Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

There is a new paradigm-breaking paper in the peer-reviewed journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology: "Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?" (at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...0718300798). There are 33 authors, biologists and other scientists at universities around the world. These scientists are not in any way ID advocates, or members of the Discovery Institute. But they still conclude that the origin of life, and in particular the Cambrian Explosion of new animal body plans, can't be explained by neo-Darwinism, and in desperation conclude that panspermia must be the answer. They believe that new genetic material must have been delivered from space via virus-like organisms. 

They carefully avoid the question of where and how this biological information originally came about. They don’t even touch that one. They are really just pushing the question back in time and space. 

This paper demonstrates how support for neo-Darwinism is eroding among many professional scientists, especially biologists and those in related fields. An admission that Darwinian Cambrian and other origin theories have failed. 

In the process of describing and unfolding their hypothesis they make a number of key observations of the inability of new-synthesis Darwinism to explain these major episodes in the history of life. As summarized at https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/with-n...the-stars/, they argue that the information needed to build complex life must have arrived on Earth from space before complex life arose.

From the paper:


Further, they state:

Thanks so much for the link to this paper's publication.  I have been followed Ted since he wrote Lamarck's Signature.  Its great to see him back getting published and still shaking things up!!

 A similar fate often befell attempts to re-instate certain crucial aspects of Lamarckism - the pre-Darwinian notion that the genes in our genome can be enriched in a 'directional' fashion through the inheritance of adaptive, environmentally-driven, acquired characteristics (Steele, 1979; Steele et al., 1998; Jablonka and Lamb, 1995, 2005; Lindley, 2010). This latter inheritance mechanism can be more precisely described as soma-to-germline feedback penetration of a semi-permeable (not absolute) Weisman's Barrier, a concept fashioned in the 19th Century at about the time of Darwin's death. There is now considerable evidence (Steele et al., 1998; Lindley, 2010; Steele and Lloyd, 2015; Steele, 2016a) consistent with the original 'somatic selection hypothesis' (proposed by one of us (EJS) in the late 1970s) which is hypothesized to operate via the agency of endogenous retroviral gene vectors and reverse transcriptase (Steele, 1979).

"... life may have been seeded here on Earth by life-bearing comets as soon as conditions on Earth allowed it to flourish (about or just before 4.1 Billion years ago); and living organisms such as space-resistant and space-hardy bacteria, viruses, more complex eukaryotic cells, fertilised ova and seeds have been continuously delivered ever since to Earth so being one important driver of further terrestrial evolution which has resulted in considerable genetic diversity and which has led to the emergence of mankind."

Continuously delivered by which vectors? We have analyzed meteorites pretty carefully. It appears we have found amino acids, but cells, ova and seeds, not so much.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/world/met...index.html

~~ Paul

"... life may have been seeded here on Earth by life-bearing comets as soon as conditions on Earth allowed it to flourish (about or just before 4.1 Billion years ago); and living organisms such as space-resistant and space-hardy bacteria, viruses, more complex eukaryotic cells, fertilised ova and seeds have been continuously delivered ever since to Earth so being one important driver of further terrestrial evolution which has resulted in considerable genetic diversity and which has led to the emergence of mankind."

Continuously delivered by which vectors? We have analyzed meteorites pretty carefully. It appears we have found amino acids, but cells, ova and seeds, not so much.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/11/world/met...index.html

~~ Paul

Discoveries of fossil and chemical fossil evidence of extremely early microbial life is more and more showing an OOL event very soon after the cooling and solidification of the Earth's surface. I agree that panspermia seems unlikely (with little evidence found in existing meteorites). But because of the time and many other factors spontaneous OOL and subsequent abrupt macroevolutionary revolutions like the Cambrian Explosion seem even much more unlikely. This is making panspermia a more and more attractive option to scientists who continue to reject ID. The authors of this paper appear to hold this view. They don't worry about their theory merely "kicking the can (the origin problem) down the road". My main points were, 

"... they still conclude that the origin of life, and in particular the Cambrian Explosion of new animal body plans, can't be explained by neo-Darwinism, and in desperation conclude that panspermia must be the answer. They believe that new genetic material must have been delivered from space via virus-like organisms. 

They carefully avoid the question of where and how this biological information originally came about. They don’t even touch that one. They are really just pushing the question back in time and space. 

This paper demonstrates how support for neo-Darwinism is eroding among many professional scientists, especially biologists and those in related fields. An admission that Darwinian Cambrian and other origin theories have failed."

 

Discoveries of fossil and chemical fossil evidence of extremely early microbial life is more and more showing an OOL event very soon after the cooling and solidification of the Earth's surface. I agree that panspermia seems unlikely (with little evidence found in existing meteorites). But because of the time and many other factors spontaneous OOL and subsequent abrupt macroevolutionary revolutions like the Cambrian Explosion seem even much more unlikely. This is making panspermia a more and more attractive option to scientists who continue to reject ID. The authors of this paper appear to hold this view. They don't worry about their theory merely "kicking the can (the origin problem) down the road". My main points were,

The Cambrian Explosion was probably not as abrupt as people like to believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_e...n#Validity

~~ Paul






 [/quote]

Steele and Novella cross swords: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...doscience/

Steele and Novella cross swords: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...doscience/

"Heavy  is the mantle of greatness"

[Ninshub]

Steele and Novella cross swords: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...doscience/

Seemed to me Novella was right on calling out Steele for his manner and choice of words in his email, but he disappoints in turn when he goes on labeling him and others as "pseudoscientists", as in, e.g. "he begins with a classic pseudoscientist tactic"...

Seemed to me Novella was right on calling out Steele for his manner and choice of words in his email, but he disappoints in turn when he goes on labeling him and others as "pseudoscientists", as in, e.g. "he begins with a classic pseudoscientist tactic"...

This is one salient point. Steve laid out clearly why Steele in this specific exchange is practising pseudoscience.

 [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7)]The bottom line is that the claim for microfossils in meteorites remains unproven and speculative, just like panspermia itself. Steele is wrong to cite this as evidence that demands an extraordinary explanation. But again this behavior is typical – prematurely declaring victory from dubious evidence."[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7)]P.S. Odd why the txt shows it is colored but is not is something I did not do and something I can't correct using my mobile.[/color]

This is one salient point. Steve laid out clearly why Steele in this specific exchange is practising pseudoscience.

 "[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7)]The bottom line is that the claim for microfossils in meteorites remains unproven and speculative, just like panspermia itself. Steele is wrong to cite this as evidence that demands an extraordinary explanation. But again this behavior is typical – prematurely declaring victory from dubious evidence."[/color]

No one calls string theory pseudoscience, yet calling it "unproven and speculative" is perhaps an understatement. Calling something pseudoscientific often seems to depend on what claim is being made rather than what kind of evidentiary support it actually enjoys.

No one calls string theory pseudoscience, yet calling it "unproven and speculative" is perhaps an understatement. Calling something pseudoscientific often seems to depend on what claim is being made rather than what kind of evidentiary support it actually enjoys.

Yes String Theory is not at this time recognized as a science it is considered a possibility and no one has claimed victory it is science. Same goes for Panspermia yet Steele does just that. Novella was calling Steele pseudoscientific. Recognize the difference?

P.S. String Theory will become science if and when it can be tested.