Comments on: Challenging the Evolution Industry http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry/ Comments on MetaFilter post Challenging the Evolution Industry Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:20:54 -0800 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:20:54 -0800 en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 Challenging the Evolution Industry http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/mazur08302008.html">Rethinking Evolution</a> with Stuart Newman, <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00103.htm">The New Master</a> Of Evolution? <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0808/S00298.htm">Video Interview</a>: Evolution Politics. A reformulation of the theory of evolution. Susan Mazur presents most of the players in her latest e-book: <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm#forward">Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up?</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00057.htm">Part two</a> <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00071.htm">Part three</a> <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00077.htm">Part four</a> <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00086.htm">Part five</a> <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00089.htm">Part six</a> post:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567 Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:34:34 -0800 hortense evolution Darwin biology morphogenesis creationist e-book Susan-Mazur By: empath http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240590 That counterpunch article is just atrociously bad. Can someone who has a clue about biology explain what the fuck this post is about? comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240590 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:20:54 -0800 empath By: gsteff http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240595 <em>Stuart Newman is a graceful man, about 6'1" with the hands of a microsurgeon – which he is. He is dressed in casual European elegance with sleeves turned up. I try not to be, but am affected by his sincerity and focus. There is an exotic twist to his hair, which in earlier photos makes him look North African.</em> LOL Counterpunch. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240595 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:26:36 -0800 gsteff By: hortense http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240597 Crap here is a <strong><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00460.htm">missing link</a></strong>. "Charles Darwin's theory was last updated 70 years ago. "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" is the working title of the new one. In a phone interview, Stuart Newman told me that some of his work on the theory of form -- which the current evolutionary formula lacks -- was done in collaboration with Gerd Muller, a theoretical biologist at the University of Vienna. Muller is also one of the organizers of the Altenberg symposium. " comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240597 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:31:32 -0800 hortense By: The Monkey http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240598 More like Cockpunch, amirite. Talk about being in love with your typewriter. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240598 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:33:23 -0800 The Monkey By: The Monkey http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240599 Wai, wait, wait... A missing link in a post about evolution? comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240599 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:34:28 -0800 The Monkey By: three blind mice http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240601 <i>Interestingly, Newman says this part of evolutionary history turns the Darwinian theory upside down in the sense that natural selection is not central. </i> If I understand what he's saying, Newman argues that individual cells, when grouped with other cells, have a built-in tendency to form certain patterns. These patterns (such as the arms and legs of many species having one proximal and two distal bones) appear pre-determined rather than the result of natural selection. Read anything by Richard Dawkins and you'll be beaten over the head with the observation that that natural selection is NOT random selection. Newman doesn't contradict this per se, but he seems to be saying that there is also a non-randomness is in how the cells arrange themselves. Natural selection merely "locks" in the result. It's not an entirely crazy idea. Even a hard core natural selection guy has to admit that if the selection is non-random, there has to be some reason for this nonrandom behaviour (which one might call intelligence.)Newman's not really then so radical argument is that this non-random behaviour is on both sides of the equation. Either way, the literal explanation in the King James version of the Bible is wrong. Fascinating stuff. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240601 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:41:19 -0800 three blind mice By: The Monkey http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240607 <em>Even a hard core natural selection guy has to admit [...]</em> Just because it's prima facie compelling doesn't mean it isn't complete bullshit. I have to admit nothing until more science is done. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240607 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:48:19 -0800 The Monkey By: Substrata http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240609 great post, i also like the counterpunch article, thanks. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240609 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:50:43 -0800 Substrata By: afu http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240619 <em>If I understand what he's saying, Newman argues that individual cells, when grouped with other cells, have a built-in tendency to form certain patterns. These patterns (such as the arms and legs of many species having one proximal and two distal bones) appear pre-determined rather than the result of natural selection.</em> Pre-determined only after these organization patterns were selected for in the Cambrian. This isn't an anti selection argument in any way shape or form. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240619 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:15:18 -0800 afu By: three blind mice http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240620 <i>Just because it's prima facie compelling doesn't mean it isn't complete bullshit. </i> Non-random selection is more or less central to the science of evolutionary. It is the opposite of chance. I'll admit that this is not fact, but it is as much "bullshit" as any other long-held, intensely researched scientific theory is. Newman's theory doesn't contradict natural selection, he just extends the idea a bit to say that if there is non-randomness in the selection by organisms, why not non-randomness in the mutation of organisms? comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240620 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:16:26 -0800 three blind mice By: afu http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240624 Here's the money sentence from the abstract of <a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1478-3975/5/1/015008">Newman's main DPM paper</a>. <em> This perspective also solves the apparent 'molecular homology-analogy paradox', whereby widely divergent modern animal types utilize the same molecular toolkit during development by proposing, in contrast to the Neo-Darwinian principle, that phenotypic disparity early in evolution occurred in advance of, rather than closely tracked, genotypic change.