A new approach to evolution

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Hers is a video talk by Denis Noble. He proposes a new approach to evolution and suggests that evolution is directional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3WenGjyokg

Interesting!

Sriram

[Stranger]

Hers is a video talk by Denis Noble. He proposes a new approach to evolution and suggests that evolution is directional.

No, I'm not going to waste an hour on another non-specialist who doesn't know what he's talking about:

Denis Noble goes after Darwinian evolution again, scores own goal

"Noble shows us that you can be a great physiologist but a lousy evolutionary biologist."

Also: Famous physiologist embarrasses himself by claiming that the modern theory of evolution is in tatters

[Sriram]

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

As always....cherry picking the bad press. People probably said such things about Darwin too....

I expected some such mud slinging anyway.

I knew you wouldn't even have the courage to hear him through. Too many reluctant memes.

[Stranger]

I knew you wouldn't even have the courage to hear him through. Too many reluctant memes.

Now that really is comical coming from you. The guy who couldn't even be arsed to read and respond to a short description
of natural selection and a real world example. Not to mention totally misunderstanding 'meme' because he didn't even read the book he referenced.

[Outrider]

Hi everyone,

Hers is a video talk by Denis Noble. He proposes a new approach to evolution and suggests that evolution is directional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3WenGjyokg

Interesting!

Sriram

Noble's problem is that he introduces some genuinely intriguing questions - about where the borderline between epigenetics and genetic inheritence might be, for instance - but uses the fact that he has no answers to deduce that therefore something is fundamentally broken about the modern synthesis whilst not proposing anything else. He waffles about information transfer up and down inheritance streams, but offers no mechanisms, no hypotheses and nothing evidentiary.

His question do require answers, but to use them to try to undermine evolutionary theory is flawed because, at best, they just highlight areas we need to understand better, they don't call into question the fundamental established elements of how the gene-centred modern synthesis does work.

O.

[Sriram]

Some points I could note from the video....

1. Cells possess specific mechanisms to optimize their genome in response to the environment.

2. Darwin was a Lamarckian....inheritance of acquired characteristics

3. Epigenetic effects persist for many generations and are as strong as conventional genetic inheritance.

4.The belief that the soma and germline do not communicate is patently incorrect.

5. Darwin would not have recognized neo darwiinism as his inheritance

6. how can we prove that mutations are purely random?

7. Evolution can be directional

[Outrider]

1. Cells possess specific mechanisms to optimize their genome in response to the environment.

2. Darwin was a Lamarckian....inheritance of acquired characteristics

And on that Darwin has been shown to be wrong. Just because Darwin included something in his brilliant work doesn't mean that it's all correct - it's called the modern synthesis and neo-Darwinian for a reason.

3. Epigenetic effects persist for many generations and are as strong as conventional genetic inheritance.

But they aren't persistent in evolutionary timescales - they last for three or sometimes four generations, but then the population reverts. Evolution doesn't happen over four generations, or forty.

4.The belief that the soma and germline do not communicate is patently incorrect.

And is not a particularly controversial take - suggesting that it's a controlled evolutionary mechanism, though, is several steps beyond what the evidence provides.

5. Darwin would not have recognized neo darwiinism as his inheritance

Not at first glance - Darwin proposed evolution before we'd discovered genes. What's a more important question is whether, once shown the evidence, he'd have accepted it.

6. how can we prove that mutations are purely random?

Again, we don't need to, we need to show that they are random with respect to the environmental pressures that will select for them. Variation is random WITH RESPECT TO EVOLUTIONARY PRESSURES, not absolutely random.

7. Evolution can be directional.

Only if, after the fact, you've identified what you want to be a direction. Evolution works in the direction of survival (it just happens that survivability appears to be crab-shaped...)

O.

[SteveH]

2. Darwin was a Lamarckian....inheritance of acquired characteristics

To be precise, he thought that Lamarckian inheritance may play a small part in evolution, but that the main driver was natural selection. He was wrong about that, but that just strengthens the case for ne-Darwinian evolution.

[Sriram]

Many things you people insist play only a small part in evolution....epigenetic, phenotypic plasticity, Lamarckian inheritance....except that they are probably the main drivers of evolution...

[Dicky Underpants]

Many things you people insist play only a small part in evolution....epigenetic, phenotypic plasticity, Lamarckian inheritance....except that they are probably the main drivers of evolution...

