Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

I do know, as has already come up in this thread, that evolutionary biologists don’t think that RM+NS are the only mechanisms at play, so to continually refer to RM+NS, as though this is the only possible mechanism under consideration, is a straw man.

Linda

It is still a "left-over" public perception that RM+NS is a working model for the science of evolution.  There are other mechanisms discovered, that have rapidly altered the landscape in the last 30 years.  But those mechanisms DID NOT come from mainstream evo-bio figures.

They came from outsiders like Carl Woese (HGT), Edward (Ted) Steele (soma-to-germline), Barbara Mcclintock and Lynn Margulis (Symbiogenesis), who had to fight for the facts vs belief in RM+NS!  Backed by a bunch of  bioinformatic quants,  it is these outsiders who are correcting a sad-sack bio-evolutionary theory.

"They thought I was crazy, absolutely mad."
The response (1944) of the National Academy of Sciences, to her (later Nobel prize-winning) theory that proposed that genes could transition—'jumping'—to new locations on a chromosome. 

— Barbara McClintock

It is still a "left-over" public perception that RM+NS is a working model for the science of evolution.  There are other mechanisms discovered, that have rapidly altered the landscape in the last 30 years.  But those mechanisms DID NOT come from mainstream evo-bio figures.

They came from outsiders like Carl Woese (HGT), Edward (Ted) Steele (soma-to-germline), Barbara Mcclintock and Lynn Margulis (Symbiogenesis), who had to fight for the facts vs belief in RM+NS!  It is these outsiders who are correcting a sad-sack bio-evolutionary theory, backed by a bunch of  bioinformatic quants.

I do think this is a fascinating time for evolution, as we are closer to answering questions regarding the levels of the universe "exploited".

It will be very interesting to see if/how quantum biology factors in. Curious re: your thoughts there...

What do you think of certain potential cases of [non-local] information transfer - for example bacteria exceeding the expected rate of adaptability? (I believe there are extant cases suggesting this, but for our purposes let's assume they're hypothetical.)

Would such a thing be enough to account for these issues? Could Psi effects account for them?

Or does it take some kind of top-down guidance in your view, whether that is God or Tutelary Spirits?

I prefer not to speculate on the ultimate nature of the intelligence that evidently is operating. I think it must be a sentient intelligence. It is sufficient to show without a reasonable doubt that it is indeed operating.

What do you think of certain potential cases of [non-local] information transfer - for example bacteria exceeding the expected rate of adaptability? (I believe there are extant cases suggesting this, but for our purposes let's assume they're hypothetical.)

Would such a thing be enough to account for these issues? Could Psi effects account for them?

Or does it take some kind of top-down guidance in your view, whether that is God or Tutelary Spirits?

Not wanting to butt in, but it seems to me that if we were open to the possibility of the laws of physics allowing retro-causation, in principle that would open the door to an alternative evolutionary mechanism that wouldn't necessarily involve intelligence - and might not even involve anything non-material.

Not wanting to butt in, but it seems to me that if we were open to the possibility of the laws of physics allowing retro-causation, in principle that would open the door to an alternative evolutionary mechanism that wouldn't necessarily involve intelligence - and might not even involve anything non-material.

This is what I've been thinking of recently, does the conditioning of odds discussed here seem more like a Psi-Effect than top-down influence?

It is still a "left-over" public perception that RM+NS is a working model for the science of evolution.  There are other mechanisms discovered, that have rapidly altered the landscape in the last 30 years.  But those mechanisms DID NOT come from mainstream evo-bio figures.

They came from outsiders like Carl Woese (HGT), Edward (Ted) Steele (soma-to-germline), Barbara Mcclintock and Lynn Margulis (Symbiogenesis), who had to fight for the facts vs belief in RM+NS!  Backed by a bunch of  bioinformatic quants,  it is these outsiders who are correcting a sad-sack bio-evolutionary theory.

These new mechanisms are mostly additional mechanisms of genetic variation such as horizontal gene transfer. It's just old wine into new bottles, because most of these new mechanisms are like random mutations, random with respect to fitness. They have to be in order to continue to hold with scientific naturalism - no intelligence allowed. There still is no mechanism to generate large amounts of new complex specified information. That basic problem seems to have been the main reason for holding the 2016 Royal Society evolutionary theory meeting.

It is still a "left-over" public perception that RM+NS is a working model for the science of evolution.

i agree. The general public tends to be misinformed in comparison to those working in the field. I’m not sure that this should be a surprise, and it’s not like it’s confined to evolution.

There are other mechanisms discovered, that have rapidly altered the landscape in the last 30 years.  But those mechanisms DID NOT come from mainstream evo-bio figures.

They came from outsiders like Carl Woese (HGT), Edward (Ted) Steele (soma-to-germline), Barbara Mcclintock and Lynn Margulis (Symbiogenesis), who had to fight for the facts vs belief in RM+NS!  Backed by a bunch of  bioinformatic quants,  it is these outsiders who are correcting a sad-sack bio-evolutionary theory.

I’m not sure why you are calling them outsiders. These are all people who were working in the field, whose new ideas turned out to be valid. You can’t be suggesting that only those researchers who are testing old ideas, or those whose new ideas turned out not to be valid, can be considered “insiders”. What makes somebody “mainstream”?

Linda