Podcasts about theodosius dobzhansky

In 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.” Almost 50 years later, an increasing number of scientists are asking whether evolution makes any sense in light of what we now know from biology.   A recent long-form essay in The Guardian signals just how urgent the problem has become for the most dominant theory in the history of the sciences. In it, author Stephen Buranyi gives voice to a growing number of scientists who think it's time for a “new theory of evolution.”    For a long time, descent with slight modifications and natural selection have been “the basic” (and I'd add, unchallengeable) “story of evolution.” Organisms change, and those that survive pass on traits. Though massaged a bit to incorporate the discovery of DNA, the theory of evolution by natural selection has dominated for 150 years, especially in biology. The “drive to survive” is credited as the creative force behind all the artistry and engineering we see in nature.    “The problem,” writes Buranyi, is that “according to a growing number of scientists,” this basic story is “absurdly crude and misleading.” For one thing, Darwinian evolution assumes much of what it needs to be explained. For instance, consider the origin of light-sensitive cells that rearranged to become the first eye, or the blood vessels that became the first placenta. How did these things originate? According to one University of Indiana biologist, “we still do not have a good answer. The classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time,” he says, “has so far fallen flat.”   This scientific doubt about Darwin has been simmering for a while. In 2014, an article in the journal Nature, jointly authored by eight scientists from diverse fields, argued that evolutionary theory was in need of a serious rethink. They called their proposed rethink the “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” and a year later, the Royal Society in London held a conference to discuss it.    Along with Darwinian blind spots like the origin of the eye, the Extended Synthesis seeks to deal with the discovery of epigenetics, an emerging field that studies inherited traits not mediated by DNA. Then there are the rapid mutations that evade natural selection, a fossil record that appears to move in “short, concentrated bursts” (or “explosions”), and something called “plasticity,” which is the ability we now know living things have to adapt physically to their environments in a single generation without genetically evolving.   These discoveries—some recent, others long ignored by mainstream biology—challenge natural selection as the “grand theory” of life. All of them hint that living things are greater marvels and mysteries than we ever imagined. And, unsurprisingly, all of these discoveries have been controversial.   The Guardian article describes how Royal Society scientists and Nobel laureates alike boycotted the conference, attacking the extended synthesis as “irritating” and “disgraceful,” and its proponents as “revolutionaries.” As Gerd Müller, head of the department of theoretical biology at the University of Vienna helpfully explained, “Parts of the modern synthesis are deeply ingrained in the whole scientific community, in funding networks, positions, professorships. It's a whole industry.”   Such resistance isn't too surprising for anyone who's been paying attention. Any challenges to the established theory of life's origins, whether from Bible-believing scientists or intelligent design theorists, have long been dismissed as religion in a lab coat.   The habit of fixing upon a dogma and calling it “settled science” is just bad science that stunts our understanding of the world. It is a kind of idolatry that places “science” in the seat of God, appoints certain scientists as priests capable of giving answers no fallible human can offer, and feigns certainty where real questions remain. The great irony is that this image of scientist-as-infallible-priest makes them seem like the caricature of medieval monks charging their hero Galileo with heresy for his dissent from the consensus.   As challenges to Darwin mount, we should be able to articulate why “settled science” makes such a poor god. And we should encourage the science and the scientists challenging this old theory-turned-dogma and holding it to its own standards. After all, if Darwinian evolution is as unfit as it now seems, it shouldn't survive.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org.  This Breakpoint was originally published on August 3, 2022. 

