Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Gerd Muller is involved with The Third Way group and is a proponent of Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

I looked over the link Linda provided for this conference. You've greatly exaggerated the status of TOE leading readers to believe it has fallen irretrievably into an abyss.

It's not covered because it's not news worthy to most people.

You mean the Discovery institute does not always report accurately?
Well, that's hard to believe.

If Darwin activists don't believe the previous report on the conference (for more information see https://evolutionnews.org/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/), here's a quote from Gerd Muller from a new article in a Royal Society journal (http://rsfs.royalsocietypublishing.org/c...5.full.pdf) based on his presentation at the Royal Society meeting, entitled Why An Extended Evolutionary Synthesis Is Necessary": 

After pointing out that neo-Darwinism is a good model for the population genetics of microevolution (as ID accepts), he goes on to state "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 behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution..." 

But wait a minute - this is the most important part of evolution: how major innovations came about. This is devastating for anyone who wants to think that, on the great questions of biological origins, orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out. This quote quite well confirms the contentions of both the ID and the "Third Way" groups. It demonstrates Muller's continued recognition of one of the major problems of current neo-Darwinism.  He concedes that conventional evolutionary thinking “largely avoids” the big question of where  the major innovations of evolution came from, in other words, macroevolution. Of course this admission is expressed as mildly as possible, but it is still a damning indictment. 

Later on in the article Muller further obliterates the notion that microevolutionary changes can explain macroevolution: "....The problem of phenotypic complexity thus becomes (in)elegantly bypassed. Inevitably, the conclusion is reached that microevolutionary mechanisms are consistent with macroevolutionary phenomena, even though this has very little to do with the structure and predictions of the EES (Extended Evolutionary Synthesis). 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's probably more a matter of damage control that these admissions have been buried so thoroughly in the presentation and article in very technical discussions of the issues.

This admission by Muller isn't his first. In a previously published work (Gerd Müller and Stuart Newman, On the Origin of Organismal Form (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), p.7), he stated that although “the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.” In other words, the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection lacks the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life.

Anyway, as reported, there was little from the conference that succeeded in filling the gaping explanatory gaps of the current theory. The new mechanisms offered by the critics of neo-Darwinism at the conference didn't really try to explain how genuine novelty has arisen. The new mechanisms that were discussed produce only minor microevolutionary changes, such as wing coloration of butterflies or different forms of stickleback fish. If that is doubted, please explain where there was something that actually addressed the crucial issues of macroevolution and the punctuated equilibrium fossil record.

I think you may have misread that. He wasn't saying that those issues are unaddressed. He was saying that they are addressed by fields of study which are no longer well-described under the Modern Synthesis tenets (see Figure 2).

The paragraph you quote isn't an admission that evolutionary study as it is practiced (which includes much more than genotype only considerations) is inadequate with respect to "macroevolution", but rather that the way it is treated in the Modern Synthesis sometimes turns the discussion into one of genotype, when it seems to have become obvious that genotype only discussions are inadequate. There is no admission that the field as a whole is inadequate.

I do commend you for providing a link to the primary source, so that the effects of the 'spin' (to be generous) put on the article by the DI are obviated.

Linda

I think you may have misread that. He wasn't saying that those issues are unaddressed. He was saying that they are addressed by fields of study which are no longer well-described under the Modern Synthesis tenets (see Figure 2).

The paragraph you quote isn't an admission that evolutionary study as it is practiced (which includes much more than genotype only considerations) is inadequate with respect to "macroevolution", but rather that the way it is treated in the Modern Synthesis sometimes turns the discussion into one of genotype, when it seems to have become obvious that genotype only discussions are inadequate. There is no admission that the field as a whole is inadequate.

I do commend you for providing a link to the primary source, so that the effects of the 'spin' (to be generous) put on the article by the DI are obviated.

Linda

Whether you want to admit it or not, Muller concedes that the the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis (MS) as reflected in the textbooks has major explanatory holes, in particular "generational capacity" capable of producing new and novel forms involving large amounts of complex specified heritable information, and the observed punctuated equilibrium pattern of evolution. The neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection doesn't have the creative power to generate the novel anatomical traits and forms of life that have arisen during the history of life. Yet, as Muller himself noted, neo-Darwinian theory continues to be presented to the public via textbooks and the media as a complete and final understanding of how new living forms arose.

He tries to patch up the MS to hopefully (with new research) fill in those huge explanatory gaps by sophisticatedly integrating in new conceptual innovations developed to various degrees since the 1940s, but which haven't generally been reflected in the MS. 
Muller's overview of conceptual innovations beyond the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism:


Evolutionary developmental biology ("evo-devo")

"....the variational range of a population is not defined merely by genetic variation but by the developmental system as a whole, providing sources of phenotypic bias and novelty." 

"....the research approach of evo-devo permits addressing the processes responsible for the evolution of phenotypic organization, a topic thoroughly avoided by the synthesis theory."