</em> Newman is arguing that the wide varieties we see in phenotypes, that is the physical structure of organisms, was established fairly early in evolutionary time and that this varitie was able to take place without the equivalent large changes in genotype (thought I assume there must be some changes in the genotype). I'm not totally clear on what the Neo-Darwinian principle is, I would guess it would be that no large phenotypic change can occur without a concurrent change in the genotype. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240624 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:30:42 -0800 afu By: gsteff http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240625 Having now read through a few chapters of the Mazur's ebook, I have to say that there may be an interesting story in here about research suggesting an increased role for epigenetics in evolution, but it's completely obscured by Mazur's paranoiac writing. The whole thing ridiculously unobjective, and it seems like she doesn't really understand the science, and is primarily enthusiastic about this topic because she believe that evolution by natural selection has served as a political justification for capitalism. Her unintentionally hilarious interview with Richard Lewontin really summarizes the whole article series for me. Whenever Lewontin says that he doesn't really understand what she's talking about, she takes that as evidence of how courageously iconoclastic the idea of self-organization outside of genetics is: <blockquote>Suzan Mazur: So you wouldn't characterize Steve Gould as someone embracing self-organization then. Richard Lewontin: I don't even know what self-organization is. Self-organization is a very confusing term to me. Suzan Mazur: To everyone. But they all seem to working in it. </blockquote> And... <blockquote>Richard Lewontin: Yeah. I understand. What I'm trying to tell you is – for me at least that's not science. If I can't do experiments that relate directly to a very clear and logical hypothesis – I don't want to talk about self-organization. I don't know what it means. Suzan Mazur: Have you heard about the theory that Stuart Pivar has been discussing. Richard Lewontin: Stuart who? Suzan Mazur: Stuart Pivar. He's a chemist and mechanical engineer. Richard Lewontin: Sorry, I don't know. Suzan Mazur: He has a theory that form originates from a pattern in the egg cell membrane. Richard Lewontin: I don't know what his theory is but there's no question that the development of an egg is not dependent solely on the genes and nucleus, but depends on the structure of the egg as laid down to some extent. There are proteins that are there. There are non-genetic factors and I wouldn't be surprised if the actual structure of the cell membrane had some influence on the successive divisions that occur. But it's one thing to say some effect than it is to say I have a theory that it's all there. Look, I think you should take – every time somebody says I have a new theory, I suggest you turn off your hearing aid. Suzan Mazur: Now there are some arrows being flung in your direction regarding your economic – the economic view that you have. Richard Lewontin: What have they got to do with evolution? Suzan Mazur: I was just wondering if you consider that unfair. I mean this whole discussion of capitalism, etc. Richard Lewontin: Well what about it? What does it have to do with evolution? </blockquote>The very brief discussion with Richard Dawkins likewise. The whole piece is ridiculously unobjective and breathless, and most of the academics she cites are philosophers, not biologists. Again, there seems like there may be an interesting story about epigenetics in there, but it will have to be written by a more competent journalist. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240625 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:32:55 -0800 gsteff By: Canard de Vasco http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240633 Nothing in Newman's work justifies the hype that Suzan Mazur is attempting to wrap it with. Here is the planet's best known spokesdarwinist as quoted in chapter 10 of her "book", apologies for the length: <blockquote>Suzan Mazur: Richard Dawkins.net recently picked up my story ["Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?"] about a meeting at Altenberg in July called "Toward an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis," which is believed will move us a bit away from the gene-centered view. <b>Natural selection is under attack</b> and the feeling is that the really interesting evo stuff has to do with form, which we currently have no theory for. I wondered whether you were asked to participate in the Altenberg symposium and what your thoughts are about a remix of the Synthesis? Richard Dawkins: The question is about a recent symposium at Altenberg in Austria. Suzan Mazur: No. It's coming up in July. I was wondering if you were invited? Richard Dawkins: Sorry, it hasn't happened yet are you telling me? Suzan Mazur: No, it's coming up in July, to remix the theory of evolution essentially. Richard Dawkins: About development as well? Suzan Mazur: It seems a move away a bit from the gene-centered view. Richard Dawkins: You've been taken in by the rhetoric. Suzan Mazur: You posted it on your web site – my story. Richard Dawkins: You asked the question: Have I been invited? I'm sorry to say I get invited to lots of things and I literally can't remember whether I was invited to this particular one or not. [some laughter] Suzan Mazur: But it's being viewed as a major event. Richard Dawkins: By whom I wonder. [some laughter] Suzan Mazur: You might have a look at the story I put up. Richard Dawkins: No. I'm sorry I've got to answer the question now. I gather that it's an attack on the gene-centered view of evolution and a substitution of the theory of form. The theory of form I presume dates back to D'Arcy Thompson, who was a distinguished Scottish zoologist who wrote a book called On Growth and Form and who purported to be anti-Darwinian. In fact, he never really talked about the real problems that Darwinism solves, which is the problem of adaptation. Now D'Arcy Thompson and other people who stress the word form emphasize the laws of physics. Physical principles alone as on their own adequate to explain the form of organisms. So for example, D'Arcy Thompson would look at the way a rubber tube would get reshaped when crushed and he would find analogies to that in living organisms. I see a lot of value in that kind of approach. It is something we can't as biologists afford to neglect. However, it absolutely neglects the question where does the illusion of design come from? Where do animals and plants get this powerful impression that they have been brilliantly designed for a purpose? Where does that come from? That does not come from the laws of physics on their own. That cannot come from anything that has so far been suggested by anybody other than natural selection. So I don't see any conflict at all between the theory of natural selection – the gene-centered theory of natural selection, I should say – and the theory of form. We need both. We need both. And <b>it is disingenuous to present the one as antagonistic to the other</b>.</blockquote> comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240633 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:48:18 -0800 Canard de Vasco By: afu http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240638 Jesus, Suzan Mazur is annoying. In that interview with Newman she keeps pushing him to say controversial things at the expensive of an interesting debate over the issues. It basically come down to a debate between Darwinian gradualism and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology)">saltational development</a> which is an interesting debate, but it is hardly the cultural changing fight that Mazur is trying to make it out to be. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240638 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:12:50 -0800 afu By: Phanx http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240648 <i>I gather that it's an attack on the gene-centered view of evolution and a substitution of the theory of form.