Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

tama

(9,137 posts)
20. From the interview:
Fri May 11, 2012, 11:41 AM
May 2012

Suzan Mazur: So it’s going to be a while before there’s a real coherence to evolutionary science.

James Shapiro: Well I suppose. People are always going to try to unify, and other people are going to be diversifying. The unifications are always going to involve trying to impose artificial constraints on natural phenomena, and I think they’re doomed to failure.

We have this terrible dilemma in science. We need to be reductionists to get meaningful results and make observations. But when we take the observations and try to understand what they mean, then we have to stop being reductionists and become integrationists to understand how the things we’ve identified and singled out fit into the whole picture.

We’ve lost sight of that need for integration with the successes of molecular biology. But I think we’re getting back to an integrationist view now because people are studying complex problems like cell biology and multicellular development using molecular tools. It’s becoming clear that there’s an interaction between the parts and the whole which is far more complex and multidirectional than people used to think.

I think that that shift from reductionism to integrationism actually needs to happen in the physical sciences as well. They still hang on very much to the idea that you can have “a theory of everything.” I’m rather dubious about that.

Again, my experience in science has taught me that you should never say that something can’t happen because we’re continually discovering things we’ve been told can’t happen. It’s just been a few years since we’ve realized cells can pick up fragments of sequence from invading DNA. Whether they do it at the DNA level or the RNA level is not entirely clear yet. But they can pick up fragments of a sequence from invaders, incorporate them into their genomes and then defend themselves. We were told that was impossible based on the Luria-Delbrueck experiment.

Being more inclusive and more open to new ideas and imaginative approaches will serve us best. It should be difficult for new ideas to become accepted because that’s how you really test their worth, their value. But it does not make any sense from a truly scientific point of view to exclude things a priori.

The Evolution Paradigm Shift [View all] HiPointDem May 2012 OP
You used the word Paradigm Confusious May 2012 #1
I didn't write the articles. I didn't notice shapiro saying anything like what you attribute to him HiPointDem May 2012 #2
you didn't read the article then Confusious May 2012 #3
why don't you paste the passage you're referring to when you say i didn't read the article. HiPointDem May 2012 #4
Right here Confusious May 2012 #5
"someone who says they have the truth and that others aren't listening" doesn't equal HiPointDem May 2012 #22
Nah, I've read enough of these Confusious May 2012 #32
"Active information" tama May 2012 #6
More quantum diarrhea skepticscott May 2012 #9
Sounds like postmodernist Horsesh*t Confusious May 2012 #10
I'm not talking to you tama May 2012 #11
I guess I hit a nerve Confusious May 2012 #13
Mentality? tama May 2012 #15
When the shoe fits Confusious May 2012 #30
You realize that you linked a joke, right? The page generates random pomo-sounding fake essays. HiPointDem May 2012 #26
I used it as an example Confusious May 2012 #29
You're talking about a book by a credentialed scientist who, among other accomplishments, HiPointDem May 2012 #33
yea, well, to repeat myself from below Confusious May 2012 #38
Pseudoscience. UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #7
Lemarck was wrong then, and Lemarck is wrong now. harmonicon May 2012 #8
LAmarck. HiPointDem May 2012 #21
d'oh!! (nt) harmonicon May 2012 #28
If I were as snarky as some of the folks on this thread I would have been all over that, you HiPointDem May 2012 #35
Oh, yes, and I appreciate it. harmonicon May 2012 #40
Well yeah, but organisms do alter their genome 4th law of robotics May 2012 #56
The old axiom, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs" still holds. byeya May 2012 #12
RTFB tama May 2012 #16
Woo-Woo. Odin2005 May 2012 #14
Boo-Boo :) tama May 2012 #17
From the interview: tama May 2012 #20
Mostly hogwash. Intelligent Design with a new hat. LTX May 2012 #18
Thanks for the link tama May 2012 #19
interesting. the majority of the posters dismiss with a single word/line = "woo". HiPointDem May 2012 #23
Bashing Neo-Darwinism + supporting Lamarckianism = Woo. Odin2005 May 2012 #24
it doesn't? are you sure? HiPointDem May 2012 #25
Well it's "deniable", for sure :D tama May 2012 #42
See post 41 by MV, Shapiro doesn't know what he's talking about. Odin2005 May 2012 #43
Shapiro's response tama May 2012 #44
Maybe we should have a discussion Confusious May 2012 #49
Yes, it would have been more accurate for him to state... Humanist_Activist May 2012 #59
Should I explain why I don't believe Confusious May 2012 #31
Shapiro is a spoon-bender? Does he do that when he's not doing bacterial genetics? HiPointDem May 2012 #34
Yea, well sometimes people Confusious May 2012 #37
no, it doesn't mean he's "right". i don't think his book is about being "right" so much as you seem HiPointDem May 2012 #39
Well, first off Confusious May 2012 #48
I'm not sure the complexity he observes cannot be incorporated into mainstream evolution. aikoaiko May 2012 #27
Maybe it can. Thanks for commenting on the work. HiPointDem May 2012 #36
A critique of Shapiro by a colleague muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #41
The establisment is wrong!!! ;) tama May 2012 #45
I agree tama. Edim May 2012 #46
This tama May 2012 #50
Answer to 1): Yes muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #52
I will gladly admit my agnosticism tama May 2012 #55
That shifting is due to the "DNA trees" you're talking about. jeff47 May 2012 #62
Established theory doesn't require the questioning you claim. jeff47 May 2012 #58
Newton knew his theory was incomplete at best, and possibly wrong from the get go... Humanist_Activist May 2012 #60
Not quite jeff47 May 2012 #61
There ProSense May 2012 #47
"Innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change." tama May 2012 #51
It's only math jargon if you're talking about math, otherwise it's just nonsense mathematic May 2012 #53
Yup tama May 2012 #54
Shapiro's excerpt would need major correction... bhikkhu May 2012 #57
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Evolution Paradigm Sh...»Reply #20