darryl88

I am in agreement with that comment, and I have read over that paper. Indeed Mae-Wan Ho is one of the scientists who has called for a new evolutionary synthesis since the 1980's. At the end of the day however, it can safely be said that there is no agreed theory of evolution. Whilst evolution is a fact, there is no agreement on the theory of mechanisms. I have lost count of the mount of contradictory books/papers proposing different mechanisms of evolution.

Neo-Darwinism is faced with major conceptual barriers to further progress, deriving directly from its metaphysical foundations and denying that certain processes exist. Neo-Darwinism is very limited, but moving beyond neo-darwinism we will progress in our knowledge in evolution. The current "modern synthesis" regime is very limited, it does not provide a detailed explanation of how evolution occurs, it fails to explain the relationship between the phenotype and genotype and many other things. The current evolutionary theory (modern synthesis of the 1940s) is a theory of genes, and totally lacks a theory of forms. The modern synthesis failed to explain the origin of form, so that is where evo-devo comes in and where different non-darwinian processes can explain things like this which neodarwinism failed and that is just one reason why the extended synthesis was proposed, see this paper here for some other reasons: http://www.nespolo.cl/LECTURAS/Clase%200_Pigliucci%202007-Evolution-EES%207pp.pdf Of course the extended synthesis is not considered even to be enough by some scientists. It appears the new synthesis is more accurate of looking at evolution, now this does not mean the old "Darwinian" mechanisms do not exist, it just means other processes exist as well in evolution, which may be more important than the "Darwinian" ones. of course the neo-darwinists deny this. http://www.scielo.br...ipt=sci_arttext Conclusions Contrary to the established view, soft inheritance is common. Variations acquired during an individual's lifetime can be passed on through epigenetic, behavioral and symbolic inheritance. They can affect the rate and direction of evolution by introducing additional foci for selection, by revealing cryptic genetic variation, and by enhancing the generation of local genetic variations. Moreover, under conditions of stress, epigenetic control mechanisms affect genomic re-patterning, which can lead to saltational changes. Evolutionary biology today has to incorporate soft inheritance, saltational changes due to systemic mutations, and various types of genetic exchange and cooperation. These all challenge the assumptions of the Modern Synthesis. We believe that rather than trying to continue to work within the framework of a Synthesis that was made in the middle of the last century, we now need a new type of evolutionary theory, one that acknowledges Darwinian, Lamarckian and saltational processes. Notice the last line above - This is why the new synthesis is needed becuase neo-Darwinism (modern synthesis) DENIED that Lamarckian or saltational processes can occur, but we now have evidence that they DO occur. It is that simple. The fact that these things exists, mean evolution has moved beyond neo-darwinism. I never mentioned "scientific community", indeed the scientific community is split on evolution, some advocate neo-Darwinism, some advocate the extended synthesis, some advocate a totally new synthesis etc This is the most dishonest comment on this thread. It has NOT been shown to be incorrect, it has 100% been shown to be correct as I explained above becuase neodarwinism ignored and denied Lamarckian and saltational processes etc, but we now know they exist. Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb have written many papers on this, one of which was titled "Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis". This paper presents some of the recent challenges to theModern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominated evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus of the paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the idea that variations that arise during development can beinherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources ofhereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, themechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology. As you can see neo-Darwinism DENIED any role for Lamarckian or saltational processes but we now know they exist. We are not in the 1940's era of the neo-darwinism anymore we are in the 21st century. Are you honest enough to admit this? Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee, Marcus W. Feldman and Jeremy Kendal in their paper titled Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology on niche construction: Quote:In spite of its success, Neo-Darwinism is faced with major conceptual barriers to further progress, deriving directly from its metaphysical foundations. Most importantly, neo-Darwinism fails to recognize a fundamental cause of evolutionary change, "niche construction". This failure restricts the generality of evolutionary theory, and introduces inaccuracies. It also hinders the integration of evolutionary biology with neighbouring disciplines, including ecosystem ecology, developmental biology, and the human sciences. Ecology is forced to become a divided discipline, developmental biology is stubbornly difficult to reconcile with evolutionary theory, and the majority of biologists and social scientists are still unhappy with evolutionary accounts of human behaviour. The incorporation of niche construction as both a cause and a product of evolution removes these disciplinary boundaries while greatly generalizing the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. As you can see, the neo-Darwinists have had a long history of denying certain processes and evolutionary mechanisms exist. Niche construction is another one that the neo-Darwinists denied, but we know it exists.Understand? Evolution has moved beyond neo-darwinism and I have a load of science to back this up, whilst users on here have nothing but personal opinion. As I said science is not about opinion, it is about the evidence, and we have the evidence evolution has moved beyond neo-darwinism, see the papers I have cited. Cheers.