In 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.” Almost 50 years later, an increasing number of scientists are asking whether evolution makes any sense in light of what we now know from biology.  A recent long-form essay in The Guardian signals just how urgent the problem has become for the most dominant theory in the history of the sciences. In it, author Stephen Buranyi, gives voice to a growing number of scientists who think it's time for a “new theory of evolution.”   For a long time, descent with slight modifications and natural selection have been “the basic” (and I'd add, unchallengeable) “story of evolution.” Organisms change, and those that survive pass on traits. Though massaged a bit to incorporate the discovery of DNA, the theory of evolution by natural selection has dominated for 150 years, especially in biology. The “drive to survive” is credited as the creative force behind all the artistry and engineering we see in nature.   “The problem,” writes Buranyi, is that “according to a growing number of scientists,” this basic story is “absurdly crude and misleading.” For one thing, Darwinian evolution assumes much of what it needs to explain. For instance, consider the origin of light-sensitive cells that rearranged to become the first eye, or the blood vessels that became the first placenta. How did these things originate? According to one University of Indiana biologist, “we still do not have a good answer. The classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time,” he says, “has so far fallen flat.”  This scientific doubt about Darwin has been simmering for a while. In 2014, an article in the journal Nature, jointly authored by eight scientists from diverse fields, argued that evolutionary theory was in need of a serious rethink. They called their proposed rethink the “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” and a year later, the Royal Society in London held a conference to discuss it.   Along with Darwinian blind spots like the origin of the eye, the Extended Synthesis seeks to deal with the discovery of epigenetics, an emerging field that studies the inherited traits not mediated by DNA. Then there are the rapid mutations that evade natural selection, a fossil record that appears to move in “short concentrated bursts” (or “explosions”), and something called “plasticity,” which is the ability we now know living things have to adapt physically to their environments in a single generation without genetically evolving.  All of these discoveries—some recent, others long ignored by mainstream biology—challenge natural selection as the “grand theory” of life. All of them hint that living things are greater marvels and mysteries than we ever imagined. And, unsurprisingly, all of these discoveries have been controversial.  The Guardian article described how Royal Society scientists and Nobel laureates alike boycotted the conference, attacking the extended synthesis as “irritating” and “disgraceful,” and its proponents as “revolutionaries.”  As Gerd Müller, head of the department of theoretical biology at the University of Vienna helpfully explained, “Parts of the modern synthesis are deeply ingrained in the whole scientific community, in funding networks, positions, professorships. It's a whole industry.”  Such resistance isn't too surprising for anyone who's been paying attention. Any challenges to the established theory of life's origins, whether from Bible-believing scientists or intelligent design theorists, have long been dismissed as religion in a lab coat.  The habit of fixing upon a dogma and calling it “settled science” is just bad science that stunts our understanding of the world. It is a kind of idolatry that places “science” in the seat of God, appoints certain scientists as priests capable of giving answers no fallible human can offer, and feigns certainty where real questions remain. The great irony is that this image of scientist-as-infallible-priest makes them seem like the caricature of medieval monks charging their hero Galileo with heresy for his dissent from the consensus.  As challenges to Darwin mount, we should be able to articulate why “settled science” makes such a poor god. And we should encourage the science and the scientists challenging this old theory-turned-dogma, and holding it to its own standards. After all, if Darwinian evolution is as unfit as it now seems, it shouldn't survive.  

In 1973 the eminent evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote an essay  entitled “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” Presumably, that would include molecular biology, and as Dobzhanksy was writing, the field of molecular evolution was bearing fruit that would revolutionize our understanding of Darwinian evolutionary biology. Or, perhaps more precisely, it would extend and move beyond a purely Darwinian understanding of changes in the DNA sequence on the molecular level. In the 1970's, the idea that evolution at the scale of DNA and proteins was “neutral” in relation to adaptive fitness came to the fore through the work of both population geneticists and molecular biologists. This is in contrast to the emphasis placed on natural selection and adaptation in Darwin's original theory, and pushed forward by Dobzhansky and his colleagues in the mid-20th century with the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis. Today on the Unsupervised Learning podcast Razib talks to Alex Palazzo, a molecular biologist who has also thought deeply about the relationship between his field and evolution, and where we are 40 years after the neutralist revolution. The conversation covers the issues brought up in Palazzo's paper Non-Darwinian Molecular Biology. Was Charles Darwin wrong? Well, his ideas and theory were clearly incomplete in various ways. Palazzo argues for the importance of the mechanistic and structural details of genes and DNA that go into explaining why evolution produces the diverse traits and characteristics we see all around us. He also discusses why complex lifeforms exist due to the built-in tolerance of sloppiness in DNA replication, and addresses questions such as why genomes vary in size so greatly (did you know that the wheat genome is forty times larger than the rice genome?).

La salute secondo l'OMS L'OMS stima che oltre 13 milioni di persone muoiano ogni anno a causa di condizioni ambientali evitabili, come la crisi climatica. La crisi climatica è anche una crisi sanitaria.