Well, in Darwin's case, as Steve and Outrider have said, he did think inheritance of acquired characteristics might play a small part in evolution. He certainly didn't consider it the main part of his thesis, which is why, when he read abstracts of Alfred Wallace's ideas on Natural Selection, he was quite alarmed that the research he had been painstakingly conducting for many years might be sidelined by another man's studies (but since both Darwin and Wallace were such jolly decent British chaps there wasn't likely to be much animosity).
As for Darwin not considering neo-Darwinism to be the logical outcome of his views, that is of course pure speculation, and rather illogical speculation at that. He was certain that Natural Selection was the main driving force behind evolution, but was perplexed that he could not find a mechanism whereby changes could be passed on from generation to generation. The esoteric researches of an Austrian monk obsessed with cross-fertilising peas took quite some time to be taken up by the scientific community in any case, but Mendel's researches proved to be the missing factor that Darwin had been searching for.
Of course, there may be other factors yet to be established, as others have admitted. It is ironic that Stephen J Gould's ideas of Punctuated Equilibrium, have just like Denis Noble whom you have cited, been seized upon, distorted and misinterpreted by the 'enthusiasts' of the Intelligent Design camp.

[Outrider]

Many things you people insist play only a small part in evolution....epigenetic, phenotypic plasticity, Lamarckian inheritance....except that they are probably the main drivers of evolution...

And your basis for that claim is what, exactly? It's not that we insist, it's that the body of evidence supports that conclusion. What's your basis for thinking that acquired characteristics have an evolutionary influence? What's your basis for thinking that phenotypic plasticity is something more than a trait that a small number of primarily aquatic organisms display, and is actually a widespread evolutionary mechanism?

O.

[jeremyp]

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

As always....cherry picking the bad press. People probably said such things about Darwin too....

I expected some such mud slinging anyway.

I knew you wouldn't even have the courage to hear him through. Too many reluctant memes.

Jerry Coyne is an expert in evolutionary biology and he wrote the widely acclaimed book "Why Evolution is True". If he says Noble is wrong, on the subject of evolution and speciation in particular then Noble is wrong.

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi everyone,

Hers is a video talk by Denis Noble. He proposes a new approach to evolution and suggests that evolution is directional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3WenGjyokg

Interesting!

Sriram

I thought evolution was directional once too. I thought humanity was evolving towards the 'Superman'. Reality is a stern teacher. What do you think evolution is tending towards? Hinduism has a tendency to view the whole material world as Maya, illusion, and that ultimate salvation is attained by absorption into 'spirit'. Are you looking forward to a race of Supermen and Women?

[jeremyp]

2. Darwin was a Lamarckian....inheritance of acquired characteristics

It's important to realise that Darwin discovered the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and before he did, he was just as in the dark about how evolution worked as everybody else.

5. Darwin would not have recognized neo darwiinism as his inheritance

Why not?

Neo Darwinism is the synthesis of Darwin's ideas with those of Gregor Mendel (genetics). Darwin himself knew there was a problem with his theory in that he had no workable mechanism for how inheritance worked. Mendelian genetics fills the gap and I think he would have been delighted to hear about it.

[Udayana]

I thought evolution was directional once too. I thought humanity was evolving towards the 'Superman'. Reality is a stern teacher. What do you think evolution is tending towards? Hinduism has a tendency to view the whole material world as Maya, illusion, and that ultimate salvation is attained by absorption into 'spirit'. Are you looking forward to a race of Supermen and Women?

Many have believed they have achieved the ultimate and gained superman status, but it usually turns out that they are just showing symptoms from syphilis.
 

[Dicky Underpants]

Many have believed they have achieved the ultimate and gained superman status, but it usually turns out that they are just showing symptoms from syphilis.
 

Alas, too true!
The composer Scriabin thought he was well on the way there, but unfortunately died of a septic boil on his lip. Hubris is often so rewarded, but unfortunately often not before a lot of harm has been done.

[Sriram]

Experts are all very well but they often get so immersed in their specialized field that they do not see the woods for the trees. They can't think out of the box or see the big picture.

Secondly, the physiological aspects of evolution are probably as important as the genetic aspects, maybe more. Too much emphasis on genetic aspects of evolution and the 'done and dusted' impression that many people have about the random variations and Natural Selection theory, can be an obstacle to better understanding of evolution and life in general.

Denis Noble being the eminent scientist that he is, is doing a great job thinking out of the box and bringing in relevant issues, at his age too!