Read over some of the dogmatic replies on this thread, and you will see two militant Darwinists denying the need for an extended synthesis, and even denying that an extended synthesis exists. The publications I have listed above shatter those claims. As Prof Koonin and other scientists have written evolution should be characterized by the pluralism of many processes and patterns in evolution that defies any straightforward generalization, neo-Darwinism was wrong in advocating only limited mechanisms of evolution.

It is utter nonsense to deny there are no plans for an extended or new synthesis. Publications calling for an extended synthesis / revised synthesis etc: Auletta, G. A Paradigm Shift in Biology? Information 2010, 1, 28-59. Carroll, Sean B. Evo-Devo and an Expanding Evolutionary Synthesis. Cell. 134/1, 2008. Depew, David and Bruce Weber. The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution after the Modern Synthesis. Biological Theory. 6/1, 2012. Edelmann, Jonathon and Michael Denton. The Uniqueness of Biological Self-Organization. Biology and Philosophy. 22/4, 2007. Etxeberria, Arantza. Autopoiesis and Natural Drift: Genetic Information, Reproduction, and Evolution Revisited. Artifical Life. 10/3, 2004. Gilbert, Scott and Sahorta Sarkar. Embracing Complexity: Organicism for the 21st Century. Developmental Dynamics. 219/1, 2000. Gilbert, Scott, et al. Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology. Developmental Biology. 173/357, 1996. Gilbert SF. Developmental Biology. 6th edition. Hoffmeyer, Jesper. Origin of Species by Natural Translation. Petrilli, Susan, ed. Translation Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003. Jablonka, Eva. Extending Darwinism. Seed. October, 2008. Jablonka, Eva and Marion Lamb. Evolution in Four Dimensions. Karsenti, Eric. Self-Organization in Cell Biology. Nature Reviews: Molecular Cell Biology. 9/3, 2008. Mattick, John. A New Paradigm for Developmental Biology. Journal of Experimental Biology. 210/9, 2007. Maze, Jack, et al. The Virtual Mode: a Different Look at Species. Taxon. 54/1, 2005. Muller, Gerd. Where EvoDevo Goes Beyond the Modern Synthesis. Muller, Gerd and Stuart Newman, eds. Origination of Organismal Form. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003 Pennisi, Elizabeth. Modernizing the Modern Synthesis. Science. 321/196, 2008. Pigliucci, Massimo. An Extended Synthesis for Evolutionary Biology. Pigliucci, Massimo. Do We Need an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis? Evolution. 61/12, 2007. Pigliucci, Massimo and Gerd Muller, eds. Evolution – the Extended Synthesis. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010. Ramalho-Santos, Miguel. Stem Cells as Probabilistic Self-producing Entities. BioEssays. 26/9, 2004. Waddington, C. H. 1953a. Genetic assimilation of an acquired character. - Evolution, 7: 118-126. Whitfield, John. Postmodern Evolution? Science. 455/281, 2008. Woese, Carl. A New Biology for a New Century. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 68/2, 2004. Kauffman, Stuart A., 1993, Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford. Gould, Stephen Jay, 1982, Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory, Science, 216:380-387. Eldredge, Niles, 1985, Unfinished Synthesis: Biological Hierarchies and Modern Evolutionary Theory, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford. Carroll, R. L. 2000 Towards a new evolutionary synthesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15, 27-32. Gregory, T. R. 2005 Macroevolution and the genome. In The Evolution of the Genome (ed. T. R. Gregory), pp. 679-729. San Diego: Elsevier. Johnson, N. A. & Porter, A. H. 2001 Toward a new synthesis: population genetics and evolutionary developmental biology. Genetica 112, 45-58. Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN and Feldman MW (2003) Comments on Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Salthe, S. N. 1985. Evolving Hierarchical Systems: Their Structure and Representation. New York: Columbia University Press. Calling for a new synthesis: Rose MR, Oakley TH (2007) The new biology: Beyond the Modern Synthesis. Biol Direct 2:30. Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009. Goodwin, Brian. Beyond the Darwinian Paradigm. Ruse, Michael and Joseph Travis, eds. Evolution: the First Four Billion Years. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009. Goodwin, Brian. How the Leopard Changed Its Spots. New York: Scribner’s, 1994. Fodor, Jerry and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini. What Darwin Got Wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010. Kull K. 1999. Outlines for a post-Darwinian biology. - Folia Baeriana 7, 129-142. Reid, Robert G. B. Biological Emergences. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007. Shapiro, James. A 21st Century View of Evolution: Genome System Architecture, Repetitive DNA, and Natural Genetic Engineering. Gene. 345/1, 2005. Shapiro, James. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press Science, 2011. Webster, Gerald and Brian Goodwin. Form and Transformation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Wasserman, Gerhard D., 1981, On the Nature of the Theory of Evolution, Philosophy of Science, 48:416-437. Ho, Mae-Wan and Saunders, Peter T. (eds.), 1984, Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm, Academic Press, London. Pollard, Jeffrey W. (ed.), 1984, Evolutionary Theory: Paths into the Future, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester and New York. Weiss, Kenneth and Anne Buchanan. The Mermaid’s Tale: Four Billion Years of Cooperation in the Making of Living Things. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009. Margulis, L.& Sagan, D. (2002). Acquiring Genomes, A Theory of the Origin of Species. New York: Basic Books. Shall we go through these publications one by one

