I thought this was a good read, especially the parts about gene transfer being so widespread. Makes me think about how the foods I eat are effecting me... Also, the idea of viruses being vehicles for information exchange is neat.

[www.i-sis.org.uk]

"neo-Darwinism reinforces a worldview that undermines all moral values and prevents us from the necessary shift to holistic, ecological sciences that can truly regenerate the earth and revitalize the human spirit."

-----------

And here is another good read about tumor-derived pleomorphic bacteria and how they self organize into tissue-like sheets and capillary networks. They may help lay down a framework for tumor architecture... another clue that cancer/tumors may be an orchestrated protective/healing mechanism of the body:
[www.rense.com]

Another paper discussing the presence of pleomorphic bacteria in our blood:
[www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2008 09:00AM by jono.

Hey jono,

I have to say that the first article you posted and which corresponds to the title of your thread seems very strange, just from the first few lines of the abstract:

Quote

The debate on evolution between the creationists and the neo-Darwinists is not just sterile, it misses the central issue, which is that neo-Darwinism is wrong and dangerous. It is promoting and misguiding a runaway technology that has the potential to destroy all life on earth. It reinforces a worldview that undermines every single moral value that makes us human1. It is also obstructing and preventing the necessary shift to holistic ecological sciences that can connect to the organic revolution rising from the grassroots all over the world, which can truly regenerate the earth and revitalize the human spirit.

I'm not sure it's possible to actually provide more blanket statements on any topic than the author has done in the first few lines of his article. To me it is all a big non-sequitur, the article does not make much sense.

Science, by its very nature, is designed to eradicate speculation and fallacious argumentation from its bosom. Evidence will tend to vindicate even the most apparently extravagant of theories, and in spite of the most powerful of special interests.

The author furthermore states:

Quote

These assumptions fit neatly with the dominant neo-Darwinian theory, which says that all of marvelous life on earth evolved, and is still evolving essentially by the natural selection of random genetic mutations. Neo-Darwinism combines Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with August Weismann's theory of the immortal, inviolable germline, which, through Mendelian and molecular genetics became the Central Dogma. So, there is supposed to be a ‘Weismann's barrier’ forbidding environmental influences from changing the genes directly, especially in the germ cells that give rise to the next generation.

They provide two conflicting definitions of "neo-Darwinism", which he somehow blames for all the world's ills. The first seems to be the standard definition of Darwinian evolutionary theory, ie which says that all of marvelous life on earth evolved, and is still evolving essentially by the natural selection of random genetic mutations..

The second contradictory definition comes in the next sentence, where the author states: Neo-Darwinism combines Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with August Weismann's theory of the immortal, inviolable germline, which, through Mendelian and molecular genetics became the Central Dogma. So, there is supposed to be a ‘Weismann's barrier’ forbidding environmental influences from changing the genes directly, especially in the germ cells that give rise to the next generation. (my bold)

It seems to me that Darwinian evolution certainly involves an input from the environment, and actually critically so. Like I said, the article does not make much sense to me, both in its logical syntax, and in its expansive generalisations.

For example, phrases such as:

Quote

The greatest danger of this reductionist biology is that we end up denying and explaining away all that is good in organisms and human beings, such as altruism, love and compassion. That is all of a piece with the dominant social reality that glorifies competition and exploitation, of corporate capitalism that makes the rich ever richer and the poor ever poorer.

to me just represents a huge misunderstanding and obscurantism, as well as a complete non-sensical conclusion. I suspect he is trying to tie in Darwinism as it pertains to Nature, to some kind of social and economic "Darwinism", with the added bonus that "corporate capitalism" makes the rich rich and the poor even poorer. One cannot logically jump from a theory of Nature, to some complete speculation about social and economic interactions, conclude the consequences of these social constructs are bad, and then from that deduce that the original theory of Nature was therefore bad. Again, very little of this article makes logical sense to me.

Cheers,
J

Hey Jose,

I found a bio on the author of that first paper:
[www.bio.davidson.edu]

She's anti-GMO, and I think she's referring to GMO as the "runaway technology" in that first quote you provided.

I think her main point is that evolution is much more dynamic than the strict neo-darwinism view.

She believes that natural selection via random nutation is insufficient for describing what's really happening.

She mentioned some research supporting the idea that the genome is more fluid and adaptive than previously thought, and that the environment is likely acting on the genome directly (even germ cells). Key word is directly.

She seems to view evolution as more of a directed adaptation to a changing environment, rather than the neo-darwinistic view of random mutation leading to the adaptations.

I personally suspect there is a mix of random mutation and directed genomic adaptation (in response to environment) responsible for evolution.

I agree with you that she colors her writings with a lot of opinion and that may blur some of her main points.

Here's another paper of her's which is also not so easy to follow, but still has some interesting ideas:
[www.cts.cuni.cz]

Hey jono,

thanks. While I would agree with her in her critique of GMOs, I don't see what that has to do with evolution or "neo-Darwinism" or "reductionism in biology or physics", which she also seems to criticise.

If she beleives evolution is much more dynamic than what the "neo-Darwinists" think, and indeed it's true, then it will be verified experimentally sooner or later. I don't see how she justifies her extremely sweeping critiques of humanity, capitalism, etc... due to some relatively minor adjustments to evolutionary theory.

Cheers,
J