[Maeght]

Experts are all very well but they often get so immersed in their specialized field that they do not see the woods for the trees. They can't think out of the box or see the big picture.

Secondly, the physiological aspects of evolution are probably as important as the genetic aspects, maybe more. Too much emphasis on genetic aspects of evolution and the 'done and dusted' impression that many people have about the random variations and Natural Selection theory, can be an obstacle to better understanding of evolution and life in general.

Denis Noble being the eminent scientist that he is, is doing a great job thinking out of the box and bringing in relevant issues, at his age too!

A asked before, on what do you base that claim?

[Stranger]

Experts are all very well but they often get so immersed in their specialized field that they do not see the woods for the trees. They can't think out of the box or see the big picture.

*YAWN* Many subjects today are way to complicated for amateurs and non-specialists to really get to grips with well enough to move them on.

Secondly, the physiological aspects of evolution are probably as important as the genetic aspects, maybe more.

Since you are somebody who knows next to nothing about the subject, this opinion is valueless.

Too much emphasis on genetic aspects of evolution and the 'done and dusted' impression that many people have about the random variations and Natural Selection theory...

The evidence for genetic variation and natural selection the major part in evolution is way beyond reasonable doubt but nobody thinks the entire subject is 'done and dusted'. We can see the evidence of genetic mutations that have been selected for and those that have lost their use as they were no longer important throughout the genomes of every species alive today. That isn't going to suddenly disappear because so clueless poster on a forum doesn't like it. And let's not forget that for all his daft ideas, Denis Noble still accepts natural selection (see quote in previous post here). Clueless as he is, he still has a better grasp than you do.

[Sriram]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9543272/

Nice article...quite elaborate....

[Sebastian Toe]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9543272/

Nice article...quite elaborate....

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/08/07/denis-noble-goes-after-darwinian-evolution-again-scores-own-goal/

Nice article, interesting points.

[Udayana]

Trouble is that Noble is a perfectly good scientist presenting various results and interpretations.

The results and interpretations can be reviewed and errors or objections raised and discussed, but generally criticising his views in a blog smacks too much of the kind of rubbishing Lynn Margulis faced when she presented symbiogenesis.

His work needs to be further researched rather than disregarded in trying to maintain the status quo.

[jeremyp]

Trouble is that Noble is a perfectly good scientist presenting various results and interpretations.

The results and interpretations can be reviewed and errors or objections raised and discussed, but generally criticising his views in a blog smacks too much of the kind of rubbishing Lynn Margulis faced when she presented symbiogenesis.

His work needs to be further researched rather than disregarded in trying to maintain the status quo.

Jerry Coyne is not just a blogger, he is an evolutionary biologist with an acclaimed book on the subject to his name. When he says "Noble is wrong" it's not because Noble's ideas are unconventional but because the evidence tells us Noble is wrong.

[Sriram]

Trouble is that Noble is a perfectly good scientist presenting various results and interpretations.

The results and interpretations can be reviewed and errors or objections raised and discussed, but generally criticising his views in a blog smacks too much of the kind of rubbishing Lynn Margulis faced when she presented symbiogenesis.

His work needs to be further researched rather than disregarded in trying to maintain the status quo.

One bold sane voice .....finally!

[Outrider]

Experts are all very well but they often get so immersed in their specialized field that they do not see the woods for the trees. They can't think out of the box or see the big picture.

Yes, let's listen to the uninitiated or partly-educated rather than the 'experts' with their 'evidence' and 'well established and evidenced science'. You realise that, and I'm sorry to have to say this, but you've lowered yourself to the level of Michael Gove.

Secondly, the physiological aspects of evolution are probably as important as the genetic aspects, maybe more.

Except in every single well-evidenced piece of research into evolution. Except for the mountains of evidence that we have, yes.

Too much emphasis on genetic aspects of evolution and the 'done and dusted' impression that many people have about the random variations and Natural Selection theory, can be an obstacle to better understanding of evolution and life in general.

It's like the way people place too much emphasis on gravitational effects when it comes to things hitting the planet, and why they can't therefore realise the truth of intelligent falling. It's not a failing to see what's causing something and focus on it.

Denis Noble being the eminent scientist that he is, is doing a great job thinking out of the box and bringing in relevant issues, at his age too!

Denis Noble is a great cardiologist, and when he does cardiology he's using science. He's not a great evolutionary biologist, and when he does evolutionary biology he's using logical fallacies and personal incredulity. The argument fails on its merits, not on whether it's proffered by Denis Noble.

O.