Arete you have given me 5 links to three random scientific journals - but the links you have given are not to specific papers which can be read online, they are to a couple of book reviews that can not be clicked on without access or things which are not relevant to this topic. It seems you have just randomly tried to get hold of anything to try and back yourself up. I was thinking of calling you dishonest but it appears you are lazy as well. Why can you not cite one single paper to back up your claims. And no don't get angry or abuse me... I am really interested why. Can you point to a single actual scientific paper to back up your claims that a paradigm shift/extended synthesis has not occured in evolution in the last 60 years? WOW, what is this? I have just found another paper calling for an extended synthesis just published last month! Epigenetic synthesis: a need for a new paradigm for evolution in a contaminated world http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3434969/ The list goes on and on, I could be citing these papers all day which are calling for an extended or new synthesis beyond just neo-Darwinism. Evolution has progressed beyond the modern synthesis of the 1940's, I have no idea why specific users online want to deny this. As I said knowledge about evolution progresses and this is what science is all about.

Listen I respect your replies Ringer and especially your comments on the table overtone but the problem is you are offering me nothing more than opinion. You have attempted to shoot down pretty much everything Prof Koonin has written in that table, but note how every point he makes is backed up via scientific sources. So when you have listed your criticisms you are not only rejecting Koonin's work but also the view of many other scientists on evolution. So what do we have? We have your personal criticism or the work of professional scientists in the field backed up with evidence. Who do you think I am going to choose to believe? Now it is perfectly acceptable to give criticism if you think something is wrong, but personal opinion goes little far in scientific debates and discussion, especially if you are offering criticism of something without any evidence to back up your claims at all. So can you give me some scientific evidence to back up any of your criticism? If you can actually back up your criticisms, then perhaps you may actually have a case but at the moment you have not offered anything scientific.

