Nature: Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

[Dolorian]

Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently
Without an extended evolutionary framework, the theory neglects key processes, say Kevin Laland and colleagues.

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

[...]

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? No, all is well
Theory accommodates evidence through relentless synthesis, say Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra and colleagues.

In October 1881, just six months before he died, Charles Darwin published his final book. The Formation of Vegetable Mould, Through the Actions of Worms11 sold briskly: Darwin’s earlier publications had secured his reputation. He devoted an entire book to these humble creatures in part because they exemplify an interesting feedback process: earthworms are adapted to thrive in an environment that they modify through their own activities.

Darwin learned about earthworms from conversations with gardeners and his own simple experiments. He had a genius for distilling penetrating insights about evolutionary processes — often after amassing years of observational and experimental data — and he drew on such disparate topics as agriculture, geology, embryology and behaviour. Evolutionary thinking ever since has followed Darwin’s lead in its emphasis on evidence and in synthesizing information from other fields.

Source

...

Check the source for the full paper. Very interesting discussion.

[Mister Agenda]

The processes by which organisms grow and develop are the result of evolution. Changes in how organisms grow and develop are the result of evolution.

For example, neoteny, the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood, describes much of what makes us different from chimpanzees. But the reason greater neoteny is an increased feature in humans compared to chimps is because of natural selection favoring individuals who retained certain features into adulthood that chimps lose.

[vorlon13]

I think the creationists need to redouble their efforts along the lines of declining the fruits of evolutionary guided medical science.

For instance, eschewing medical treatment for evolved microbes. Since by their lights microbes can't evolve, Christers should be confident their faith will protect them, and decline newfangled treatments postulated on evolution.

[Minimalist]

An issue which Doonesbury dealt with a few years back, Vor.

[Chas]

Another 'revolution' that isn't. The modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism) takes those kinds of processes into account.

This is just refining, not overturning. I wish people would quit with the "Well, Darwin didn't know X; Oh, Darwin got Y wrong".

So what?

What Darwin did was to identify, explain, and provide evidence for the basic algorithm that is the heart of evolution. That was his brilliant, hard-worked for contribution.

[Minimalist]

W. F. Albright was an early archaeologist. Almost everything he found he attributed to some biblical bullshit story. Still, everyone who writes a book on archaeology credits him for being a founder in spite of the fact that all of his theories have been dismissed as pseudo-religious horseshit.

Darwin is in the same boat. He was a founder and his theories have been augmented not overturned by modern scholarship.

Creatard morons notwithstanding.

[Chas]

W. F. Albright was an early archaeologist. Almost everything he found he attributed to some biblical bullshit story. Still, everyone who writes a book on archaeology credits him for being a founder in spite of the fact that all of his theories have been dismissed as pseudo-religious horseshit.

Darwin is in the same boat. He was a founder and his theories have been augmented not overturned by modern scholarship.

Creatard morons notwithstanding.

Weeeeeeeellllllll, Darwin actually had a boat - Albright was floundering around.

[Anomalocaris]

Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently
Without an extended evolutionary framework, the theory neglects key processes, say Kevin Laland and colleagues.

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

[...]

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? No, all is well
Theory accommodates evidence through relentless synthesis, say Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra and colleagues.

In October 1881, just six months before he died, Charles Darwin published his final book. The Formation of Vegetable Mould, Through the Actions of Worms11 sold briskly: Darwin’s earlier publications had secured his reputation. He devoted an entire book to these humble creatures in part because they exemplify an interesting feedback process: earthworms are adapted to thrive in an environment that they modify through their own activities.

Darwin learned about earthworms from conversations with gardeners and his own simple experiments. He had a genius for distilling penetrating insights about evolutionary processes — often after amassing years of observational and experimental data — and he drew on such disparate topics as agriculture, geology, embryology and behaviour. Evolutionary thinking ever since has followed Darwin’s lead in its emphasis on evidence and in synthesizing information from other fields.

Source

...

Check the source for the full paper. Very interesting discussion.

You are confusing what evolution is, with the field in which advances has brought the greatest insight into the operation of evolution in recent years.

Think of evolution as history. Think of genetics as an amazingly large and comprehensive ancient library that was discovered completely intact. Obviously until a good portion of the library is analyzed, a very fruitful way to spend your time researching history is to read the content this library. This does not means all history is in this library. It does not mean sudden rememberance of the fact that history may not be in this library demands rethink of history.

Does that make sense?

[Dolorian]

Did you guys actually read the paper?
It is in the scientific journal Nature and it is a discussion between two groups of actual scientists. It is not a creationist or intelligent design piece.

[vorlon13]

Ah, but we have creatards present here.

I've also noted that over the years, the creationists arguments against Darwinism have evolved. One might think they would have got it correct the first time around.