Djokovic wrong again, and both popes get poked We start with the fact that everyone and his uncle seems to have covid nowadays, and access to testing is hard. As mentioned last week, the episode of the Skeptic Zone with Pontus is now out. In other news anti-restriction demonstrations are all around and the Nazis somehow always seem to show up. In TWISH we learn about the birth in 1900 of Theodosius Dobzhansky, who was very important for the field of evolutionary biology. Double whammy for the popes this week, both Benedict and Francis have some explaining to do as Pontus Pokes the Popes. Then we look into the news: CZECH REPUBLIC: Folk singer Hana Horka dies after catching COVID intentionally UK: Link found between trust in public figures and vaccine hesitancy GERMANY: Many lost faith in God over pandemic UK: Prof Sir Paul Curran Award for Excellence in Academic Journalism 2021 goes to Caitjan Gainty We end with another double hitter when Novak Djokovic gets the first ever twice-in-a-row Really Wrong Award. His friend Zlatan Ibrahimovic share in on the shame. Enjoy! Segments: Intro; Greetings; TWISH; Pontus Pokes The Popes; News; Really Wrong; Quote And Farewell; Outro; Out-Takes;

Ira Pastor, ideaXme exponential health ambassador, interviews Professor Dr. Frank Rühli, Director of the Institute of Evolutionary Medicine and on the Medical Faculty of University of Zurich, and Founding Director, Chair, Full Professor of Evolutionary Medicine. Ira Pastor Comments: Famous prominent Russian-American geneticist and evolutionary biologist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, stated in a 1973 essay that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." When one applies this principle to medical research, it suggests that if you study only the proximal causes of health and disease (pathophysiology), you get a limited picture, and such dynamics could be better understood within an evolutionary framework. While traditional biomedical research is often concerned with pathophysiology, it is the relatively new science of evolutionary medicine that seeks to link human pathology with our past, present, and future evolutionary trajectories. Combining the study of proximal and distal reasons underpinning medical disorders yields a deeper understanding that may help to improve the ways diseases are screened for, treated, or prevented. Professor Dr. Frank Rühli: Professor Dr. Frank Rühli, is Director of the Institute of Evolutionary Medicine and on the Medical Faculty of University of Zurich, and Founding Director, Chair, Full Professor of Evolutionary Medicine. In addition to being the director of the institute he is also Head of the Paleopathology and Mummy Studies Group, as well as Head of the Museum‚ Medical Collection and Human Remains Group. Prof. Dr. Rühli studied Medicine at the University of Zurich and did Postgraduate Research to undertake a PhD at the Biological Anthropology and Comparative Anatomy Research Unit, Anatomical Sciences, University of Adelaide (Australia). He has a broad research domain including - Evolutionary Medicine, Paleopathology / Disease Evolution, Microevolution of Anatomical Norm Variations and Pathologies / Clinical Anatomy, Diagnostic Imaging of Ancient Mummies, as well as the biological standard of living and state of health of Swiss Armed Forces. He is Associated Editor, Editor and Editor–in-Chief of seven peer-reviewed journals: Evolution, Medicine and Public Health, Journal of Evolutionary Medicine, Homo - Journal of Comparative Human Biology, Journal of Biological and Clinical Anthropology, Yearbook of Mummy Studies, and Swiss Review of Military and Disaster Medicine. On this fascinating show we will hear from Dr. Ruhli: About his background and how he developed an interest in science, medicine, and the unique intersection with the study of evolutionary biology. The principle of "Micro-Evolution" and the fact that humans (Homo-Sapiens) "evolve" every day. His unique study of human mummies and application towards understanding our health "past." Evolutionary medicine insights for human diseases such metabolic disorders (including hypercholesterinemia and diabetes) and drug addiction. Thoughts on future human evolutionary trajectories. Thoughts on evolutionary medicine connection to ageing processes. Credits: Ira Pastor interview video, text, and audio. Follow Ira Pastor on Twitter:@IraSamuelPastor If you liked this interview, be sure to check out ourinterview exploring the human-animal connection for health and wellness! Follow ideaXme on Twitter:@ideaxm On Instagram:@ideaxme Find ideaXme across the internet including on iTunes,SoundCloud,Radio Public,TuneIn Radio,I Heart Radio, YouTube, Google Podcasts, Spotify and more. ideaXme is a global podcast, creator series and mentor programme. Our mission: Move the human story forward!™ ideaXme Ltd.