Once again overtone if you want to make a case can you please go further than just your personal opinion and please cite actual scientific references for your claims. No it is not "bullshit". And you are being very dishonest, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis formulated in the 1930's it was very critical of saltationism and it rejects that it can happen. Here is a main tenent of neo-Darwinism: Please see Ernst Mayr's book describing the main points of neo-Darwinism such as The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution & inheritance. He writes that saltational evolution is impossible. Of course he was writing this back over 30-40 years ago and he was wrong. Darwinian gradualism has been refuted. This is not to say that gradual evolution does not exist, but the strict gradualism of neo-Darwinism is wrong. As Prof Koonin summarised: Below is a very aburd quote from you: Saltationism and Lamarckian feedback have been observed as well as many other non-Darwinian mechanisms, evolution is evolution, it is made up of pluralistic mechanisms and processes, to conclude that the entire field of evolution is just "Darwinian" is ignorant of the evidence and pure denialism. Evolution is not limited and science is not static, you have been told this many times. Please see the table to see why many basic principles of the Darwinian theory have been replaced and challenged. It is the fourth time you have been given this, but you refuse to look at it. http://www.ncbi.nlm....84144/table/T1/

I have read all of the papers. Here is the one you mention: 1. The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3215633/ In this paper it discusses the controversial views of the biologist James A. Shapiro and the neo-Lamarckian views of the biologist Eva Jablonka and her collegues (by neo-Lamarckian we are talking about epigenetic mechanisms). Both of these authors discuss how new discovery of evolutionary mechanisms has caused the emergence of a new evolutionary synthesis. As the paper states: The old neo-Darwinian view of evolution is described above. You will all agree with this. As we can see above in the statement evolution is not simple like the neo-Darwinians would have us believe, things have been discovered in biology (genome research etc) which show evolution is far more complex, and note "there is data that does not fit comfortably within the synthesis" so there is evidence that certain mechanisms cannot possibility fit into the limited neo-Darwinian synthesis hence the purpose of this thread. Agree yes? So to the next questions, what is this data that does not fit comfortably within the neo-Darwinian synthesis? What is it? Of course this is just one paper (a book review even) and it nowhere near goes into enough detail. But we will discuss it anyway. Again for a quick summary of why a new synthesis is needed according to the paper: 1. Data has been found which cannot fit into the neo-Darwinian framework of evolution. 2. The simple view of evolution based on mendalian genetics is a minimalist view of genetics and does not match up to the evidence: So the strict neo-Darwinian view of mendelian does not explain the entire picture of evolution, it only explains part of it. So what neo-Darwinism is explaining is only half of evolution, if that! And again from the paper: The neo-Darwinian synthesis has never had a proper model of DNA variation. As explained there is much more to evolution than just mendelian genetics. The paper then asks some questions Neo-Darwinism has no answer on this question. Neo-Darwinism has no answer. And the paper points out it is systems biology which is attempting to answer this question. Neo-Darwinism has rejected systems biology. The next section is a review of two books - one by shapiro and one by jablonka. I have to admit the book review of Shapiro is very poor and does not describe his views very well. But do check out the section on Lamarckian evolution: So is there data which fits within a Lamarckian framework? Yes and this data is evidence for non-Mendelian inheritance. If non-mendelian inheritance is proven then neo-Darwinism is wrong, becuase it denies the role for any important action for non-mendelian inheritance in evolution. As the paper summarises some of their ideas: Of course neo-Darwinism has denied germline change in anything apart from random mutation. Neo-Darwinians ignore all of the data for epigenetic inheritance or claim it is not important. And neo-Darwinism is also dogmatically gradualistic denying any role for saltational evolution, but epigentic processes can be saltational as both books point out (there is lots of evidence for saltational evolution). So the fact that saltational evolution exists is just more evidence that evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian synthesis? Why? Becuase neo-Darwinism denied that it can happen... but it does happen! Therefore neo-Darwinism was wrong. The paper also mentions the views of conrad waddington on genetic assimilation this was a mechanism which was denied by the neo-darwinian synthesis as being "lamarckian" (even though waddington described the mechanism in "darwinian" terms.) It is usually described as a Lamarckian mechanism but this is not really true, it is actually a special case of phenotypic plasticity. There is evidence that this mechanism exists. This was just one paper. Note the reviewer was actually critical of some of Shapiro's book but still agreed that a new synthesis is needed becuase the neo-Darwinian view does not match up to the evidence. Of course like I have said scientists in the field are saying these things, but you come to an internet forum with non-scientists and they have no clue about it and deny it.So you have been given evidence for scientists calling for a new synthesis Ringer, there is no reason do deny this new synthesis or claim it does not exist.