</i> Only to a limited extent, I think. I <em>believe </em>Newman is saying that there was a period in the pre-Cambrian when different phenotypical forms appeared through self-organisation irrespective of the genetics and selection which the standard view regards as fundamental to speciation. But after that limited period, genes take over and everything proceeds as in the standard view. The case appears to be that divergent modern organisms use similar genetic mechanisms, but on the face of it that doesn't seem to me a big problem for the standard view. Perhaps Newman's full paper makes a stronger case. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240648 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:33:52 -0800 Phanx By: Shepherd http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240689 <i>Here is the planet's best known spokesdarwinist </i> I'm not trying to get your case, Canard, but is "Darwinist" now a legitimate term for people that adhere to Darwin-as-stated evolutionary theory as opposed to other branches of evolutionary theory? I've seen that term used, to date, almost exclusively by Jack Chick types. Does it have some sort of intelligent application? comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240689 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:07:55 -0800 Shepherd By: jeffburdges http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240697 So what is he saying beyond "Some forms are reachable easily, those are the ones you might find, and the tool kit determining these evolved much earlier over a longer period of time." comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240697 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:26:54 -0800 jeffburdges By: Canard de Vasco http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240712 Shepherd, It's no big deal, I needed a word and my brain found "<em>darwinist</em>". For all I know it was invented by creationists and it is certainly a tool in their propaganda, but I know what they mean by it. I'm a biologist and not a writer, so I would never claim that I apply my words intelligently, that's why I usually just quote people like Dawkins instead. Also the term <em>legitimate term</em> troubles me at least as much as <em>darwinist</em> so I'm not going to dwell on the matter. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240712 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:06:51 -0800 Canard de Vasco By: orthogonality http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240714 <b>Shepherd</b> <a href='http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240689'>writes</a> <em>"I'm not trying to get your case, Canard, but is 'Darwinist' now a legitimate term for people that adhere to Darwin-as-stated evolutionary theory as opposed to other branches of evolutionary theory? "</em> "Darwinist" is a slur used by creationists. "Modern evolutionary synthesis" or sometimes "neo-Darwinism" describes the orthodox scientific position. ("Neo-Darwinism" may also be used to more particularly refer to Weismanism.) comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240714 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:07:44 -0800 orthogonality By: Shepherd http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240719 Good to know. Again, I wasn't trying to call anyone out, I was genuinely curious about the evolution (ha ha) of the word and whether it had been co-opted by the scientific community for use. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240719 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:13:27 -0800 Shepherd By: afu http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240724 I've been reading the stuff in Mazur's books and find myself completly confused. There's this from <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00071.htm#chapter6">Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini</a>: " The point is, however, that organisms can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated. For that, major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks have to occur. All this is perfectly naturalistic and now well documented. Minor changes in the order of activation of master genes can create vast discontinuous morphogenetic changes." But how the hell did the "major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks" happen if not through natural selection or other mainstream evelotionary processes? I'm baffled as to what their argument against gene based evolution or selection even is. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240724 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:20:15 -0800 afu By: norabarnacl3 http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240737 <a href="http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho32.htm">Stuart Kauffman</a> has been saying this for years. For those confused, the basic point is that matter 'prefers' certain configurations. A good physical metaphor is that of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_cycle">limit cycle</a>, in which a system will self-organize into stable oscillations. The hypothesis is this is a very good potential source of evolutionary form. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240737 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:36:10 -0800 norabarnacl3 By: flashboy http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240742 Wow, Mazur's writing is utterly incomprehensible. Reading through it, I'm not even sure it attains the level of Medawar's <a href="http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Medawar/phenomenon-of-man.html">takedown </a>of Teilhard: "There is an argument in it, to be sure - a feeble argument, abominably expressed". I genuinely have no idea what she's trying to tell us, beyond using scary words about the current state of evolutionary science. As best I can make out, afu is right in <a href="http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240638">saying </a>that it sounds like she's talking about some sort of saltation, which is hardly new (and gets less interesting or plausible as bolder and bolder claims are made for it). Of course, this may all be terribly unfair to Newman, who quite possibly doesn't deserve having such a crackpot disseminating crazied-up interpretations of his work. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240742 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:46:32 -0800 flashboy By: delmoi http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240752 So 30 seconds of googling comes up with some other Articles by SUZAN MAUZUR: <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/mazur03022005.html">Time to Rescind Utah's Statehood?</a> <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/mazur03242005.html">Peak Oil: Debate or Vendetta?</a> comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240752 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:08:47 -0800 delmoi By: delmoi http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240757 <i>But how the hell did the "major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks" happen if not through natural selection or other mainstream evelotionary processes? I'm baffled as to what their argument against gene based evolution or selection even is.</i> That's not an unreasonable statement, it could simply mean that one one hand you have gradual change with a one or two genes changing over time, and on the other hand you have major evolutionary 'events' where a lot of genes mutate over an evolutionarily short period of time, which sounds a lot like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium">Punctuated Equilibrium</a> -- which I remember learning about in my 8th grade biology class :P. I'm not sure if it's really state of the art evolutionary theory these days or not. I have no idea what's going on with the article, it doesn't really seem worth reading. It's like a hyperbolic parody of the 'bad science writing' tendency to present every scientific theory as some major breakthrough in understanding. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240757 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:15:30 -0800 delmoi By: spacediver http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240769 This is not a new idea, though it hasn't yet fully taken in the mainstream. And it absolutely does revolutionize the current dogma which says: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" The basic idea is that the probability of where you end up in morphospace, over evolutionary time, is not only a function of natural selection and historical contingency (oldschool thought), but also a function of these principles of self organization which have a degree of relative autonomy over genetic substrates. A similar idea can be found in how clouds form. There is a practically infinite set of configurations of water and air molecules involved in the formation of clouds, yet they seem to self organize into discrete classes (hence the terminologies of nimbus, cirrus, etc.) This idea makes convergent evolution a phenomenon which is statistically more feasible than by purely random selection in similar environments. Here are a couple good articles, one of which is from Newman: Goodwin, B.C. (2000) "The Life of Form. Emergent Patterns of Morphological Transformation", C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sciences de la vie 323, 15-21. Newman, AS, Muller, GB (2000) "Epigenetic Mechanisms of Character Origination" Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol), 288, 304-17. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240769 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:29:41 -0800 spacediver By: flashboy http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240784 <em>And it absolutely does revolutionize the current dogma which says: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"</em> That's not really a dogma, now, is it? It's more of a soundbite. There are plenty of things in biology that make sense <em>in isolation</em> without needing recourse to evolution; what that phrase indicates is that to properly fit them into the bigger picture, you have to understand how they occur in the context of evolved organisms. And anyway, how does this theory, as you explained it, not involve casting the light of evolution upon the explanation? Saying that some evolutionary pathways are more likely to be followed than others doesn't exactly seem to be kicking evolution to the curb. <em>This idea makes convergent evolution a phenomenon which is statistically more feasible than by <strong>purely random selection</strong> in similar environments.</em> Gwwwwaaaaaaarrggghhhhhhhh. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240784 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:44:35 -0800 flashboy By: Faint of Butt http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240811 <i>Wai, wait, wait... A missing link in a post about evolution? posted by <b>The Monkey</b> at 3:34 AM on September 2</i> Oh, good grief. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240811 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:04:23 -0800 Faint of Butt By: dnash http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240823 PZ Myers of <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/">Pharyngula</a> has been ripping Susan Mazur silly writing all summer. She was on some quest to hype an academic conference this summer as some sort of revolution in biological science that would end the theory of evolution forever. Which was never the point of the conference. <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/altenberg_2008_is_over.php"><i>"Unfortunately, one reporter has produced an abominably muddled, utterly worthless and uninformed account of the Altenberg meeting that has been picked up by many crackpots to suggest that evolution is in trouble. This not only ignores a fundamental property of science — that it is always pushing off in new directions — but embarrassingly overinflates the importance of this one meeting. This was a gathering of established scientists with some new proposals. It was not a meeting of the central directorate of the Darwinist cabal to formulate new dogma."</i></a> <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/journalistic_flibbertigibbet.php"><i>"I get the impression that Mazur is journalist with no sense of proportion and a rather distressing lack of skepticism. This meeting will not revolutionize science. If we're lucky, a few good ideas will emerge from it. More likely, some people will have a good time, they'll learn a few things, and they'll fly back to work and we won't hear about it ever again."</i></a> Now, I'm no scientist - I just browse Pharyngula now and then for stories of the evolution vs. creationism stuff - but it sure does sound to me like this Mazur woman is completely clueless and unqualified to be writing on this subject. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240823 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:23:10 -0800 dnash By: Inspector.Gadget http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240833 <em>Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.</em> Hack journalist unwittingly documents her own cognitive deficiency, achieves postmodern flawless victory. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240833 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:32:12 -0800 Inspector.Gadget By: Artful Codger http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240841 tbm: <em>It's not an entirely crazy idea. Even a hard core natural selection guy has to admit that if the selection is non-random, there has to be some reason for this nonrandom behaviour (which one might call intelligence.)</em> FFS. An uninformed cretin might call it intelligence. Analogy: Sodium likes to combine with some elements, and not others. Could this be because... of protons and electrons and ionization and such, or because God Willed It To Be So? From <a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1478-3975/5/1/015008">this abstract of Newman's paper</a>: <em>We suggest that ancient toolkit gene products, most predating the emergence of multicellularity, assumed novel morphogenetic functions due to change in the scale and context inherent to multicellularity.</em> Put very simply, Newman is showing a mechanism that suggests that the "coding" for different biological adaptations may have been present much earlier in the evolutionary time-frame, and that this coding likely emerges when simple cells are grouped together. This differs from the very rudimentary theory that adaptations are simply genetic mutations. Regardless of the exact mechanism by which adaptations appear, there is widespread agreement that they are selected-for by natural selection. Newman isn't saying ANYTHING different about the process of selection. Quoting from the abstract again: <em>The morphologically plastic body plans and organ forms generated by DPMs, and their ontogenetic trajectories, would subsequently have been stabilized and consolidated by natural selection and genetic drift.</em> I hope that's clear. No I.D. required, sorry. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240841 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:41:03 -0800 Artful Codger By: afu http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240855 <em>The basic idea is that the probability of where you end up in morphospace, over evolutionary time, is not only a function of natural selection and historical contingency (oldschool thought), but also a function of these principles of self organization which have a degree of relative autonomy over genetic substrates.</em> How do they have autonomy over genetic substrates, when as Lewontin says every multicellular organism "goes through an egg and a sperm"? comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240855 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:49:47 -0800 afu By: Artw http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240910 Monoliths, dude. Little tiny nano-scale monoliths. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240910 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:41:20 -0800 Artw By: designbot http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240932 Based on what little I got from this link, this sounds very similar to the theories advanced by Christopher Alexander (inventor of "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_language">pattern languages</a>") in <a href="http://www.natureoforder.com/overview.htm">The Nature of Order</a>. