The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.
Even today, the general public, and many scientists, are not aware of decades of research in evolutionary science, molecular biology and genome sequencing which provide alternative answers to how novel organisms have originated in the long history of life on earth. This web site is dedicated to making the results of that research available and to offering a forum to expose novel scientific thinking about the evolutionary process. The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules.
Genomes merge, shrink and grow, acquire new DNA components, and modify their structures by well-documented cellular and biochemical processes. Most of the scientists referenced on this web site have come to a wide range of conclusions about different aspects of evolutionary change. Many see evolution as a complex process with distinct mechanisms and stages rather than a phenomenon explainable by a small number of principles. The divergences and multiplicity of ideas, opinions and theories on this website are necessary since many fields of evolutionary biology remain relatively unexplored.
https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com
Comment: A few days ago, jld sent a link to the above YouTube video of an interview/lecture of Denis Noble. I found it beyond fascinating. It was exhilarating. I was a great admirer of Darwin since my youth. I even built a model of the HMS Beagle. But I was never satisfied with the mechanistic view of the Neo-Darwinists that evolution is a product of random gene mutations chosen or discarded only by a process of natural selection, the idea that life is a crap shoot. Denis Noble’s ideas go far beyond that simplistic notion. They also point to a more cooperative view of life on many levels than the purely competitive view of life inspired by the Neo-Darwinists.
Listening to this lecture, I thought of the bewildering complexity of a forest, both above and below ground and the role of mycelium in that cooperative community. We discussed this here in the past. I also thought of Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit paleontologist who worked to understand evolution and faith. Perhaps we’ll discuss him and his ideas here in the future.
The passage quoted above is from the introduction to “The Third Way of Evolution” website. The website and the project behind it was launched in 2014 by James Shapiro, Raju Pookottil and Denis Noble. It’s a great place to start exploring these ideas. Another good start is a 2014 interview with Denis Noble by Suzan Mazur, author of “The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry” printed in the Huffpost website. Enjoy.
TTG
https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211
Komodo Dragon eats baby goats.
https://youtu.be/cWIWZmbSkqU
Britney Spears and Michael Jackson – The Way You Make Me Feel.
https://youtu.be/cWIWZmbSkqU
Are we to believe that Britney evolved from reptilian dinosaurs?
seems one can still hear the baby goat inside the belly.
The link you wanted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrTC3FHE8No
Thanks.
It sounds like the righteous path to explore but diverting research funding from DNA to this “tubes” research will be difficult. Many have spent their entire careers going in the wrong direction.
Thanks for the pointer, TTG, this is what makes this site work for me.
“the elegance with which he communicates science”
Science of what? Oh read on. But remember, “Baby Born That Way” was always just a song and dance. And we are just walking electro-chemical batteries.
Back decades ago my Biology 101 prof called me a closet Lamarckian because although I believed Darwin’s theory I opined that there must have been several roads to evolution.
But I also don’t agree with Noble regarding the tyranny of neo-Darwinists. Russian scientist Konstantin Mereschkowski’s ‘Symbiogenesis’ theory has been around for 120 years. It was validated over 50 years ago. Horizontal DNA Transfer was postulated 100 years ago by Brit scientist Frederick Griffith. It was validated decades later. These are not new findings overturning Darwinism. They are accepted widely.
Yes indeed. Mathematical analysts figured out long ago that the standard Darwinian model didn’t add up. Random mutations would have needed far more time. Drop a hydrocarbon chain molecule into water and you get a primitive cell membrane almost instantly. “Life” in the opinion of many included myself, evolved rather quickly. Of course it’s a molecular quasi-life, nothing like multicellular. Do amoeba have DNA? Yes they do. But there were likely globule proto-amoeboids before DNA molecules evolved, and the globules reproduced in a non-living way through expansion, rupture and reformating two or more globules – pure surface tension and hydrophobia. How the globules captured DNA is interesting. I don’t know if it’s known yet.