Sorry but I have no reason to believe any of the opinions expressed by users on this forum because nothing you say is backed up via any scientific evidence whatsoever and you have ignored the scientific papers I have cited. Science is not about personal belief, if you want to make a case please cite scientific papers, but you never do. Here are more papers proving my point. All these papers either discuss the new synthesis, the paradigm shift in evolutionary biology, extension and revisionism etc etc. This is fascinating stuff which clearly users on this forum ignore and have no idea about. Please read these papers, And you should then agree with me and actually be thanking me that this extension and new synthesis does indeed exist. The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3215633/ A New Evolutionary Synthesis in Developmental Biology. 6th edition.Gilbert SF http://www.ncbi.nlm....books/NBK10128/ The molecular and mathematical basis of Waddington's epigenetic landscape: a framework for post-Darwinian biology? http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22102361 Beyond Darwinism? The Challenge of Macroevolution to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution http://www.jstor.org...=21101436771937 Post-modern synthesis? http://www.nature.co...l/6800471a.html Recent Developments in Evolutionary Biology https://papers.econ....ers/2009-11.pdf Towards A New Evolutionary Theory http://www.intercien.../v35_11/862.pdf Horizontal gene transfer in evolution: facts and challenges http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2842723/ Evolution of microbes and viruses: a paradigm shift in evolutionary biology? http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3440604/ Is evolution Darwinian or/and Lamarckian? http://www.biology-d.../content/4/1/42 Evo-devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17984972 elements of an extended evolutionary synthesis http://homepage.univ...%20Elements.pdf Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution http://champagnelab....ChampagneNR.pdf Systems biology and the prospect of a Post‐modern Evolutionary Synthesis http://www.asbmb.org...iles/Koonin.pdf Towards a postmodern synthesis of evolutionary biology http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19242109 THE EPIGENOME IN EVOLUTION: BEYOND THE MODERN SYNTHESIS http://www.bionet.nsc.ru/vogis/pict_pdf/2008/t12_1_2/vogis_12_1_2_21.pdf The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/30 As I said I have about 100 of these scientific papers proving my case about the paradigm shift in evolutionary biology yet users here will attack me, ignore every paper I cite and ignore all this scientific evidence. So I will not be posting anymore on this forum. Anyone honest should read the above papers and then agree that I was correct. Thanks. You have now been given this knowledge, hopefully you can learn about evolution instead of ignoring this evidence. Darryl.