Developmental plasticity

"...developmental plasticity acts as a source of adaptive innovation, and one of its critical mechanisms is environmental induction, the direct action of environmental parameters on developmental processes."


Genomics advances

"...in the course of evolution significant portions of the genome have been duplicated, deleted or co-opted into new functions. In addition, novel genomic segments and biochemical functions can be acquired from other cells and organisms, rather than exclusively by inheritance from their progenitors." 


Selection seen to extend beyond the individual

(Adds selective processes from genetic, cellular and tissue levels up to niche and cultural levels.) 


Non-genetic inheritance

"...several forms of non-genetic inheritance are recognized today. These include epigenetic, micro-RNA, and components of the cell that are inherited independently of the DNA. In addition, behavioural, ecological and cultural forms of inheritance..."


Niche construction


"...populations of organisms are not merely passively exposed to natural selection but are actively involved in the formation of those environments that constitute the selective conditions for later populations."


Systems biology integrates the older population genetics and the above areas, leading to Muller's new Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)



Note that none of the supplemental mechanisms listed above offers the "generative capacity" missing in the current "Modern Synthesis" of neo-Darwinism, for major new heritable complex specified information to appear suddenly, as in the Cambrian Explosion. The issue is the origin of genuine phenotypic novelty. If you disagree, please specify how. Muller issues plenty of new promissory notes for new research in these areas. Other experts have called for a much more fundamental change (or virtual scrapping) of the Modern Synthesis.

I think you may have misread that. He wasn't saying that those issues are unaddressed. He was saying that they are addressed by fields of study which are no longer well-described under the Modern Synthesis tenets (see Figure 2).

The paragraph you quote isn't an admission that evolutionary study as it is practiced (which includes much more than genotype only considerations) is inadequate with respect to "macroevolution", but rather that the way it is treated in the Modern Synthesis sometimes turns the discussion into one of genotype, when it seems to have become obvious that genotype only discussions are inadequate. There is no admission that the field as a whole is inadequate.

I do commend you for providing a link to the primary source, so that the effects of the 'spin' (to be generous) put on the article by the DI are obviated.

Linda

I strongly disagree with your "spin" that the process model in figure 1a (ibid) is adequate - in any way - in describing natural bio-evolution.  You conflate the model of RM + NS (modern synthesis as a neoDarwinian conjecture) with the whole of evolutionary study.  Study of the MS process model described in figure 1 has produced excellent research data.  And this data refutes MS!!!  That is where we are now.  Since the Margulis debate with R. Dawkins is rarely an longer an invited speaker and neither are the whole group of of naive neoDarwinists.  
http://voicesfromoxford.org/news/marguli...debate/158

Douglas Futuyama was the speaker chosen to present "the other side" to Gerd Muller at this conference.  We can talk about his very professional point-of-view.   

  The terms micro and macro evolution are not really germane to the extended synthesis as formulated in figure 2b.  Biofeedback dominates the the new process model and the belief in the exclusivity of random change in the genome being the primary casual vector is going the way of Ptolemy's epicycles.

Nbtruthman, you seem to still be spinning this in a way that Muller did not say. And he certainly did not say that any of the less developed areas of the various fields of investigation should be filled with "Designer" in the meantime, nor imply that they would need an entirely different (supernatural) approach in order to advance the field.

Linda

I strongly disagree with your "spin" that the process model in figure 1a (ibid) is adequate - in any way - in describing natural bio-evolution.  You conflate the model of RM + NS (modern synthesis as a neoDarwinian conjecture) with the whole of evolutionary study.  Study of the MS process model described in figure 1 has produced excellent research data.  And this data refutes MS!!!

I made no comment whatsoever about the process model in figure 1a.

That's the issue isn't it? Does "Modern Synthesis" refer to the whole of evolutionary study?

Linda

Nbtruthman, you seem to still be spinning this in a way that Muller did not say. And he certainly did not say that any of the less developed areas of the various fields of investigation should be filled with "Designer" in the meantime, nor imply that they would need an entirely different (supernatural) approach in order to advance the field.

Linda

Wait - where exactly did nbtruthman say that Müller introduced a "Designer" or endorsed a supernatural approach? I've been attempting to follow this thread but I cannot recall nbtruthman associating Müller with either creationism or ID. The gist of his reporting of what Müller is saying is that there are problems with the neo-darwinist model. That doesn't make him a creationist or an ID proponent even if those groups happen to agree with him about those same problems. 

He [Müller] tries to patch up the MS to hopefully (with new research) fill in those huge explanatory gaps by sophisticatedly integrating in new conceptual innovations developed to various degrees since the 1940s, but which haven't generally been reflected in the MS. 

Seems to me you are the one spinning by trying to distract away from the problems Müller has highlighted by creating a straw man.

I didn't say nbtruthman was proposing a designer. I'm wondering in what way this is supposed to represent some sort of fatal problem to the field of evolutionary study, such that proposals like ID are given hope (let alone validity).

Linda