“Engines of variation”, eh? Thanks for the tip.

the ideas that came from the modern synthesis (yes, concerning microevolution) are as valid and as settled as any scientific ideas

Agreed 100%. I should have clarified my assertion was only in relation to macroevolution. But in general macroevolution is the main topic of interest on UD, so I generally assume the other person is speaking of it.

As to your example from Sean’s book, even if we assumed what was stated is correct how would that contradict ID? BOTH ID and the “evolving holistic synthesis” could turn out to be true. In order to function, the “evolving holistic synthesis” requires OOL, which is its own separate question. Besides “directed front-loading” (what I’m calling Behe’s hypothesis in order to differentiate it from other variants) there is the potential that ID only holds true in regards to the OOL. Dembski’s recent work shows that in order to find the targets in search space active information is required. This active information IS the design of the system (code, error correction, self-replication, modular components, plasticity in the language conventions, etc), which allows the “evolving holistic synthesis” to function without there being a directly embedded plan. Thus, it’s the initial design of the system that requires intelligent design, not necessarily every step of evolution (although that may be a possibility, via intervention or front-loading). I haven’t had a chance to read Mike Gene’s book but I believe he has the same or similar hypothesis. Dave described it as the design of the system being “transformer-like”.

Now here is the real question: would the majority of Darwinists find such a hypothesis acceptable? As in, is it even possible to have a middle ground where both ID and Darwinism hold true? Can’t we just all get along? Even though I’m suggesting this idea I’m not convinced of it myself. I just think it a good starting point where both sides could potentially stop the arguing, the hating, and the career-busting and work toward finding the truth.

Also, as you rightly pointed out comparing similarities is not the same as providing positive evidence that Darwinian processes are capable of producing such change. But I’ll reiterate myself: “So now the real question is whether ID holds true in regards to the “evolving holistic synthesis” (MacNeill’s term). I don’t think anyone could say for certain at this point; it’s too early. It’s a different question with a potentially different answer.”

Could I please get the link to Allen MacNeil’s list of RVs. I’ve been searching for it with no luck.

http://evolutionlist.blogspot......awman.html

On “random mutations” and Allen’s claim that ID is using a strawman for evolutionary biology: ID proponents are using the term in reference to everything. For example, in Behe’s new book he lists all the mechanisms on one page but in general he uses “random mutations” unless a distinction needs to be made. Given that definition, these “engines of variation” would all be encapsulated under “random mutation”. But I agree that a better term should be adopted, since “random mutation” is often conflated with the over-simplification of the modern synthesis.

Personally I think discussing RM+NS is like beating a dead horse even though there’s still many Darwinists that support it as the primary method for producing macroevolution. I’d rather move onto discussing these supposed “engines of variation”. I have a feeling they’ll get more popular so think of it as a pre-emptive strike.

Other UD pages where this was discussed:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-is-junk/

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....mechanics/

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....he-genome/

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-syndrome/

Could I please get the link to Allen MacNeil’s list of RVs. I’ve been searching for it with no luck.

In general,

I think the upcoming book, What Darwin Got Wrong, and the Altenberg 16 meeting have the potential to really stir things up in the evolutionary biology world (as if they aren’t already!).

It sounds like a “new evolutionary synthesis” (I sort of like gpuccio’s “Neo-Neo-Darwinism” tag – We’ll keep adding “neo”s until we get it right!) will likely contain less “gradualism” and more “saltation”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the reason “saltation” is resisted so much is because it is too close to “creationism”?

Until ID’s ideas are rigorously vetted by the scientific community through the long-established process of peer review, it will be no more a theory than something scribbled on a napkin at a bar.If you’re confident in it, submit it and let the chips fall where they may. with thick skin, persistence and a willingness to listen and adjust to criticism on the part of the authors, almost all good science will wind up being published.. as for bad science, some of it winds up getting published anyway (see any given issue of Nature or Science for at least one good example), but I’d like to think that the majority deservedly does not.

anyway I have real publications that urgently need to be tended to, so I will keep this brief. the ideas that came from the modern synthesis (yes, concerning microevolution) are as valid and as settled as any scientific ideas.. I’ll add “as far as I am aware” bc I honestly don’t keep close tabs on modern synthesis ideas bc I find them boring.. a personal opinion that has nothing to do with their validity.. so i was surprised that you would say flatly state it has been refuted when I had heard nothing about this incredible paradigm shift that would surely and deservedly earn its fathers a Nobel Prize.

As for Sean’s book, I suggest figure 7.5 as a starting point.. changes from gill-like appendages in primitive aquatic nymphs to two pairs of wings in modern insects are tightly correlated with addition of receptors for the same conserved Hox proteins.. so you get phenotypic subtraction of number but elaboration of form by genotypic addition.

here are your two first criticisms:

1) it’s just a rearrangement of existing parts. true, but quite an impressive rearrangement that has given arthropods what no one would doubt is a useful ability, flight.