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240932 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:53:29 -0800 designbot By: binturong http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240936 Like most popular discussions of evolution, the entire argument is animal-centric. Wake up people! The commonest and oldest forms of life on the planet are, respectively, plants and micro-organisms. The former mock the preoccupation with morphological form and the latter are uninterested in cellular organization. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240936 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:55:53 -0800 binturong By: No Robots http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2240980 Binturong: Plant morphology is a very important part of biology. Indeed, the entire science of morphology, even the term itself, originated with Goethe's botanical studies. And it is primarily in Goethe's work that we have the foundation for the science of form dynamics presented here as an alternative to evolutionary theory. See, for example, the work of Agnes Arber. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2240980 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:19:47 -0800 No Robots By: Kid Charlemagne http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2241033 This debate reads a whole lot like Steven Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science". It's terribly proud of itself but, OK, so form follows function and hexagons tessellate. I'm with you so far and ready for the next slide. Then I start getting the impression that they are going out of their way to baffle me. I mean, "ancient toolkit gene products"? What is the ancient toolkit, that they differentiate between it and the modern toolkit? I'm trying to figure out what they mean here. Do they mean RNA or proteins, are they talking about some emergent property of those proteins, or should I just cut to the chase and mentally translate this to read, "elfin magic". comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2241033 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:00:49 -0800 Kid Charlemagne By: Kid Charlemagne http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2241053 Binturong, obtain for yourself some logs of oak and some of elm, a maul and a couple splitting wedges. You will observe a distinct morphological difference between the two that is strongly conserved from oak to oak and elm to elm. <small>The grain in elms spirals one way for a while and then the other. It used to be the wood of choice for applications where splitting would be an issue.</small> comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2241053 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:14:07 -0800 Kid Charlemagne By: spacediver http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2241118 <i>How do they have autonomy over genetic substrates, when as Lewontin says every multicellular organism "goes through an egg and a sperm"?</i> Because these laws of morphogenesis are thought to be robust across a wide range of genetic instantiations in the same way that the laws that describe the formation of clouds are robust across a wide range of atmospheric configurations. the processes involved in going from a zygote to a fully developed organism surely are dependent upon the configuration of the nucleic acids which form the genome, but there are other laws at play here such as those which describe the way conglomerates of cells behave in certain environments, and these laws persist despite a wide range of genetic configurations. As the cells develop into more complex states, there are likely higher level laws which describe the patterns of organization at these higher levels of organization. The idea of morphogenetic fields is also relevant to this discussion, though it is a completely different idea from rupert sheldrakes supernatural notion of a morphogenetic field. This whole set of ideas is basically similar to those presented in gould and lewontin's spandrels paper, but with a finer and more mathematical articulation. At its core, it challenges the hard adaptationist line of thinking which states that every interesting and relevant feature of biology can be explained by natural selection alone. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2241118 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:46:18 -0800 spacediver By: spacediver http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2241141 <i>That's not really a dogma, now, is it? It's more of a soundbite. </i> Well 2 years ago I took a bio 150 course at the university of toronto to fill up my last elective. There, in one of the first lectures, to an audience of close to 1500 students, we were taught this dogma as fact. There was an actual slide with that quote and it was presented without any qualification. <i>And anyway, how does this theory, as you explained it, not involve casting the light of evolution upon the explanation? Saying that some evolutionary pathways are more likely to be followed than others doesn't exactly seem to be kicking evolution to the curb. </i> I've never claimed that these ideas preclude conventional explanations of natural selection. And you're right - it absolutely doesn't seem to be kicking evolution to the curb. The idea of constraints in evolution has long been understood, perhaps most famously John Maynard Smith (I think it was him) said that mortality is one of the most fundamental constraints. So yes, it's obvious that pathways that involve an organism comprised of matter and extending in three spatial dimensions are infinitely more likely than others. And yes, it's clear that pathways that involve organisms who have a certain mass to height ratio are more likely than others. And yes, the idea of phyletic inertia is at play here, and that subsequent developements of a species will not likely suddenly and radically change the bodyplan. But up until relatively recently, these constraints were simply acknowledged in token fashion. Now we are starting to realize that the language of "constraints" is not adequate to describe a comprehensive theory of the (phylogenetic and ontogenetic) development of form. There is the possibility of a rich description of laws which describe the organization of biological matter at many levels of organization, from molecular to those involved in gross morphological development. In a sense, there may be an "a priori" set of laws, mathematically articulable, which have a lot to say about the forms we see today. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2241141 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:00:34 -0800 spacediver By: flashboy http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2241181 <em>Well 2 years ago I took a bio 150 course at the university of toronto to fill up my last elective. There, in one of the first lectures, to an audience of close to 1500 students, we were taught this dogma as fact. There was an actual slide with that quote and it was presented without any qualification.</em> Yeah, that's because it's true, so long as you zoom out far enough to see the big picture. And it's a useful thing to tell a bunch of non-specialists right at the beginning of an introduction to biology, especially when some of them may not even come from a background that acknowledges evolution as fact (I'm fairly sure that the phrase, and others like it, have their origins in the evolution v creation non-debate). Neither of those things makes it a dogma in the sense you imply - that all theories within biology must be explicitly evolutionary in their nature. The theories will have a hard time if they <em>contradict </em>evolution, but the implication that a specific explanation of any biological fact must include a reference to evolutionary mechanisms is wrong. In any case, as you acknowledged, nothing we're talking about here could possibly fall under the heading "something in biology that makes sense outside of the light of evolution". These are explicitly hypotheses about the operation of conventional evolution - potentially interesting new additions to the theory, but (as <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/altenberg_2008_is_over.php">PZ Myers notes</a>) by no means a great honking paradigm shift. So to suggest that this could "revolutionize the current dogma" is wrong on two counts. There's no dogma; there's no revolution. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2241181 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:35:41 -0800 flashboy By: afu http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2241199 Thanks spacediver, I understand where these "form" people are coming from now. However, I read the Mueller paper and I'm still not buying it. The claim that during the Cambrian explosion, epigentic factors were more important that genetic ones doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny. The comparisons to spandrels is interesting, spandrels are not selected for, however they are arise from purely genetic mechanisms. Even if in some of the very of multi cellular organisms attained their forms through epigentic processes, the real evolutionary work was done through the genetic processes which locked these forms into place. I'm also skeptical that these process could have happened in a purely epigentic process, the fact that genes involved in development are so strongly expressed, means that they would be very sensitive to any evolutionary pressure (which is also probably a primary reason they are conserved across such a wide range of organisms.) I guess if someone was so dogmatic as to say that all function must come from selection, (Pinker comes to mind), this theory would be a blow to them. But I think they go to far in claiming that the epigentic factors were ever more important than genetic ones. It still comes back to that one sperm and egg. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2241199 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:45:17 -0800 afu By: Artw http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2241209 Evolution is a lie! Google Burgess Shale Truth! comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2241209 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:49:56 -0800 Artw By: rodgerd http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2241227 <i>It's no big deal, I needed a word and my brain found "darwinist". For all I know it was invented by creationists and it is certainly a tool in their propaganda, but I know what they mean by it.</i> And 'zionist' might be a convenient term to describe fans of the idea of a Jewish state in Israel, but you'd be silly to use it, for much the same reasons. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2241227 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:58:04 -0800 rodgerd By: Tehanu http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2241326 Has anyone published the formula for these somewhere? Like 1. Frame obscure subpoint of evolutionary theory in pseudoscientific language... comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2241326 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:37:50 -0800 Tehanu By: spacediver http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2241783 <i>Yeah, that's because it's true, so long as you zoom out far enough to see the big picture.</i> But that assumes that natural selection is the big picture here, when in fact it may not be. Random mutation, sexual recombination, copying errors, etc. being selected for are definitely players that help shape form. But it is not the only player. That said, I do appreciate your point about how the soundbite may be contextualized within a creationist vs evolution debate. I have only a casual interest in the field as it is not my specialty, and you may be correct in saying these ideas are not completely underground. But they certainly haven't percolated down to the mainstream in the same sense that natural selection has. And there's a damn good reason this hasn't happened yet - the field is relatively new, and we simply don't have enough information to feed a theory worth establishing in the mainstream yet. But I strongly suspect that by the time these ideas have been more fleshed out, our whole discourse around evolution is going to change. It's likely going to be a story involving "attractor states" which themselves are selected for by natural selection. In order to do this we need to discover exactly what these attractor states are - there has been progress in this field, for example it has been shown that there are only about 1000 three dimensional "templates" into which proteins tend to configure. ( Denton MJ, Dearden PK, Sowerby SJ (2003) "Physical law not natural selection as the major determinant of biological complexity in the subcellular realm: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law" Biosystems 71, 297-303. ) Surely an scientific project that seeks to explain the emergence of current biological form is missing something rather important if it fails to discover these attractor states, which can be mapped out independently of historical contingency. <i> Neither of those things makes it a dogma in the sense you imply - that all theories within biology must be explicitly evolutionary in their nature. The theories will have a hard time if they contradict evolution, but the implication that a specific explanation of any biological fact must include a reference to evolutionary mechanisms is wrong.</i> I should be a bit more clear about the term dogma here. I am not using it in the pejorative sense, but rather in the functional sense. I'm fairly certain that almost all biologists, exposed to these ideas, will naturally adapt their understanding accordingly. But the party line that does exist simply does not take these new ideas into account, and that is because these ideas (in their current form) are relatively new. Science requires a bit of institutional dogma to remain stable, and so long as it adapts over time (as I'm convinced it will in this case) there is nothing wrong with the system. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2241783 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:42:41 -0800 spacediver By: spacediver http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2241792 <i>Thanks spacediver, I understand where these "form" people are coming from now. However, I read the Mueller paper and I'm still not buying it. The claim that during the Cambrian explosion, epigentic factors were more important that genetic ones doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny. The comparisons to spandrels is interesting, spandrels are not selected for, however they are arise from purely genetic mechanisms.</i> I haven't read the contents of the fpp, so cannot comment. I hastily barged into this thread and I am therefore not in a position to defend the original article, though I have read Muller's 2000 paper: Newman, AS, Muller, GB (2000) "Epigenetic Mechanisms of Character Origination" Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol), 288, 304-17 and found nothing wrong with it at all - it was extremely well written and conservative. I've noticed throughout your postings you are speaking in the language of purely genetic or purely epigenetic. This doesn't make sense. There is no such thing as purely genetic or purely epigenetic. Genes by necessity require an environment to be expressed. This environment is the epigenetic environment. Without the epigenetic environment you'd have a bunch of nucleic acids floating in space. