Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
When natural selection first came out it was almost universally rejected. There was a period of 40 years or more where scientists were looking for alternatives to replace natural selection they call this perioud the eclipse of Darwinism. So which alternative theories are there? Theres neo-Lamarckism the notion that aquired traits can be inherited, saltation (evolution by jumps via large mutations etc), theistic evolution, vitalism or orthogenesis (internal directed evolution) etc.
Neo-Lamarckism and Saltation there is evidence that these do occur and have occured. I suggest reading the book Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka Marion J. Lamb where some of this evidence is described. The authors however are not saying neo-Lamarckism or salatation are going to completey replace natural selection, as far as I know no scientist denies that selection occurs. However the role of selection in evolution is still being debated. Some give it a secondary or minor role whilst the neo-Darwinians give it a major role.
Thanks, but none of this will tell me what Jumma's proposal is.
Jumma is obviously an alternative account of the user Gamila who started the thread "Natural selection is proven wrong" on this forum. The arguements of these user/s come from Australian philosopher Colin Leslie Dean. This user/s may be Dean or a friend of his (they appear to use a very similar writing style). They are obviously not interested in proposing any alternative mechanism and some of their comments are very similar to creationists.
He talks about the:
The cambrian explosion. (he is correct here becuase the cambrian explosion does not fit into any gradual theory of evolution) but does not disprove evolution instead we have evidence that this "explosion" came about by complex environmental, developmental, and ecological changes (the mechanisms of which are still being debated today). The cambrian explosion was perfectly natural and does not booster any form of creationism.
Natural selection is invalidated by the fact of speciation. (He is wrong about this and actually dropped this arguement it appears).
His last point:
His arguement here follows that "seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common".
Interestingly this last arguement I sent to some other people and they told me it is wrong as natural selection only occurs after repeated generations. As the author himself has said there is a lot of moving goal posts when it comes to natural selection.
Natural selection is not the only evolutionary mechanism, see my other thread for a handful of other mechanisms but sadly it is a bit dogmatically pushed and overhyped by some people. Scientists like Brian Goodwin and Lynn Margulis admitted that selection exists but said it only has a minor role in evolution, there are other important evolutionary mechanisms such as self-organization or symbiosis etc. So I really don't see a problem any longer.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests