lucaspa
Member
What you need to do is go to the original article. Unfortunately, my library no longer carries the electronic version of the journal. But you can access the Abstract here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25568446
Or you can find the 2013 paper:
http://biophilosophy.ca/Teaching/6740papers/Noble2013.pdf
"Experimental results in epigenetics and related fields of biological research show that the Modern Synthesis (neo-Darwinist) theory of evolution requires either extension or replacement. This article examines the conceptual framework of neo-Darwinism, including the concepts of 'gene', 'selfish', 'code', 'program', 'blueprint', 'book of life', 'replicator' and 'vehicle'. This form of representation is a barrier to extending or replacing existing theory as it confuses conceptual and empirical matters. These need to be clearly distinguished. In the case of the central concept of 'gene', the definition has moved all the way from describing a necessary cause (defined in terms of the inheritable phenotype itself) to an empirically testable hypothesis (in terms of causation by DNA sequences). Neo-Darwinism also privileges 'genes' in causation, whereas in multi-way networks of interactions there can be no privileged cause. An alternative conceptual framework is proposed that avoids these problems, and which is more favourable to an integrated systems view of evolution."
From the 2013 paper:
"The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection. Any role of physiological function in influencing genetic inheritance was excluded. The organism became a mere carrier of the real objects of selection, its genes. We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual. Molecular genetics and genome sequencing have deconstructed this unnecessarily restrictive view of evolution in a way that reintroduces physiological function and interactions with the environment as factors influencing the speed and nature of inherited change. Acquired characteristics can be inherited, and in a few but growing number of cases that inheritance has now been shown to be robust for many generations. The 21st century can look forward to a new synthesis that will reintegrate physiology with evolutionary biology."
What you have to notice first is that creationists are pulling their normal tactic: looking at a problem of some aspect of evolution and saying all of evolution is in trouble.
You can readily see that Dr. Noble is not saying "darwinism is disproved". Look at the last line "more favourable to an integrated systems view of evolution" or "The 21st century can look forward to a new synthesis that will reintegrate physiology with evolutionary biology." So, evolution is still intact.
Dr. Noble wants to modify specifically the Modern Synthesis: "the Modern Synthesis (neo-Darwinist)"
Over the decades, many people have attacked Neo-Darwinism. Mostly these are attacks on a strawman, because they take a very narrow view of what Neo-Darwinism is. This looks to be the same.
We can see the strawman in the 2013 paper:
"The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection. Any role of physiological function in influencing genetic inheritance was excluded. The organism became a mere carrier of the real objects of selection, its genes."
That's wrong on several counts, in particular that "the real objects of selection, its genes." No. The object of selection was always the individual organism. Strawman.
The strawman about Neo-Darwinism here is that small changes in a single gene will make small changes in phenotype. What we know now is that most traits are polygenic. What is more, many traits are the result of networks of genes. In addition, some changes to how genes are expressed (epigenetics) can be passed down through several generations, though not permanently. Dr. Noble states this as "Acquired characteristics can be inherited, and in a few but growing number of cases that inheritance has now been shown to be robust for many generations"
However, the Modern Synthesis is quite a bit more flexible than the strawman. Several attempts in the past have been made to "unseat" the Modern Synthesis: punctuated equilibrium, the discovery of Hox genes, and evo-devo to name 3. It's still around for Dr. Noble to make his run at it.
It appears that Dr. Noble is a physiologist who thinks the Modern Synthesis left physiology out of evolution. He wants physiology back.
But the real bottom line for this forum is that Dr. Noble is NOT challenging any of the 5 basic theories of evolution. His "attack" is not at Darwin, but rather on specifically how evolution happens. As such, it is no comfort at all to creationists -- unless, of course, they commit false witness about it. Which is what they appear to be doing. Unfortunately for them, they linked the paper so we can readily check and prove the false witness.