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2241792 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:47:22 -0800 spacediver By: afu http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2242149 This is the paragraph in the Muller paper I am having a hard time buying, <em> We propose that a synthetic, causal understanding of both development and evolution of morphology can be achieved by relinquishing a gene-centered view of these processes. This is not to say that programmed gene expression plays an unimportant role during embryogenesis, or that random genetic change is not a major factor of evolution. But we argue, in agreement with some earlier writers (Ho and Saunders '79; Oyama '85; Seilacher '91; Goodwin '94), that these factors are not explanatory of morphology in either of these settings. What replaces gene sequence variation and gene expression as morphological determinants in our framework are epigenetic processes: initially the physics of condensed, excitable media represented by primitive cell aggregates, and later conditional responses of tissues to each other, as well as to external forces. These determinants are considered to have set out the original morphological templates during the evolution of bodies and organs, and to have remained, to varying extents, effective causal factors in all modern multicellular organisms.</em> comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2242149 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:36:59 -0800 afu By: spacediver http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2242194 Yes I'd take issue with the phrasing of epigenetic processes as <i>replacing</i> gene expression. To me, it would be more accurate to say that epigenetic processes interact with the gene sequence. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2242194 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:39:26 -0800 spacediver By: spacediver http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2242261 actually I want to read this paper properly before taking issue. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2242261 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:46:24 -0800 spacediver By: hortense http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2242309 <strong><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metafilter.com%2F71424%2FJerry-Fodor-on-Why-Pigs-Dont-Have-Wings&ei=bzS-SJmGFomGsQPNg8jiDQ&usg=AFQjCNHTKtsCrrk90DBLOKcWAYzHylrVdw&sig2=qbszW-LYRmGW2BmGJ8smIA">Once upon a time</a></strong>" Why Pigs Don't Have Wings" comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2242309 Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:01:23 -0800 hortense By: KirkJobSluder http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2244905 Well, I'd hesitate to say that this entirely cuts out microbiology. Microbiology is fundamentally about chemical constraints on how energy is used within a system. So as an example, we don't see a super-bacterium able to eat everything in the biosphere, because the energy and matter costs of maintaining genes for every metabolic niche are prohibitively expensive. In the molecule-eat-molecule world of the prokaryote, natural selection favors the lean and mean metabolic specialist that can dominate a particular niche. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2244905 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:38:31 -0800 KirkJobSluder By: KirkJobSluder http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2244931 Because when you are busy fixing carbon via photosynthesis as part of a symbiotic relationship with a fungus, that jug of week-old milk loaded with lactose, proteins, and fatty acids is practically speaking an entirely different universe. And when you are in that jug of milk, you are locked in a death-race to grab as much lactose as you can and reproduce before you are poisoned by increasing lactic acid concentrations. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2244931 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:50:24 -0800 KirkJobSluder By: Artful Codger http://www.metafilter.com/74567/Challenging-the-Evolution-Industry#2247712 Mmmmmm.... lactose. comment:www.metafilter.com,2008:site.74567-2247712 Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:19:04 -0800 Artful Codger "Yes. Something that interested us yesterday when we saw it." "Where is she?" His lodgings were situated at the lower end of the town. The accommodation consisted[Pg 64] of a small bedroom, which he shared with a fellow clerk, and a place at table with the other inmates of the house. The street was very dirty, and Mrs. Flack's house alone presented some sign of decency and respectability. It was a two-storied red brick cottage. There was no front garden, and you entered directly into a living room through a door, upon which a brass plate was fixed that bore the following announcement:¡ª The woman by her side was slowly recovering herself. A minute later and she was her cold calm self again. As a rule, ornament should never be carried further than graceful proportions; the arrangement of framing should follow as nearly as possible the lines of strain. Extraneous decoration, such as detached filagree work of iron, or painting in colours, is [159] so repulsive to the taste of the true engineer and mechanic that it is unnecessary to speak against it. Dear Daddy, Schopenhauer for tomorrow. The professor doesn't seem to realize Down the middle of the Ganges a white bundle is being borne, and on it a crow pecking the body of a child wrapped in its winding-sheet. 53 The attention of the public was now again drawn to those unnatural feuds which disturbed the Royal Family. The exhibition of domestic discord and hatred in the House of Hanover had, from its first ascension of the throne, been most odious and revolting. The quarrels of the king and his son, like those of the first two Georges, had begun in Hanover, and had been imported along with them only to assume greater malignancy in foreign and richer soil. The Prince of Wales, whilst still in Germany, had formed a strong attachment to the Princess Royal of Prussia. George forbade the connection. The prince was instantly summoned to England, where he duly arrived in 1728. "But they've been arrested without due process of law. They've been arrested in violation of the Constitution and laws of the State of Indiana, which provide¡ª" "I know of Marvor and will take you to him. It is not far to where he stays." Reuben did not go to the Fair that autumn¡ªthere being no reason why he should and several why he shouldn't. He went instead to see Richard, who was down for a week's rest after a tiring case. Reuben thought a dignified aloofness the best attitude to maintain towards his son¡ªthere was no need for them to be on bad terms, but he did not want anyone to imagine that he approved of Richard or thought his success worth while. Richard, for his part, felt kindly disposed towards his father, and a little sorry for him in his isolation. He invited him to dinner once or twice, and, realising his picturesqueness, was not ashamed to show him to his friends. Stephen Holgrave ascended the marble steps, and proceeded on till he stood at the baron's feet. He then unclasped the belt of his waist, and having his head uncovered, knelt down, and holding up both his hands. De Boteler took them within his own, and the yeoman said in a loud, distinct voice¡ª HoME²¨¶àÒ°´²Ï·ÊÓÆµ ѸÀ×ÏÂÔØ ѸÀ×ÏÂÔØ ENTER NUMBET 0016www.fushipifa.net.cn
www.huifudao.com.cn
www.hanabi8.org.cn
jxejcq.com.cn
trleel.com.cn
rrebpp.com.cn
smartro.com.cn
rjiebao.org.cn
www.rycgc.com.cn
wwkeiy.com.cn
