Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

neo-darwinian "modern synthetic theory" of evolution, which is fading rapidly in status, from what I know (not a whole lot, actually). But for decades it was the "only game in town" and became rigid dogma amongst evolutionists.

...
FBM-Heralds use of "stochastic" is another mindless assertion based on his complete misunderstanding of Natural Selection nd his desire to make it a world of "either, or".
Ive tried explaining in as simple terms as I can to no avail. SO **** IM.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?...your assertion that neo Darwinian thinking is " sinking out of favor" is quite incorrect

Neo-Darwinism has been rightly construed more as a treaty than a theory because it laid down terms that allowed evolutionists and practitioners of the new science of genetics (and more generally molecular biology) to work together under common presuppositions....

The synthesis was unquestionably of great value....The dominance of the synthetic theory, however, also allowed certain basic theoretical issues to be set aside before they had been firmly resolved on a satisfactory theoretical or evidential basis...

The synthetic theory of evolution is a moving target. Over its first 25 or 30 years the synthesis hardened, at least to some extent, into unexamined dogma (cf. Gould, 1983, or Eldredge, 1985, p. 100), sometimes dismissing viable alternatives on the basis of prejudgment rather than hard evidence.

During the early days, the very weakness of this compatibility claim was viewed as one of the strengths of the synthesis. In principle, virtually all of the known phenomena and patterns that ought to be explained by an evolutionary theory could be explained by the synthetic theory – and so it was not necessary to contemplate or turn to any rival theories. As the synthesis hardened, 'could be explained' turned into 'are explained', yielding outright dismissal of competing theories. To some this seemed to turn the synthetic theory into an a priori rather than an empirical doctrine.

Recently, theoretical and evidential considerations have led to wide recognition that the rate of morphological evolution does not correlate directly with the gross rate of molecular evolution...The relevant considerations are drawn from many sources, including the paleontological data used to support the theory of punctuated equilibrium, a variety of arguments based on new knowledge of the epigenetic mechanisms involved in ontogeny, arguments for the genomic acquisition of environmental information, and a mixture of theoretical and empirical studies of the rates and molecular mechanisms of genomic change.

These findings and various allied theories raise difficulties for the synthesis, difficulties that tend to elicit one of two characteristic responses. The first attempts to extend the synthesis by filling in missing knowledge (e.g., about the causes and evolutionary importance of biased variation) without altering its fundamental commitments. The second...seeks to replace the synthesis with an alternative theory or research program

The difficulty in choosing between these responses is considerably exacerbated by the confusion already illustrated over the proper content of the synthesis.

In summary, then, the challenges to the synthesis have reopened a large number of fundamental questions about evolutionary patterns and mechanisms...The pursuit of these questions has undermined some of our naive confidence that the classical account of evolutionary pattern as deriving almost wholly from adaptively undirected genetic variation plus differential survival and reproduction among organisms.

That's what I thought. Your interpretation is one of "This is so going away that we can get back to ID thinking"

Farmerman: IDers would like to feel that science is abandoning evolution. Its not, its seeking to become a much larger "big tent"

Burian: These findings and various allied theories raise difficulties for the synthesis, difficulties that tend to elicit one of two characteristic responses. The first attempts to extend the synthesis by filling in missing knowledge (e.g., about the causes and evolutionary importance of biased variation) without altering its fundamental commitments. The second...seeks to replace the synthesis with an alternative theory or research program

But even some highly respected, atheistic, pro-evolutionary thinkers agreed with some of the concerns of ID-ers.

I realize that such doubts [about Darwinian naturalism] will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science.

ha ha ha ha.......show us one post where creationists on a2k considers evolution as an acceptable theory?

many (indeed, I would think most) contemporary evolutionary theorists disagree with that proposition.

The subtitle was: "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False."

G J Romanes term for it "neoDarwinism" , no matter how many codicils are added will still basically define "What Evolution IS" (as E Mayr stated)

I've been saying, teaching (at Cornell), and writing this since at least 1995, most recently in my audiobook "Evolutionary Biology.". It's good to know that other evolutionary biologists are finally beginning to accept what should have been obvious even before Steve Gould published his magnum opus.

It does not seem reasonable to refer to modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism," "neo-Darwinism," or the "Modern Synthesis," since all of these terms refer to a version of evolutionary theory that has been modified to such an extent that the old-fashioned terminology is just confusing.

The "Modern Synthesis" is dead. Long live modern evolutionary theory.

The concept of natural selection as the foundation of evolutionary change has been largely superseded, mostly through the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, who have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.

The rise of evo-devo over the past two decades has laid the groundwork for a completely new and empirically testable theory of macroevolution, a theory that is currently facilitating exponential progress in our understanding of how major evolutionary transitions happen. And iconoclasts like Lynn Margulis, Eva Jablonka, Marian Lamb, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, and David Sloan Wilson are rapidly overturning our understanding of how evolutionary change happens at all levels, and how it is inherited.

So, as I have said many times before, when ID supporters set their sights on “neo-Darwinism” as a target for criticism, they set their sights on a model that has been all but abandoned.

Lacking a belief in a hypothesis is not equivalent to rejecting the hypothesis.

FBM-Heralds use of "stochastic" is another mindless assertion based on his complete misunderstanding of Natural Selection nd his desire to make it a world of "either, or".Ive tried explaining in as simple terms as I can to no avail. SO **** IM.

FBM wrote:

Lacking a belief in a hypothesis is not equivalent to rejecting the hypothesis.

     In math logic belief is the degree to which you believe something is true or not. If you do't believe in something 100%, you are 100% convinced that it is absolutely false.

What's your point?

We're not talking about math logic.

You believe in something for which you have absolutely no evidence.