tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6370204897437482184..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Debating philosophers: The Lu and Bourrat paperLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85531569164901718502017-05-13T01:08:58.511-04:002017-05-13T01:08:58.511-04:00No epi-alleles?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scie...No epi-alleles? <br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534704001065<br />E.g. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6749/abs/401157a0.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11789998885094202625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65264799879805838212017-05-06T04:52:16.715-04:002017-05-06T04:52:16.715-04:00RE: There can be no debates but withdrawal of the ...RE: <b>There can be no debates but withdrawal of the flawed Evolutionary Theory in Biology of the 20th century past!?</b><br /><br />In addition to the nice LAM criticisms above, I would like to present a more specific but brief critique of the Lu and Barrett paper, point by point as argued in their Abstract above as follows:<br /><br />1) “<b>Advocates of an ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’ have claimed that standard evolutionary theory fails to accommodate epigenetic inheritance.</b>” -- This is right; however the standard evolutionary theory (SET) as formalized in the Modern Synthesis (MS) since 1930s-40s, in itself, is flawed beyond repair; therefore any extended theory based on the SET or the MS would be equally flawed to the core.<br /><br />Besides the epigenetic inheritance does not invoke the core DNA sequence or genetic inheritance at all; it only involves in certain “on” or “off” switches only to the genetic expressions of the core DNA sequence, depending on its immediate surrounding environmental factors, such as methylations of certain nucleotides in the DNA sequence; and such an epigenetic inheritance is generally non-permanent as demethylation will occur as environmental factors change within the nuclear biochemistry.<br /><br />2) “<b>The opponents of the extended synthesis argue that the evidence for epigenetic inheritance causing adaptive evolution in nature is insufficient.</b>” -- That is right; this is because the epigenetic inheritance is not permanent nor sufficiently adequate so as to effect the original DNA sequence or the core genetic inheritance (also see explanation 1 above). <br /><br />3) “<b>We suggest that the ambiguity surrounding the conception of the gene a background semantic issue in the debate.</b>” -- Wrong! These are the complex and multi-folded cellular background, biochemical, physiological, and genetical issues in the debate!<br /><br />4) “<b>Starting from Haig’s gene-selectionist framework and Griffiths and Neumann-Held’s notion of the evolutionary gene, we define senses of ‘gene’, ‘environment’, and ‘phenotype’ in a way that makes them consistent with gene-centric evolutionary theory.</b>” -- On the contrary, this statement is arguing from the faulty anthropomorphic theory of “The Selfish Gene” perspectives; any erudite scholars or philosophers of Science and Biology should know better!<br /><br />5) “<b>We argue that the evolutionary gene, when being materialized, need not be restricted to nucleic acids but can encompass other heritable units such as epialleles.</b>” -- Wrong again! This is a neo-darwinist pseudo-scientific statement arguing from ignorance of my arguments as presented in 1 - 4 above; in addition, as the brainiac “meme” pseudo-scientific terminology theory, there is No epialleles has had been defined in genetics or epigenetics at all; the most close scientific term for the epigenetic discovery would be “methylated-alleles” (please see explanations 1 and 2 above)!? <br /><br />6) “<b>If the evolutionary gene is understood more broadly, and the notions of environment and phenotype are defined accordingly, current evolutionary theory does not require a major conceptual change in order to incorporate the mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance.</b>” -- Wow! This is a very wishful thinking proclament: Wishing a very flawed evolutionary theory to be broadly understood and accepted by further extending or incorporating even more faulty premises or imaginary epigenetic mechanisms, so as to turn it into a “grand old evolutionary theory” of the 21st century into the future!? Good luck, happy philosophizing! <br /><br />Best, Mong 5/6/17usct03:51; practical public science-philosophy critic (since 2006).Mong H Tan, PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303146609950569778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60566487602516718782017-05-04T03:16:08.237-04:002017-05-04T03:16:08.237-04:00It is very depressing how much of this discussion ...It is very depressing how much of this discussion and commentary focuses on the low standards of 'amateurs' and 'autodidacts' and 'philosophers'. This is an argument from authority. It is also a bit silly, as both these authors have biology degrees, and one published a number of articles in behavioral ecology in their previous career as a scientist. I say that just to neutralise the argument from authority. Now let's focus on the substance!Paul griffithshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06372695408357184772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17483436805841054652017-05-04T02:44:47.838-04:002017-05-04T02:44:47.838-04:00Hi Larry. Interested to see how this critique deve...Hi Larry. Interested to see how this critique develops, but as both the authors have higher degrees in biology I find the headline a bit misleading :-) Paul griffithshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06372695408357184772noreply@blogger.com