亚洲春色奇米 影视 成人操穴乱伦小说 肏屄蓝魔mp5官网 婷婷五月天四房播客 偷窥偷拍 亚洲色图 草根炮友人体 屄图片 百度 武汉操逼网 日日高潮影院 beeg在线视频 欧美骚妇15删除 西欧色图图片 欧美欲妇奶奶15p 女人性穴道几按摸法 天天操免费视频 李宗瑞百度云集 成人毛片快播高清影视 人妖zzz女人 中年胖女人裸体艺术 兽交游戏 色图网艳照门 插屁网 xxoo激情短片 未成年人的 9712btinto 丰满熟女狂欢夜色 seseou姐姐全裸为弟弟洗澡 WWW_COM_NFNF_COM 菲律宾床上人体艺术 www99mmcc 明星影乱神马免费成人操逼网 97超级碰 少女激情人体艺术片 狠狠插电影 贱货被内射 nnn680 情电影52521 视频 15p欧美 插 欧美色图激情名星 动一动电影百度影音 内射中出红濑 东京热360云盘 影音先锋德国性虐影院 偷穿表姐内衣小说 bt 成人 视频做爱亚洲色图 手机免费黄色小说网址总址 sehueiluanluen 桃花欧美亚洲 屄屄乱伦 尻你xxx 日本成人一本道黄色无码 人体艺术ud 成人色视频xp 齐川爱不亚图片 亚裔h 快播 色一色成人网 欧美 奸幼a片 不用播放器de黄色电影网站 免费幼插在线快播电影 淫荡美妇的真实状况 能天天操逼吗 模特赵依依人体艺术 妈妈自慰短片视频 好奇纸尿裤好吗 杨一 战地2142武器解锁 qq农场蓝玫瑰 成人电影快播主播 早乙女露依作品496部 北条麻妃和孩子乱 欧美三女同虐待 夫妻成长日记一类动画 71kkkkcom 操逼怎样插的最深 皇小说你懂的 色妹妹月擦妹妹 高清欧美激情美女图 撸啊撸乱伦老师的奶子 给我视频舔逼 sese五月 女人被老外搞爽了 极品按摩师 自慰自撸 龙坛书网成人 尹弘 国模雪铃人体 妈妈操逼色色色视频 大胆人体下阴艺术图片 乱妇12p 看人妖片的网站 meinv漏出bitu 老婆婚外的高潮 父女淫液花心子宫 高清掰开洞穴图片 四房色播网页图片 WWW_395AV_COM 进进出出的少女阴道 老姐视频合集 吕哥交换全 韩国女主播想射的视频 丝袜gao跟 极品美女穴穴图吧看高清超嫩鲍鱼大胆美女人体艺网 扣逼18 日本内射少妇15p 天海冀艺术 绝色成人av图 银色天使进口图片 欧美色图夜夜爱 美女一件全部不留与男生亲热视 春色丁香 骚媳妇乱伦小说 少女激情av 乱伦老婆的乳汁 欧美v色图25 电话做爱门 一部胜过你所有日本a片呕血推荐 制服丝袜迅雷下载 ccc36水蜜桃 操日本妞色色网 情侣插逼图 张柏芝和谁的艳照门 和小女孩爱爱激情 浏览器在线观看的a站 国内莫航空公司空姐性爱视频合集影音先锋 能看见奶子的美国电影 色姐综合在线视频 老婆综合网 苍井空做爱现场拍摄 怎么用番号看av片 伦理片艺术片菅野亚梨沙 嫩屄18p 我和老师乳交故事 志村玲子与黑人 韩国rentiyishu 索尼小次郎 李中瑞玩继母高清 极速影院什么缓存失败 偷拍女厕所小嫩屄 欧美大鸡巴人妖 岛咲友美bt 小择玛丽亚第一页 顶级大胆国模 长发妹妹与哥哥做爱做的事情 小次郎成电影人 偷拍自拍迅雷下载套图 狗日人 女人私阴大胆艺术 nianhuawang 那有绳艺电影 欲色阁五月天 搜狗老外鸡巴插屄图 妹妹爱爱网偷拍自拍 WWW249KCOM 百度网盘打电话做爱 妈妈短裙诱惑快播 色色色成人导 玩小屄网站 超碰在线视频97久色色 强奸熟母 熟妇丝袜高清性爱图片 公园偷情操逼 最新中国艳舞写真 石黑京香在线观看 zhang 小说sm网 女同性恋换黄色小说 老妇的肉逼 群交肛交老婆屁眼故事 www123qqxxtop 成人av母子恋 露点av资源 初中女生在家性自慰视频 姐姐色屄 成人丝袜美女美腿服务 骚老师15P下一页 凤舞的奶子 色姐姝插姐姐www52auagcom qyuletv青娱乐在线 dizhi99两男两女 重口味激情电影院 逼网jjjj16com 三枪入肛日本 家庭乱伦小说激情明星乱伦校园 贵族性爱 水中色美国发布站 息子相奸义父 小姨子要深点快别停 变身萝莉被轮奸 爱色色帝国 先锋影音香港三级大全 www8omxcnm 搞亚洲日航 偷拍自拍激情综合台湾妹妹 少女围殴扒衣露B毛 欧美黑人群交系列www35vrcom 沙滩裸模 欧美性爱体位 av电影瑜伽 languifangcheng 肥白淫妇女 欧美美女暴露下身图片 wwqpp6scom Dva毛片 裸体杂技美女系 成人凌虐艳母小说 av男人天堂2014rhleigsckybcn 48qacom最新网 激激情电影天堂wwwmlutleyljtrcn 喷水大黑逼网 谷露英语 少妇被涂满春药插到 色农夫影Sex872com 欧美seut 不用播放器的淫妻乱伦性爱综合网 毛衣女神新作百度云 被黑人抽插小说 欧美国模吧 骚女人网导航 母子淫荡网角3 大裸撸 撸胖姥姥 busx2晓晓 操中国老熟女 欧美色爱爱 插吧插吧网图片素材 少妇五月天综合网 丝袜制服情人 福利视频最干净 亚州空姐偷拍 唐人社制服乱伦电影 xa7pmp4 20l7av伦理片 久久性动漫 女搜查官官网被封了 在线撸夜勤病栋 老人看黄片色美女 wwwavsxx 深深候dvd播放 熟女人妻谷露53kqcom 动漫图区另类图片 香港高中生女友口交magnet 男女摸逼 色zhongse导航 公公操日媳 荡妇撸吧 李宗瑞快播做爱影院 人妻性爱淫乱 性吧论坛春暖花开经典三级区 爱色阁欧美性爱 吉吉音应爱色 操b图操b图 欧美色片大色站社区 大色逼 亚洲无码山本 综合图区亚洲色 欧美骚妇裸体艺术图 国产成人自慰网 性交淫色激情网 熟女俱乐部AV下载 动漫xxoogay 国产av?美媚毛片 亚州NW 丁香成人快播 r级在线观看在线播放 蜜桃欧美色图片 亚洲黄色激情网 骚辣妈贴吧 沈阳推油 操B视频免费 色洛洛在线视频 av网天堂 校园春色影音先锋伦理 htppg234g 裸聊正妹网 五月舅舅 久久热免费自慰视频 视频跳舞撸阴教学 色色色色色色色色色色色色色色色色色色色色色色色色色色邑色色色色色色色色色 萝莉做爱视频 影音先锋看我射 亚州av一首页老汉影院 狠狠狠狠死撸hhh600com 韩国精品淫荡女老师诱奸 先锋激情网站 轮奸教师A片 av天堂2017天堂网在线 破处番号 www613com 236com 遇上嫩女10p 妹妹乐超碰在线视频 在线国产偷拍欧美 社区在线视频乱伦 青青草视频爱去色色 妈咪综合网 情涩网站亚洲图片 在线午夜夫妻片 乱淫色乱瘾乱明星图 阿钦和洪阿姨 插美女综合网3 巨乳丝袜操逼 久草在线久草在线中文字幕 伦理片群交 强奸小说电影网 日本免费gv在线观看 恋夜秀场线路 gogort人体gogortco xxxxse 18福利影院 肉嫁bt bt种子下载成人无码 激情小说成人小说深爱五月天 伦理片181电影网 欧美姑妈乱伦的电影 动漫成人影视 家庭游戏magnet 漂亮少女人社团 快播色色图片 欧美春官图图片大全 搜索免费手机黄色视频网站 宝生奈奈照片 性爱试 色中色手机在线视频区 强轩视频免费观看 大奶骚妻自慰 中村知惠无码 www91p91com国产 在小穴猛射 搜索www286kcom 七龙珠hhh 天天影视se 白洁张敏小说 中文字幕在线视频avwww2pidcom 亚洲女厕所偷拍 色色色色m色图 迷乱的学姐 在线看av男同免费视频 曰一日 美国成人十次导航2uuuuucom wwwff632cim 黄片西瓜影音 av在线五毒 青海色图 亚洲Av高清无码 790成人撸片 迅雷色色强暴小说 在线av免费中文字幕 少年阿宾肛交 日韩色就是色 不法侵乳苍井空 97成人自慰视频 最新出av片在线观看 夜夜干夜夜日在线影院www116dpcomm520xxbinfo wwwdioguitar23net 人与兽伦理电影 ap女优在线播放 激情五月天四房插放 wwwwaaaa23com 亚洲涩图雅蠛蝶 欧美老头爆操幼女 b成人电影 粉嫩妹妹 欧美口交性交 www1122secon 超碰在线视频撸乐子 俺去射成人网 少女十八三级片 千草在线A片 磊磊人体艺术图片 图片专区亚洲欧美另娄 家教小故事动态图 成人电影亚洲最新地 佐佐木明希邪恶 西西另类人体44rtcom 真人性爱姿势动图 成人文学公共汽车 推女郎青青草 操小B啪啪小说 2048社区 顶级夫妻爽图 夜一夜撸一撸 婷婷五月天妞 东方AV成人电影在线 av天堂wwwqimimvcom 国服第一大屌萝莉QQ空间 老头小女孩肏屄视频 久草在线澳门 自拍阴shui 642ppp 大阴色 我爱av52avaⅴcom一节 少妇抠逼在线视频 奇米性爱免费观看视频 k8电影网伦理动漫 SM乐园 强奸母女模特动漫 服帖拼音 www艳情五月天 国产无码自拍偷拍 幼女bt种子 啪啪播放网址 自拍大香蕉视频网 日韩插插插 色嫂嫂色护士影院 天天操夜夜操在线视频 偷拍自拍第一页46 色色色性 快播空姐 中文字幕av视频在线观看 大胆美女人体范冰冰 av无码5Q 色吧网另类 超碰肉丝国产 中国三级操逼 搞搞贝贝 我和老婆操阴道 XXX47C0m 奇米影视777撸 裸体艺术爱人体ctrl十d 私色房综合网成人网 我和大姐姐乱伦 插入妹妹写穴图片 色yiwuyuetian xxx人与狗性爱 与朋友母亲偷情 欧美大鸟性交色图 444自拍偷拍 我爱三十六成人网 宁波免费快播a片影院 日屄好 高清炮大美女在较外 大学生私拍b 黄色录像操我啦 和媛媛乱轮 狠撸撸白白色激情 jiji撸 快播a片日本a黄色 黄色片在哪能看到 艳照14p 操女妻 猛女动态炮图 欧洲性爱撸 寝越瑛太 李宗瑞mov275g 美女搞鸡激情 苍井空裸体无码写真 求成人动漫2015 外国裸体美女照片 偷情草逼故事 黑丝操逼查看全过程图片 95美女露逼 欧美大屁股熟女俱乐部 老奶奶操b 美国1级床上电影 王老橹小说网 性爱自拍av视频 小说李性女主角名字 木屄 女同性 无码 亚洲色域111 人与兽性交电影网站 动漫图片打包下载 最后被暴菊的三级片 台湾强奸潮 淫荡阿姨影片 泰国人体苍井空人体艺术图片 人体美女激情大图片 性交的骚妇 中学女生三级小说 公交车奸淫少女小说 拉拉草 我肏妈妈穴 国语对白影音先锋手机 萧蔷 WWW_2233K_COM 波多野结衣 亚洲色图 张凌燕 最新flash下载 友情以上恋人未满 446sscom 电影脚交群交 美女骚妇人体艺术照片集 胖熊性爱在线观看 成人图片16p tiangtangav2014 tangcuan人体艺术图片tamgcuan WWW3PXJCOM 大尺度裸体操逼图片 西门庆淫网视频 美国幼交先锋影音 快播伦理偷拍片 日日夜夜操屄wang上帝撸 我干了嫂子电影快播 大连高尔基路人妖 骑姐姐成人免费网站 美女淫穴插入 中国人肉胶囊制造过程 鸡巴干老女老头 美女大胆人穴摄影 色婷婷干尿 五月色谣 奸乡村处女媳妇小说 欧美成人套图五月天 欧羙性爱视频 强奸同学母小说 色se52se 456fff换了什么网站 极品美鲍人体艺术网 车震自拍p 逼逼图片美女 乱伦大鸡吧操逼故事 来操逼图片 美女楼梯脱丝袜 丁香成人大型 色妹妹要爱 嫩逼骚女15p 日本冲气人体艺术 wwwqin369com ah442百度影院 妹妹艺术图片欣赏 日本丨级片 岳母的bi e6fa26530000bad2 肏游戏 苍井空wangpan 艳嫂的淫穴 我抽插汤加丽的屄很爽 妈妈大花屄 美女做热爱性交口交 立川明日香代表作 在线亚洲波色 WWWSESEOCOM 苍井空女同作品 电影换妻游戏 女人用什么样的姿势才能和狗性交 我把妈妈操的高潮不断 大鸡巴在我体内变硬 男人天堂综合影院 偷拍自拍哥哥射成人色拍网站 家庭乱伦第1页 露女吧 美女fs2you ssss亚洲视频 美少妇性交人体艺术 骚浪美人妻 老虎直播applaohuzhibocn 操黑丝袜少妇的故事 如月群真口交 se钬唃e钬唃 欧美性爱亚洲无码制服师生 宅男影院男根 粉嫩小逼的美女图片 姝姝骚穴AV bp成人电影 Av天堂老鸭窝在线 青青草破处初夜视频网站 俺去插色小姐 伦理四级成人电影 穿丝袜性交ed2k 欧美邪淫动态 欧美sm的电影网站 v7saocom we综合网 日本不雅网站 久久热制服诱惑 插老女人了骚穴 绿帽女教师 wwwcmmovcn 赶集网 透B后入式 爱情电影网步兵 日本熟女黄色 哥也色人格得得爱色奶奶撸一撸 妞干网图片另类 色女网站duppid1 撸撸鸟AV亚洲色图 干小嫩b10Pwwwneihan8com 后女QQ上买内裤 搞搞天堂 另类少妇AV 熟妇黑鬼p 最美美女逼穴 亚洲大奶老女人 表姐爱做爱 美b俱乐部 搞搞电影成人网 最长吊干的日妞哇哇叫 亚洲系列国产系列 汤芳人体艺体 高中生在运动会被肉棒轮奸插小穴 肉棒 无码乱伦肛交灌肠颜射放尿影音先锋 有声小说极品家丁 华胥引 有声小说 春色fenman 美少女学园樱井莉亚 小泽玛利亚素颜 日本成人 97开心五月 1080东京热 手机看黄片的网址 家人看黄片 地方看黄片 黄色小说手机 色色在线 淫色影院 爱就色成人 搞师娘高清 空姐电影网 色兔子电影 QVOD影视 飞机专用电影 我爱弟弟影院 在线大干高清 美眉骚导航(荐) 姐哥网 搜索岛国爱情动作片 男友摸我胸视频 ftp 久草任你爽 谷露影院日韩 刺激看片 720lu刺激偷拍针对华人 国产91偷拍视频超碰 色碰碰资源网 强奸电影网 香港黄页农夫与乡下妹 AV母系怀孕动漫 松谷英子番号 硕大湿润 TEM-032 magnet 孙迪A4U gaovideo免费视频 石墨生花百度云 全部强奸视频淘宝 兄妹番号 秋山祥子在线播放 性交免费视频高青 秋霞视频理论韩国英美 性视频线免费观看视频 秋霞电影网啪啪 性交啪啪视频 秋霞为什么给封了 青青草国产线观1769 秋霞电影网 你懂得视频 日夲高清黄色视频免费看 日本三级在线观影 日韩无码视频1区 日韩福利影院在线观看 日本无翼岛邪恶调教 在线福利av 日本拍拍爽视频 日韩少妇丝袜美臀福利视频 pppd 481 91在线 韩国女主播 平台大全 色999韩自偷自拍 avtt20018 羞羞导航 岛国成人漫画动漫 莲实克蕾儿佐佐木 水岛津实肉丝袜瑜伽 求先锋av管资源网 2828电影x网余罪 龟头挤进子宫 素人熟女在线无码 快播精典一级玩阴片 伦理战场 午夜影院黑人插美女 黄色片大胸 superⅤpn 下载 李宗瑞AV迅雷种子 magnet 抖音微拍秒拍视频福利 大尺度开裆丝袜自拍 顶级人体福利网图片l 日本sexjav高清无码视频 3qingqingcaoguochan 美亚色无极 欧美剧av在线播放 在线视频精品不一样 138影视伦理片 国内自拍六十七页 飞虎神鹰百度云 湘西赶尸886合集下载 淫污视频av在线播放 天堂AV 4313 41st福利视频 自拍福利的集合 nkfuli 宅男 妇道之战高清 操b欧美试频 青青草青娱乐视频分类 5388x 白丝在线网站 色色ios 100万部任你爽 曾舒蓓 2017岛国免费高清无码 草硫影院 最新成人影院 亚洲视频人妻 丝袜美脚 国内自拍在线视频 乱伦在线电影网站 黄色分钟视频 jjzzz欧美 wwwstreamViPerc0M 西瓜影院福利社 JA∨一本道 好看的高清av网 开发三味 6无码magnet 亚洲av在线污 有原步美在线播放456 全网搜北条麻妃视频 9769香港商会开奖 亚洲色网站高清在线 男人天堂人人视频 兰州裸条 好涨好烫再深点视频 1024东方 千度成人影院 av 下载网址 豆腐屋西施 光棍影院 稻森丽奈BT图书馆 xx4s4scc jizzyou日本视频 91金龙鱼富桥肉丝肥臀 2828视屏 免费主播av网站在线看 npp377视频完整版 111番漫画 色色五月天综合 农夫夜 一发失误动漫无修全集在线观看 女捜査官波多野结衣mp4 九七影院午夜福利 莲实克蕾儿检察官 看黄色小视频网站 好吊色270pao在线视频 他很色他很色在线视频 avttt天堂2004 超高级风俗视频2828 2淫乱影院 东京热,嗯, 虎影院 日本一本道88日本黄色毛片 菲菲影视城免费爱视频 九哥福利网导航 美女自摸大尺度视频自拍 savk12 影音先锋镇江少妇 日皮视频 ed2k 日本av视频欧美性爱视频 下载 人人插人人添人射 xo 在线 欧美tv色无极在线影院 色琪琪综合 blz成人免费视频在线 韩国美女主播金荷娜AV 天天看影院夜夜橾天天橾b在线观看 女人和狗日批的视屏 一本道秒播视频在线看 牛牛宝贝在线热线视频 tongxingshiping 美巨乳在线播放 米咪亚洲社区 japanese自拍 网红呻吟自慰视频 草他妈比视频 淫魔病棟4 张筱雨大尺度写真迅雷链接下载 xfplay欧美性爱 福利h操视频 b雪福利导航 成人资源高清无码 xoxo视频小时的免费的 狠狠嗨 一屌待两穴 2017日日爽天天干日日啪 国产自拍第四季 大屁股女神叫声可射技术太棒了 在线 52秒拍福利视频优衣库 美女自拍福利小视频mp4 香港黄页之米雪在线 五月深爱激情六月 日本三级动漫番号及封面 AV凹凸网站 白石优杞菜正播放bd 国产自拍porno chinesewife作爱 日本老影院 日本5060 小峰磁力链接 小暮花恋迅雷链接 magnet 小清新影院视频 香蕉影院费试 校服白丝污视频 品味影院伦理 一本道αⅴ视频在线播放 成人视频喵喵喵 bibiai 口交视频迅雷 性交髙清视频 邪恶道 acg漫画大全漫画皇室 老鸭窝性爱影院 新加坡美女性淫视频 巨乳女棋士在线观看 早榴影院 紧身裙丝袜系列之老师 老司机福利视频导航九妹 韩国娱乐圈悲惨87 国内手机视频福利窝窝 苍井空拍拍拍视频` 波木春香在线看 厕拍极品视影院 草莓呦呦 国产自拍在线播放 中文字幕 我妻美爆乳 爱资源www3xfzy 首页 Α片资源吧 日本三级色体验区 色五月 mp4 瑟瑟啪 影音先锋avzy 里番动画av 八戒TV网络电影 美国唐人十次啦入口 大香蕉在伊线135 周晓琳8部在线观看 蓝沢润 av在线 冰徐璐 SHENGHAIZISHIPIN sepapa999在线观看视频 本庄优花磁力 操bxx成人视频网 爆乳美女护士视频 小黄瓜福利视频日韩 亚卅成人无码在线 小美在线影院 网红演绎KTV勾引闺蜜的男朋友 熟妇自拍系列12 在线av视频观看 褔利影院 天天吊妞o www銆倆ih8 奥特曼av系列免费 三七影视成人福利播放器 少女漫画邪恶 清纯唯美亚洲另类 、商务酒店眼镜小伙有些害羞全程长发白嫩高颜值女友主动 汤元丝袜诱惑 男人影院在线观看视频播放-搜索页 asmr飞机福利 AV女优磁力 mp4 息子交换物语2在线电影 大屁股视频绿岛影院 高老庄免费AⅤ视频 小妇性爱视频 草天堂在线影城 小黄福利 国产性爱自拍流畅不卡顿 国内在线自拍 厕所偷拍在线观看 操美女菊花视频 国产网红主播福利视频在线观看 被窝福利视频合集600 国产自拍第8页 午夜激情福利, mnm625成人视频 福利fl218 韩主播后入式 导航 在线网站你懂得老司机 在线播放av无码赵丽颖 naixiu553。com gaovideo conpoen国产在线 里番gif之大雄医生 无内衣揉胸吸奶视频 慢画色 国产夫妻手机性爱自拍 wwwjingziwou8 史密斯夫妇H版 亚洲男人天堂直播 一本道泷泽萝拉 影音先锋资源网喋喋 丝袜a∨天堂2014 免费高清黄色福利 maomi8686 色小姐播放 北京骞车女郎福利视频 黄色片随意看高清版 韩国舔屄 前台湿了的 香椎 国产sm模特在线观看 翼裕香 新婚生活 做爱视屏日本 综合另类视频网站 快播乱鬼龙 大乳牛奶女老四影院 先锋影院乱伦 乱伦小说网在线视频 色爷爷看片 色视频色视频色视频在线观看 美女tuoyi视频秀色 毛片黄色午夜啪啪啪 少妇啪啪啪视频 裸体瑜伽 magnet xt urn btih 骑兵磁力 全裸欧美色图 人人日 精油按摩小黄片 人与畜生配交电影 吉吉影院瓜皮影院 惠美梨电话接线员番号 刺激小视频在线播放 日韩女优无码性交视频 国产3p视频ftp 偷偷撸电影院 老头强奸处女 茜公主殿下福利视频 国产ts系列合集在线 东京热在线无码高清视频 导航H在线视频 欧美多毛胖老太性交视频 黑兽在线3232 黄色久视频 好了avahaoleav 和体育老师做爱视频 啪啪啪红番阁 欧美熟妇vdeos免费视频 喝水影院 日欧啪啪啪影院 老司机福利凹凸影院 _欧美日一本道高清无码在线,大香蕉无码av久久,国产DVD在线播放】h ujczz成人播放器 97色伦在线综合视频 虐玩大jb 自拍偷拍论理视频播放 广东揭阳短屌肥男和极品黑丝女友啪啪小龟头被粉穴搞得红红的女女的呻吟非常给 强奸女主播ed2k 黄色色播站 在线电影中文字幕无码中文字幕有码国产自拍 在线电影一本道HEYZO加勒比 在线电影 www人人插 手机在线av之家播放 萝莉小电影种子 ftp 偷拍自拍系列-性感Riku 免费日本成人在线网视频 啪啪自拍国产 日妹妹视频 自拍偷拍 老师 3d口球视频 裸体视频 mp4 美邪恶BBB 萝莉被在线免费观看 好屌看色色视频 免賛a片直播绪 国内自拍美腿丝袜第十页 国模SM在线播放 牛牛在线偷拍视频 乱伦电影合集 正在播放_我们不需要男人也一样快乐520-骚碰人人草在线视频,人人看人人摸人人 在线无码优月真里奈 LAF41迅雷磁力 熟女自拍在线看 伦理片87e 香港a级 色午夜福利在线视频 偷窥自拍亚洲快播 古装三级伦理在线电影 XXOO@69 亚洲老B骚AV视频在线 快牙水世界玩走光视频 阴阳人无码磁力 下载 在线大尺度 8o的性生活图片 黄色小漫 JavBiBiUS snis-573 在线观看 蝌蚪寓网 91轻轻草国产自拍 操逼动漫版视频 亚洲女人与非洲黑人群交视频下载 聊城女人吃男人阴茎视频 成人露露小说 美女大肥阴户露阴图 eoumeiseqingzaixian 无毛美女插逼图片 少女在线伦理电影 哥迅雷 欧美男男性快播 韩国147人体艺术 迅雷快播bt下载成人黄色a片h动漫 台湾xxoo鸡 亚洲人体西西人体艺术百度 亚州最美阴唇 九妹网女性网 韩国嫩胸 看周涛好逼在线 先锋影音母子相奸 校园春色的网站是 草逼集 曰本女人裸体照 白人被黑人插入阴道