The microanatomy of Amoeba: an amoeba has a single granular nucleus, containing most of the organism’s DNA. Amoeba moves and hunts by extending pseudopods. A contractile vacuole is used to maintain osmotic equilibriu…
Facts about Amoeba, structure, beha…
rsscience.com/facts-about-amoeba/
TTG –
This thread of yours caused me to repurchase Freeman Dyson’s “The Origins of Life” (in Kindle edition this time) and try to review his ideas and research on the evolution of life’s macromolecules such a RNA and the complex enzymes which cleave the DNA molecule double helix, facilitating it’s replication. Reasons being that years ago I developed my own eccentric take on “the selfish gene” hypothesis” and I badly needed to review materials — and of course Dyson was a genius whose ideas are fascinating. His intellect is mind-boggling. Lo and behold, looking over Dyson’s biography (and those of his dad George Dyson whose war service is very impressive) I chanced upon Frank Tipler and noticed that Teilhard de Chardin’s theories resonated deeply with him.
—————
Frank Tipler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler
Frank Jennings Tipler (born February 1, 1947) is an American mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University.[2] Tipler has written books and papers on the Omega Point based on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s religious ideas, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. He is also known for his theories on the Tipler cylinder time machine. His work has attracted criticism, most notably from Quaker and systems theorist George Ellis who has argued that his theories are largely pseudoscience. (Continues at link)
Dyson’s Eternal Intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson%27s_eternal_intelligence
Freeman Dyson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
Origins of Life – Freeman Dyson
https://www.scribd.com/document/222715001/Origins-of-Life
Freeman dyson: Did replication or metabolism come first in the history of life? majority view is that life began with replicating molecules, precursors of genes. Minority belief is that random populations of molecules evolved metabolic activities before exact replication existed. Since the first edition of this book was published in 1985, revolutionary discoveries have been made. (His 1985 book is available on Amazon and Abesbooks dot com).
George Dyson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Dyson_(composer)
———————
My own lunatic experiments in my Queens NY apartment over thirty years ago involved a cast iron frying pan in I which the remains of a meal greasy fried meal and added water to which ensemble a low heat was applied. I was fascinated to observe the cyclical and repeating (“replicating” I’m tempted to say, yes replicating but not in the sense of a DNA molecule or cell or Chromosome) patterns that emerged. It looked like a magnified cell. In fact it probably displayed these patterns partly due to the hydrophilic and hydrophobic attractions and repulsions that are elements of the formation of very elementary proto-cellular (and cellular) membranes — linear H-C-C-C- etc – hydrocarbon chains placed in water (H-O-H) will almost instantaneously snap into closed cell shaped globules — it’s inside of such globules that cellular metabolism and it’s many complex structures and activities take place. Essentially I had my own DIY primordial soup with heat gradient applied. If I can read some more of Dyson I’ll see if I think my own curious”selfish gene” model has any merit in which case I’ll try to share it with you. It has little in common with the standard Selfish Gene idea because it’s based on the evolution of life’s macromolecules. I guess a better name would be “The Selfish Macromolecule.”
See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
https://scienceofbiogenetics.com/blog/the-revolutionary-concept-of-selfish-gene-decoding-the-biological-mechanics-behind-genetic-selfishness-and-its-dramatic-implications
But how do genes ensure their own survival? According to the theory of the selfish gene, genes are able to increase their chances of replication and survival by influencing the behavior and reproductive success of the organisms that carry them. This concept is known as gene selection or kin selection. Genes that enhance an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are more likely to be passed on to future generations, while those that do not confer a reproductive advantage are less likely to be passed on.
This theory challenges the traditional view that evolution is driven solely by the survival and reproduction of individual organisms. Instead, it emphasizes the role of genes in driving the processes of evolution. Genes that enhance their own survival and replication are more likely to persist and spread throughout a population, while those that do not are more likely to become rare or disappear altogether.
Interesting.
My two cents is that you can slice and dice the physical any way you want to, but you’re not going to fine the answer – because consciousness is primary and is both within and outside matter. Matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness, not the other way around. We are not meat robots!
