Replace the Modern Synthesis - Review


Denis Noble is a British theoretical biologist who has argued for the need to "Replace the modern synthesis", the prevailing theory of evolution, with a more comprehensive theory that takes into account recent advances in molecular biology, epigenetics, and physiology.

Noble believes that the modern synthesis is too gene-centric and does not adequately account for the role of the environment and the organism's physiology in evolution. He argues that epigenetics, the study of changes in gene expression that are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence, can play a significant role in evolution. He also believes that the organism's physiology can influence the expression of genes, and that this can lead to inherited changes in the organism.

Noble has proposed a new theory of evolution called the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), which incorporates these new ideas. The EES is still under development, but it has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of evolution.

Here are some of the specific criticisms that Noble has made of the modern synthesis:

  • It assumes that genetic mutations are random and that natural selection is the only force that drives evolution.

  • It ignores the role of the environment in evolution.

  • It does not take into account the role of epigenetics in evolution.

  • It does not take into account the role of the organism's physiology in evolution.

Noble believes that the EES can address these criticisms and provide a more comprehensive and accurate theory of evolution.

The EES has been met with mixed reactions from the scientific community. Some scientists believe that it is a promising new theory that has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of evolution. Others are more skeptical, arguing that the evidence for the EES is not yet strong enough.

Only time will tell whether the EES will become the new standard theory of evolution. 

Article snippets


So my argument for saying this is a matter of replacement rather than extension is simply that it was a direct intention of those who formulated the modern synthesis to exclude the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

That would be my first and perhaps the main reason for saying we're talking about replacement rather than extension.

The second reason is a much more conceptual issue. I think that as a gene-centric view of evolution, the modern synthesis has got causality in biology wrong.

DNA is not a cause in an active sense. I think it is better described as a passive data base which is used by the organism to enable it to make the proteins that it requires

The experimental evidence now exists for various forms and various mechanisms by which an acquired characteristic can be transmitted.

I think the reasons for replacing the modern synthesis are the experimental, that certain forms of inheritance of acquired characteristics have now been both demonstrated and their mechanism worked out, and the more philosophical point about the nature of causality.

I believe that the modern synthesis, and indeed very many aspects of the interpretation of molecular biology generally, got the question of causality in biological systems muddled up.

I would certainly go along with the view that gradual mutation followed by selection has not, as a matter of fact, been demonstrated to be necessarily a cause of speciation

Many of those who defend the modern synthesis would say, "Well, it has been." But what you find when you look at the examples modern synthesists give is that they are for the gradual transition of one species into another in the historical record.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Sequence: The Epigenetic "Fingers" That Play the DNA Keyboard

Image
Imagine the keyboard itself is not a standard piano keyboard, but a modular synthesizer, capable of producing an almost infinite array of sounds. The DNA sequence, then, represents the fundamental building blocks of this synthesizer, the raw materials from which all sounds are generated. Epigenetics, our "fingers," manipulates these building blocks, adjusting parameters like volume, timbre, and rhythm, transforming the raw potential of the DNA sequence into a symphony of cellular functions. We can further refine the "fingers" analogy. Consider that each finger represents a distinct epigenetic mechanism: DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA.  DNA methylation, for instance, might be the "index finger," capable of precisely silencing specific genes, like muting individual keys on the synthesizer. Histone modifications, the "middle finger," could represent the ability to adjust the accessibility of the DN...
Read more

Why are Christian philosophers running towards Darwin while biologists are "running" away?

Image
As nature reveals the strength of epigenetics and the weakness of Neo-Darwinism, biologists are “running” away from the long-standing accepted theory. In The Federalist , April 2019, Benjamin Dierker reviews “Why one-third of biologists now question Darwinism”: "Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s Theory inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.” Dierker continues, “The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution.  Rather, they find problems in the lack of explanatory power of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.” For 40 years, scientists calculated natural se...
Read more

Rewriting the Rules: Epigenomic Mutation Bias Challenges Randomness in Evolution

Image
This research challenges the long-held dogma that mutations occur randomly, irrespective of their consequences, by demonstrating a clear, epigenome-mediated mutation bias in Arabidopsis thaliana . The study meticulously unveils how mutation rates are not uniform across the genome but are significantly reduced in functionally constrained regions, particularly within gene bodies and essential genes. This discovery fundamentally alters our understanding of evolutionary processes, suggesting that mutation is not a purely directionless force. "Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana" This opening statement encapsulates the core finding: mutation rates are not random but reflect epigenetic pressures. The authors demonstrate that mutations are less frequent in crucial genomic regions, directly contradicting the prevailing theory of random mutation. This observation suggests an active mechanism that minimizes deleterious mutations in essentia...
Read more