New Website by non-creationist scientists that seeks to debunk neo-Darwinism.

http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

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 supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems. Both views are inconsistent with significant bodies of empirical evidence and have evolved into hard-line ideologies. There is a need for a more open “third way” of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations.

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.

There's been problems with the traditional, textbook version of gradual, step-by-step evolution for a while now. I think I discussed this in the past. I don't know what bearing all of this has on religion, though. The common perception on evolution, unfortunately, has been shaped by the internet and its loudest proponents (fundamentalist atheists). This is extremely unfortunate, as they are not usually trained scientists, and the popular version of evolution they relay to others is outdated and woefully incomplete. But still, I don't think either of these articles are stating that "evolution didn't happen."

Grinding a little just now so didn't have time for anything other than a quick glance but are any of those involved proposing a supernatural explanation anywhere in the process?

Dawkins discusses various (non-religious) alternatives to evolution in one of his books, I can't remember which one though. Was quite interesting, the only one I remember is Lamarckism but there were others.

From the website: "The goal is to focus attention on the molecular and cellular processes which produce novelty without magical interventions or sheer luck."


So basically vice versa. It's all materialistic reductionist science.

Thanks heaven noone in this thread has verbally rampaged about the weaknesses of such things or the flawed liberal cesspits that are universities.

More SMP than RGT then...

This.

Epigenetics/epigenomics get taught (or at least discussed) in introductory evolutionary biology modules at university level. Bringing them up as some kind of threat to contemporary evolutionary theory just demonstrates that the poster has never had any formal education in biology.

Actually your response shows that you don't understand English at a second grade level. Are you trolling?

He's not trolling. Highlighting what biologists already know/don't know and then extrapolating that to the conclusion of - 'neo-darwinism' is debunked - equates to me stating that just because physicists don't know how the big bang was caused, it means that the big bang theory is debunked. These 'scientists' you keep parading around RGT are not teaching us anything new. It's just pseudo-controversial attention-seeking.

Um, I've *never* paraded these scientists around RGT, I've never mentioned them once. But, if making up little stories makes you feel good, then have at it.

Haven't read the link but if it's all about epigenetics and the like then I was under the impression that this was one of the more exciting avenues that evolutionary theory was seeking to study and incorporate.

My understanding being that it provides further explanation rather than any violation of evolutionary theory.

"Making up little stories" I think sums up this thread and the contents therein quite accurately.

I'm certain your assessment is correct. Epigenetic change could presumably affect evolution directly (by being heritable and causing specific traits), indirectly (by acting as a selection pressure) and perhaps in some cases not at all when the changes don't have any noticeable impact.

There is however no denying that there exists biology paradigms that are challenged by epigenetics, such as for example Weismannism. That is not really a problem, scientific dispute is science.

I've not read much of the literature for a year or so, but the big problem with epigenetics as a genuine alternative mechanism of long-term evolutionary change is that epigenetic changes don't seem to persist more than a generation or two.

Yes, I think that is current venue of research and debate. I think there is cropping up support for epigenetic changes with far more longlasting scope. Obviously, I'm no expert so I have no capacity when it comes to reviewing that kind of research.

This is just a prelude to a repackaged creationist argument.

Um, no it is not.




"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 supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems. Both views are inconsistent with significant bodies of empirical evidence and have evolved into hard-line ideologies. There is a need for a more open “third way” of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations."

Creationism is not an alternative in this context and never has been. It can't offer predictions and is not observable, so it has no reliability or validity as a scientific construct. It is a religious belief, nothing else. It is as important to biology as thinking God made the moon is to physics. It would be a semi-interesting topic at lunch, but research and the field is about the empirical.

Things like Mendelian inheritance on the other hand, which you would brand "neo-darwinistic" has had tremendous effect and advanced the field of biology beyond compare. Your rhetoric here gives the impression that these two directions were somehow equally misguided and that a third way has arisen from the ashes, which is not all the truth. Epigenetic research is a result of scientific work advancing biology, just like the theories it complements.

That laymen might put too much stock on natural selection isn't the horrible mistake you make it out to be. This can be compared to how laymen might use classic physics to understand the world around them. For a scientist this would not be sufficient, but for most intents and purposes it would actually do nicely. It is certainly better than the theories it replaced.

Anyone hear of theistic evolution? It's the belief that God (or a divine power if you will) was/is the impetus for evolution. Personally what I believe...

So does evolution look exactly as though it's caused by mutations combined with environment? This is like saying 'God put the fossils there', OK cool, but why do they seem exactly like fossilised bones?

I think you're misunderstanding the idea there. "God put the fossils there" and "they seem exactly like fossilized bones" implies some sort of deception, as if evolution didn't actually occur but God just made it seem like it did

but as far as I know theists who accept evolution think that evolution actually happened, not that it just seems like it did. It's not as if theism as such requires a belief in the literal historical accuracy of the Genesis story.

I suppose "theistic evolution" might also imply some other beliefs about the necessity of a God to make an evolutionary process plausible (whether just in some kind of first cause sense or as a rejection of natural selection in favor of Divine intevention, I don't know) but either way, they wouldn't be denying that the fossilized bones are in fact fossilized bones

I've always understood theistic evolution to basically be evolution, as we know it, but guided by god rather than any other factors. I think the difficulty with this imo is that it seems a pretty wasteful process for an omnipotent being to use.

There are different variations of theistic evolution. Some of them include active guidance by God (ID is arguably a version of this). Some of them are God only intervening to make sure that humans (or some kind of sentient being) arise. Some of them have no intervention at all--evolution works strictly according to natural laws (whatever those might be) but when God created the universe, he created one that he foreknew would have the chance mutations would lead to the development of humans (very similar to a deistic view of divine influence).

Hadn't heard of the third one before. It seems rather convoluted.