2) how did those new binding sites get there? as far as i know, that’s not known yet, but here are a few potential ways: gene duplication, frameshift mutation, exon shuffling. Each of these mechanisms is a specific hypothesis that can be tested by comparative genetic methods. How would you test if they were intelligently designed?

forgive me if i am lax in participating in any resulting discussion..

I agree with most of what you said. However, I defined “evolution” as the apparently progressive change of biological organisms with time, not as common descent. An “evolutionst” to me is someone admitting to the fact of this and that common descent is very strongly implied by the evidence, but certainly not proven.

I agree with your assessment of “neo-neo Darwinism”, evo-devo, Allen MacNeill’s excellent but fundamentally limited list of sources of variation. These deliberately or unconsciously obfuscate the basic issue of the source of CSI. For those advocates of these new models that reject selection as the important mechanism accumulating CSI, their ideas are incoherent.

dmso74, you could raise one example from Carroll’s book as a discussion point. Please pick something you feel is the best example of the capability of Darwinian processes to produce constructive positively-selected beneficial mutations.

No, it’s very simple. If you use the world evolution as a synonim of common descent, my position is clear: I accept common descent as the best theory at present, and I am fully available to assume it as a premise in all discussions about causal mechanisms. Yet, I don’t believe that it is a fact: it is not observable. So, what is it? A good theory, supported by many observations (homologies, both morphological and molecular, ERVs, and so on). And I do think that there are observable data which do not fit perfectly with common descent: indeed, all the aspects against gradualism, while not excluding common descent, make it less necessary. Moreover, many of the facts supporting common descent, for instance the homologies, can admit different explanations (for instance, common design).

So, my proposal is: let’s accept common descent as our favourite theory, but please let’s avoid transforming it into a fact, and let’s remember that any theory should be open to continuous discussion (including, obviously, ID). In other words, let’s avoid the epistemological nonsense so common in the darwinist field.

Having clarified that aspect, what remains? Indeed, the most important problem remains, which is the causal mechanism responsible for the generation of biological information. Here again, it’s very simple. It seems that we have grossly three positions:

1) ID: biological information is a form of design, the product of one or more conscious and intelligent deigner(s). IMO, obviously, this is at present the best, if not the only acceptable, theory. It does not explain everything, and it does open the way to a lot of future research and speculation. But it is simple, powerful, appropriate and consistent, both logically and empirically.

2) Traditional neo darwinism: let’s call it the modern synthesis. In other words, RV + NS. That is a very unsatisfactory theory, it explains practically nothing, and is inconsistent both logically and empirically. But, in a way, it does attempt to give a causal mechanism for biological information generation.

3) Neo-neo darwinism: let’s call it the ultra modern synthesis. Put here everything you want, from evo-devo to self-anything, to mysterious organizing principles, to multiverses, and so on. The sky is the limit. The common denominator of this new, apparently smart, and often irritating attitude is: traditional darwinism is no more valid, but we have many fancy alternatives. Not ID, obviously, that is always loathed by some passer by, but many new and beautiful ideas. Only, when you try to ask these people what is the causal mechanism behind biological information, they immediately become elusive, and start treating you with philophical disdain, as though you weren’t able to glimpse the new depths and beauties of the ultramodern biological thought. What a pity that, in those depths, there is never a trace of any explanation, of any explicit theory for what they give for granted.

So yes, I don’t understand. And I am afraid that there is nothing to understand. I can’t understand how evolutionists can deny the power of NS, when they think it’s fashionable, and propose to substitute genetic drift (a purely random mechanism) for it. I can’t understand how Allen MacNeill can make long lists of so called engines of variation, without ever explaining how they work, and without ever computing the mathematical and logical difficulties they imply. I can’t understand how all these people can boldly ignore the fundamental problems of CSI and IC, and still affirm that things have come into existence neither from design nor from traditional darwinian mechanisms.

So, just to conclude, I accept nothing as a fact, except facts themselves (observable events). For the rest, I compare available theories. As far as I know, there are only two theories which try to offer some kind of logically acceptable mechanism for biological information: one is traditional darwinism, the other is ID. No need to add which is best one…

There seems to be a logical disconnect here. Or maybe it’s just semantics. Are you claiming that “evolution” as defined as apparently progressive change with time, a matter of historical record, is not a fact? Many if not most ID advocates (like myself) accept evolution as a fact and at the same time see that natural selection of random variations can not explain this historical record. Meaning that some form of “design” must necessarily have contributed to the process.

I have read Sean Carroll’s book and found nothing in it that supported any version of a naturalistic view of evolution, and certainly not the modern synthesis.

The modern synthesis supports micro evolution but nothing to do with macro evolution.