs for the outdated synthesis. And it is precisely these sort of things that have been prompting a new evolutionary theory by breaking many of the imposed rules.

What Shapiro is proposing is cellular cognition, decision making in the cell. I wish him luck. You won't find the third way well accepted amongst the millitant defenders of the faith.

For decades they have firmly stated scientific established fact! Conclusive! Mountains of evidence! Then we discover all these other mechanisms that make the RM and NS look pale in comparison. They then just say oh we just have all these other random effects going on filtered through natural selection!

I am all for the third way. Shapiros website, hundreds and hundreds of references throughout.
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu
 
Last edited:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#14
Paul says.
And natural selection does have amazing power. But the theory has moved on to include genetic drift, neutral theory, nearly neutral theory, epigenetics, gene transfer, sexual selection, and so on. It's disingenuous to say the theory of evolution = mutation + natural selection.
This is just mixinging terms while misrepresenting the original statement with a strawman argument.
You equating NS with evolution when it is an aspect of evolution. And sexual selection has obvious agency.
What? I included natural selection among a list of aspects of evolution. Why would you say I equated it with evolution?

Epigenetics and gene transfer? These seem to be just thrown in to make it sound nice. You can't just include them in and say look how powerful it is! You are no longer talking about NS! Epigenetics! Seriously!
Where did I say I was only talking about natural selection? Are you sure you aren't blindly assuming that I agree with the original quote I included in post #3?

You also seem to contradict youself Paul. You claim the statement that NS has been elevated to the position of creative problem solving to be false. An untruth. Yet you then imply that it does actually have that power. Amazing power as you call it. That ìs hypocrisy plain as day. Or maybe you believe it does have amazing power as you say, which only supports their statement as true. Which it certainly is.
This is the statement I said is false:

"The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems."

Neo-Darwinism has not elevated natural selection into a unique creative force.

Then I said that natural selection has amazing power. It does. Nowhere did I say it was "creative."

And as a noob working towards a biochemistry degree, I can say evolution is a minor, minor part of the study. It has no real relevance in understanding the workings of the cell.
Nor does the history of the gasoline engine in understanding how it works. That is, until you take a course and attempt to understand where the engine came from or figure out how it relates to a diesel engine or a Wankel.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
#15
"The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems."

Neo-Darwinism has not elevated natural selection into a unique creative force.

Then I said that natural selection has amazing power. It does. Nowhere did I say it was "creative."
What a funny fellow you are.
 
#18
LS,

Any idea what guys like Shapiro think of the arguments made in Meyer's book(s), especially (1) Darwin's doubt about the fossil record, (2) the arguments he made about not enough time to form functional proteins, etc?
 
#19
LS,

Any idea what guys like Shapiro think of the arguments made in Meyer's book(s), especially (1) Darwin's doubt about the fossil record, (2) the arguments he made about not enough time to form functional proteins, etc?
Don't know about the response to Darwin's Doubt but the protein issue has come up between Doug Axe, the biological institute and Shapiro. To be honest I think Axe made his point. I will post the exchanges.

I think on the whole they would agree mostly with the book concerning the problems outlined. Shapiro's work is mentioned as showing promise.
What I do appreciate about Shapiro is that he is quite forthcoming about what still needs explaining and biological novelty is at the top of the list.

Shapiro has commented on some other aspects such as Irreducible complexity, saying the problem for Darwinism is correct but the solution is not and resorts to the restriction imposed by the philosophy of science.

There really is no "third way". I do appreciate the approach but when you get down to it you have to explain where natural genetic engineering came from. If evolution depends on cellular cognition and directed problem solving, this raises questions on how these traits that drive evolution evolved without them.

They recognize the inadequacy of the modern synthesis and see the intelligence in the cell but refuse to accept the possibility of something far more profound. But that is OK, updating evolution to come in line with the last few decades of micro biology is desperately needed.
 
Last edited:
Top