Immediate relevancy being that evolution – not talking Darwinian selection for emphasis of already existing genes, tubulars, or whatever physical traits – is driven by consciousness and consciousness’ need, will, intent.
Eric,
Do you mean that Tyrannosaurus grew his powerful teeth because one prehistoric day a baby T-Rex willed it while in his egg? And furthermore willed the mechanisms whereby that trait became inherited? I can’t figure out what you’re saying, it’s just an assertion – “Consciousness is primary.” Why not “bone marrow is primary,” or “Cinderella is primary and because her fairytale was distributed in pamphlets, the Universe and all existence came into being?”
Why not “God created the Universe because he wanted to do the crossword puzzle every morning and there wasn’t anyone around to compose and print them?”
F&L,
I know you are Godless materialist. How arbitrarily dismal. There is no evidence to support that your view is accurate. There is evidence to support my view, but people like you refuse to consider it because you can’t measure with the tools and methods you have elected to limit yourself to.
What I meant is that T-Rex consciousness, which exists in a psy-spiritual realm – some call it a morphic field – learned from the earthly experience. That learning, resulted in certain morphic developmental leaps.
Obviously, once the genes (or whatever) for bigger teeth become a part of the physical composition of T-Rex, then natural selection is possible for the right tooth size. The intent from the non-material field creates a range of potential morphology for a T-Rex, the Darwinism selects within that range.
Darwin’s finches didn’t develop different beaks from their relatives who live elsewhere due to genetic mutations. That is a silly story for children and the faithful. The genetics for different beak size/shape already existed. Environmental pressure forced certain beak morphology to express.
Once the entire range of potentials is no longer suitable for the environment or desired by the non-physical realm, the creature dies off and new creatures (i.e. species) are designed, rather quickly actually; much quicker than random mutation could ever accomplish (if ever).
F&L,
God doesn’t roll dice, nor do the crosswalk puzzle. God has intent.
Thank you Eric, I am in your debt (zero sarcasm, meaning I’m sincere). As an aside I was also a great fan of Carlos Castaneda’s books. Your ideas in your post directly above reminded of Plato’s theory of forms. Just so you don’t further misunderstand me though, I’m really not a dismal materialist at all, tho I suppose I can see how you reached that conclusion. If the theory of forms is added to the recent discoveries in experimental physics which was awarded a Nobel — namely that the universe is NOT locally real — (Quantum reality is far more accurate than classical reality) then .. well .. later for that. I’d also like to say that I have a large number of personal experiences of the extreme ESP sort and I’ll share them with you in a later post, if time grants me the opportunity. Meanwhile I’m working on a more complete response to your fantastic ideas so well articulated above.
Meanwhile, tho these likely seem completely irrelevant, may I invite you pleasantly to enjoy the material presented at these links below as your schedule allows. It’s related to an essay I’m trying to formulate on the relationship between the theory of forms (which we might try to call “inescapably ineluctable underlying mathematical reality or more simply “the world of what’s possible”) and mathematical group theory. Also there’s fantastic human interest elements. Regards and best wishes Eric and thank you again.
Simon Norton obituary | Mathematics | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/feb/22/simon-norton-obituary
The Genius in My Basement by Alexander Masters – review | Biography books | The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/aug/24/genius-in-my-basement-review
PS:you might want to read this too especially section: monster moonshine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group
F&L,
Please accept my apology. I thought it had been settled in the past that you were an unredeemable and cynical materialist. My mistake.
I’m just now waking up and only on my first cup of coffee. After a few more, I will enjoy, I’m sure, reading the links you provided.
Eric – no problem.
I forgot to include this link where Freeman Dyson talks to an esteemed gathering about the Fisher-Greiss Monster, which one of it’s discoverers Greiss liked to call “the friendly giant.”
https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2013/roberts-monster
Neo-Darwinists misnamed. They should themselves paleo-Darwinists.
…are misnamed. … call themselves …
Sorry. Had a senior moment. Still recovering from yesterday’s cystoscopy.