There is no possible way phenotypic plasticity, niche construction, epigenetics, endosymbiosis etc etc can fit into the "neo-Darwinian" framework without atleast a serious expansion or major revisionism, these mechanisms are about as far away from "Darwinism" as you can get. Note how orthodox neo-Darwinians such as Jerry Coyne have denied epigenetics and Niche construction etc etc. What pisses me off is the amount of loons on the internet thinking anything and everything can fit into "neo-Darwinism", that is the real straw man argument, no matter what is presented you will still say it is somehow compatible with orthodox Darwinism, sorry but that is not the case. Read the papers that I have cited. http://jeb.biologist...09/12/2362.full A paper explaining how Phenotypic plasticity and evolution by genetic assimilation was denied by the neo-Darwinists and shows how these mechanisms can be put into the synthesis via an expansion. "No. I've addressed them previously more than one of your many threads on the subject. I don't feel like repeating myself." There is no evidence you have read any of the papers I have cited, you have not been able to comment on a single one of them. You are the reason evolution makes so little progress thesedays on the internet you are rejecting any evidence based on your personal beliefs, what you are doing is no different than what the creationists do. This is anti-scientific. If you want to make a case back up your claims with scientific peer-reviews. I have over 100 SCIENTIFIC papers proving that evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism due to discovery of many of these new mechanisms which has made many tenets of the old synthesis obsolete. The burden is on you guys now to show me your scientific papers. "You have systematically dismantled the nonsense that darryl has been posting in multiple threads and forums, and done so surgically and comprehensively. You have demonstrated him to be the troll that jeskill suspects. Thank you. I suggest there is nothing more to be said and that ignoring future, let's be kind, misinterpretations of reality by darryl would be the best approach." He has not dismantled anything. He has like yourself has ignored every scientific paper presented and offered nothing but personal opinion. If you guys are not trolling then post me scientific papers to back up your claims. Do you even read journals? the problem is the internet when it comes to evolution is filled with old farts, these old dudes have no clue what is actually new in evolution and about the new synthesis. you have been given 100% scientific proof via scientific papers showing how evolution has moved beyond neodarwinism, only ignorance denies these facts.

Still ignored the papers and the table I see. Speechless on the matter. Interesting, I have never heard of it, so it must of not had much media coverage but I agree does look like an important event considering the European Society for Evolutionary Biology were there. Do you have a listing of the scientists who spoke at this meeting, and what they were actually discussing? Here is the program for the events: http://www.confersen...012/program.htm This is pretty EMBARRASSING, a live rapper rapping to evolution at one of the events, pointless poster sessions, note also how the last two days of the events were only awards, nothing to do with discussing evolutionary theory. It seems there was also bias at the events: http://sandwalk.blog...ion-ottawa.html Note the event "Next-generation' genomics of parallelism and convergence (SSE); Towards an evolutionary community ecology", "Symposia: The physiological mechanisms that shape life histories (ESEB); Eco-evolutionary dynamics: how ecological and evolutionary process influence one another (CSEE)" would be topics of the extended synthesis, not of orthodox neo-darwinism. So your claim that the 2012 joint evolution meetings contains no element of the extended or new evolutionary synthesis is false. http://www.nature.co...html?s=news_rss The 2008 meeting in Austria to suggest an extended evolutionary synthesis has wide media coverage and even appeared in the Nature Journal of Science. http://rationalwiki....onary_synthesis The meeting consisted of: John Beatty (University of British Columbia)<li>Werner Callebaut (University of Hasselt) <li>Sergey Gavrilets (University of Tennessee)<li>Eva Jablonka (Tel Aviv University)<li>David Jablonski (University of Chicago)<li>Marc Kirschner (Harvard University)<li>Alan Love (University of Minnesota)<li>Gerd B. Müller (University of Vienna)<li>Stuart Newman (New York Medical College)<li>John Odling-Smee (Oxford University)<li>Massimo Pigliucci (Stony Brook University)<li>Michael Purugganan (New York University)<li>Eörs Szathmáry (Collegium Budapest)<li>Günter P. Wagner (Yale University)<li>David Sloan Wilson (Binghamton University)<li>Greg Wray (Duke University). No rapping or sillyness, every meeting at the Altenberg was about how our knowledge has expanded since the original foundations of neo-Darwinism. Indeed things like Phenotypic plasticity, genetic assimilation, niche contruction and epigenetic Inheritance have now all proven to be a reality. Yet you deny these mechanisms? Science is not static you know.

