tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434207374852632666.post869889521340273342..comments2020-11-25T01:16:55.922-08:00Comments on The Golden Gnomon 黄金识子 Huang-jin Shi-zi: Very good points by Nigel Goldenfeld and Carl Woesegnomonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03362808932731126552noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434207374852632666.post-85049697440488370342011-03-27T07:16:11.577-07:002011-03-27T07:16:11.577-07:00Thank you for the note. The modern evolution theo...Thank you for the note. The modern evolution theory is not only preventing progress in the field of evolution, as you correctly noticed, but also in my opinion in the field of molecular medicine such as cancer and common diseases. A correct and truly fundamental theory of evolution should not only tell us about the past, but also about the present and future of human lives. The most effective and practical way to replace the Darwinian dogma is for a new theory to explain much more than just our evolutionary past. It must solve some important human health problems relevant to every human being and biologist in general. Other than bacteria drug resistance and things of that nature, the Darwinian paradigm is mostly irrelevant to most molecular biologists studying common diseases.gnomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03362808932731126552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434207374852632666.post-12577042821828076032011-03-11T09:56:17.033-08:002011-03-11T09:56:17.033-08:00The article of Woese is great. It seems to follow ...The article of Woese is great. It seems to follow the non-reductionist theories of "emerging complexity" proposed by Kauffman (and blessed by Gould) against the Modern Synthesis.<br />The reductionist approach, in general, was already heavy challenged in physics by Nobel P.W.Anderson in his article "More is different", and I much like the idea to bring physics/mathematical laws into biological evolution theories.<br />Btw, your Blog is wonderful! Finally something which positively challenges the "sacred cow" of neo-darwinist approach which looks, more and more, inadequate to explain macro-evolutionary processes, thus preventing fruitful progresses of in this field of knowledge.<br /><br />Ciao! LorenzoLorenzonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434207374852632666.post-2207662863073246082010-12-17T06:34:03.573-08:002010-12-17T06:34:03.573-08:00Yes, yeast is equidistant to trout and humans. Th...Yes, yeast is equidistant to trout and humans. The complexity of both trout and humans is greater than yeast. The maximum distance between a complex species and a simple one is equivalent to the maximum genetic diversity of the simple species. So, the maximum distance between trout and yeast or between human and yeast is determined by the genetic diversity of yeast and has very little to do with that of trout or human. You may want to read my paper on the overlap feature of the equidistance result or the one on the mgd hypothesis available at Nature Precedings.gnomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03362808932731126552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434207374852632666.post-89811239545180806622010-12-16T23:30:23.507-08:002010-12-16T23:30:23.507-08:00Just a quick question about the MGD. It is my unde...Just a quick question about the MGD. It is my understanding that yeast is equidistant to trout and humans. Since humans are more complex than trout, shouldn't yeast be closer to trout than to human? Or am I missing something? Thanks.Livingstone Morfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01492454376086041663noreply@blogger.com