Ross Farrar. Singer of the band Ceremony. Also a published author and poet.Recorded. May 18th, 2018 at Syracuse University where Ross is pursuing his studies in the Department of English there.What we talk about: Ross is actually French. We are in Syracuse in NY. Orange Men. Ross the Writer. Article in Nosey about Ranking of Ceremony’s records. Society Verse and the L shaped man books. Ross moved to San Francisco in 2005. Music really got Ross into writing.Why poetry over creative writing? …wasn’t really like that. Was more short fiction at first. Ross applied to Joyce Carol Oates workshop. (I didn’t actually know who that was)Writing lyrics and poems are totally different. Society Verse, published 2010. Scared people ep: really when the poetry started to flow in Ceremony. Direct lyrics. The importance of being concise in writing. The stigma of poetry as being too abstract. “Still nothing moves you” as trying too hard.Is trying too hard a bad thing? Experimentation in the arts is difficult as you can loose your audience. Pollock and Rothko…anyone can paint that…but you didn’t. Andy Warhol as the anti-try hard and the importanceof nuance. “Learn Without” and the importance of being a witness. hallucinogenics and ego death. SEX“If you get the message, hang up the phone”-Alan WattsTake everything in moderation, including moderation. Rohert Park, open head, and the western muse. The spires of Syracuse and hyperboreans. New England, Robert Frost, and “the best way out is always through.” Christina’s world by Andrew Wyeth…strange and nuance at the same time. Nuance is everything. “When you run into something interesting, drop everything else and study it”- B.F. Skinner. Can you recite at least one poem from memory? Dan couldn’tHenry’s Understanding by John Berryman and interrogating what you love. The L shaped man book and how writing lyrics is nearly nothing like writing poems. Lyrics often don’t stand on their own as poems because poetry is a solitary art and lyrics are often with other musicians. Iggy Pop and 30 words or less. “A poem is never finished, only abandoned”- Paul Valery. Poetry: limiter vs. form. Why the Syracuse writing program? YOU and 4 by 4 structure. Why is “Rollercoaster” a good poem? Why narrative is important in evoking a mood. Ross and Dan don’t like Emily Dickinson. Why does Art need to make sense when Life itself doesn’t make sense? “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”- Theodosius Dobzhansky…not Gould Big Bang. You can see the edge of the universe expanding, but people always want to know what is before that. “Theory” as a concept to a writer and as a concept to a science. A privilege to self destruct as a young man, its danger and beauty. Ross reads his poem: “Good bye forever”

We recently talked to Scott Carney, author of the recently published What doesn’t kill us (get the audiobook!). In it he investigates and subjects himself to cold, ice baths and other rather unusual training regimens, and discusses the detrimental effects of the comfort of our modern lives on our physical and mental health. He also goes on adventures, although with a sceptical mindset ever present, with the dutch “iceman” Wim Hof. It is a book about human biology and evolution, the possible causes and treatments of many of our modern day illnesses, and about realising that there is a lot of hidden comfort to be found in going beyond our comfort zone.    We didn't get into all the specifics of the breathing techniques and other methods, mostly because this has been covered in great detail in interviews on other podcasts. Just google "scott carney podcast" for more on this. We believe our episode is still worth a listen after having heard some of these.    Scott has also written two more books, The Red Market, and Death on Diamond Mountain, that we also touch upon in the podcast, as well as a lot of articles. Go to his webpage http://www.scottcarney.com for more info about him and his work. Thank you Scott!    This is our first episode in English, and we decided to not put in any intro in Norwegian, to keep it in just one language. All our other episodes are so far in Norwegian, but we would love to make more in English. If you have any feedback or requests, let us know at larsogpaal@gmail.com, or at our facebook page. And if you would, please rate our show on Itunes, that’s always helpful.     And by the way, the quote that we slightly mangle during the episode, stems from an essay from 1973 by the russian-american biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, and is actually the title of the essay: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”.    Alt godt, hilsen Lars og Pål 

The famous geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." But how do we study evolution? How do we reconstruct evolutionary relationships amongst hundreds, even thousands of taxa across the tree of life? Can we really predict how fast species evolve? Dr. Emily Jane McTavish, Assistant Professor in the Quantitative & Systems Biology graduate group at the University of California, Merced, joins us to talk about her research as a phylogeneticist and computational biologist.

Musique par Ronan Vernon   « En biologie rien n’a de sens, si ce n’est à la lumière de l’évolution. » – Theodosius Dobzhansky   La plupart d’entre vous, j’imagine, a entendu parler de la loi de l’évolution. Cette loi...Savoir plus