The below chart proving how many parts of the neo-Darwinian synthesis have been replaced by a more modern synthesis in the 21 century. For a close view of the table and references for this scientific evidence, please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm....84144/table/T1/ From The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? by Prof Eugene Koonin. http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2784144/ There are another 100 of so papers saying similar things how evolution has moved beyond neo-Darwinism since 2007. Only internet users deny this evidence, ignore it and don't even comment on it. In real life scientists are discussing this and working on the new synthesis. Click the table to enlarge:

The paradigm shift IS occuring within evolutionary biology at the moment, not only have I been invited to some of these meetings and conferences as a student there is also many recent books and publications out on the subject. Once again you have IGNORED the evidence (see my post koonin et al) explaining the shift beyond neo-Darwinism, this has been happening since 2007 and can be trace back even to the 80s. So yes in REALITY the paradigm has occured and IS occuring as I type this. But no this is not accepted on internet forums, becuase most folk on internet forums are NOT scientists in the field and are not aware about any of the latest events in evo-devo etc, they are not aware of this shift and any SCIENTIFIC PAPER given to them explaining the shift beyond neo-darwinism and they will deny. It is all very sad to see. But yes as another user said, scientists are not forum users, so why am I even wasting my time? Lets leave science to the scientists, if ignorant forum users do not want to be up to date and uphold an ignorant outdated view of evolution then so be it. If you want to learn you know where the papers are and you can even contact these scientists yourself for confirmation or even attend some of their conferences and or lectures. Cheers.

No, its based on the scientific evidence which users on internet forums are not aware about or either ignore. Here is the evidence evolution has moved beyond the neo-Darwinian framework. Eugene Koonin Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475 and Eugene Koonin, Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics, Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034 Writes: Koonin also states in the above paper "The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair". Eugene Koonin, in his research paper, titled "Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics", published 12 Feb 2009, says: "Now, 50 years after the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis, evolutionary biology undoubtedly faces a new major challenge and, at the same time, the prospect of a new conceptual breakthrough"....."By contrast, the insistence on adaptation being the primary mode of evolution that is apparent in the Origin, but especially in the Modern Synthesis, became deeply suspicious if not outright obsolete, making room for a new worldview that gives much more prominence to non-adaptive processes"......"Collectively, the developments in evolutionary genomics and systems biology outlined here seem to suggest that, although at present only isolated elements of a new, 'postmodern' synthesis of evolutionary biology are starting to be formulated, such a synthesis is indeed feasible. Moreover, it is likely to assume definitive shape long before Darwin's 250th anniversary" His papers can be read here: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2784144/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2651812/ Michael Rose and Todd Oakley Michael R Rose and Todd H Oakley, in their research paper, titled "The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis" published on 24 November 2007 wrote: "The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century". See their section in the paper titled "Dead parts of the Modern Synthesis" http://www.biology-d...content/2/1/30/ Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb have written many papers, one of which was titled "Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis". According to the paper: Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders Mae Wan Ho and Peter Saunders in their paper Beyond neo-Darwinism an epigenetic approach to evolution write: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519379901917 Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee et al. Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee, Marcus W. Feldman and Jeremy Kendal in their paper titled Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology on niche construction: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3093243/ J. B. Edelmann and M. J. Denton J. B. Edelmann and M. J. Denton write in their "The uniqueness of biological self-organization: challenging the Darwinian paradigm" how the neo-Darwinists have ignored self-organization which is an important factor in evolution. http://mechanism.ucs...zation.2007.pdf It's not only these either, I have another 40 or so all saying similar things. Of certain users online when this information is presented refuse to even look at these scientific papers and just even throw out personal attacks, change the subject or attack the scientists and not even look at this evidence.

Journals like that are written by different scientists, look up those specific articles or papers etc and check out who they are written by. The paper for example Replacing and additive horizontal gene transfer in streptococcus is a very interesting paper about the role of HGT in bacteria. I just had a long debate the other day with a "neo-Darwinian" and he told me HGT has little to no role in evolution. The other paper you cite Evolutionary dynamics and functional specialization of plant paralogs formed by whole and small-scale genome duplications is about the role of genome duplications in plants, again this is usually ignored by the neo-Darwinians.