Fact: All real scientists believe Darwinism – otherwise, they wouldn’t be real scientists

Spread the love

Sweden’s king decorated molecular cytogeneticist Antonio Lima-de-Faria “Knight of the Order of the North Star” for his outstanding experimental work, which elucidated the molecular organization of the chromosome and its evolutionary path.

And his opinion of Darwinism is here. And as Suzan Mazur reports,

Lima-de-Faria does not consider Charles Darwin’s 1859 idea of natural selection — survival of the fittest — a theory. He writes in his classic book, Evolution without Selection. Form and Function by Autoevolution, that Darwinism and the neo-Darwinian synthesis, last dusted off 70 years ago, actually hinder discovery of the mechanism of evolution. [ … ]

Suzan Mazur: You’ve called natural selection “the opium of the biologist for over 100 years,” saying it is an abstract concept, and as such it can’t be measured and poured into a vial — and that the term natural selection should be removed from evolution vocabulary because it is a hindrance to the discovery of the mechanism of evolution.

You acknowledge that natural selection exists but say it has nothing to do with the basic mechanism of biological transformation, which is based on physico-chemical and mineral layers of evolution. So why are most biologists and textbooks and scientific academies still embracing natural selection?

A. Lima-de-Faria: Selection is a political not a scientific concept. At the time of Darwin it fitted perfectly the expanding colonialism of Victorian England. At present, Darwinism has been equated with evolution in an effort to convert it into the ideological arm of globalization. For this reason it will remain a powerful force until this system will be superseded by a more humanitarian form of economic development.

Nothing could be better than selection because it can “explain” equally well a given situation or its opposite state. This is why there are as many Darwinist interpretations as there are authors. The result is total confusion.

3 Replies to “Fact: All real scientists believe Darwinism – otherwise, they wouldn’t be real scientists

  1. 1
    Proponentist says:

    Or as someone explained to me one time:

    “No credible scientist doubts the validity of evolutionary theory”.

    True — anyone who doubts the validity of evolutionary claims could not possibly be a credible scientist.

    It all works out very well that way!

  2. 2
    DrREC says:

    Interesting interview:

    I’d never heard this example:

    “Q: Are we close to recreating biological evolution?

    A. Lima-de-Faria: Actually, in the case of some organisms, this recreation has occurred long ago. The best established example is that of a plant species found in nature that was obtained by experimental means.

    It was the leading Swedish geneticist A. Muentzing who, in 1930 working with Galeopsis (hemp nettle), crossed two different species and by doubling their chromosome number obtained Galeopsis tetrahit which occurred spontaneously in nature.”

    And he is likely right-selection is not required for speciation. I’d add that I think we tend to misunderstand ‘fittest’ in ‘survival of the fittest’-a big predatory bass in a small pond, who consumes all smaller fish, will likely have very very few offspring in that pond. Fittest is better expressed as most adapted for the environment.

  3. 3
    O'Leary says:

    One could call it the antlers in heaven principle.

Leave a Reply