Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

NIH’s Eugene Koonin identifies key ways our approach to evolution has changed

Spread the love
Eugene Viktorovich Koonin

From Suzan Mazur at Huffington Post:

Suzan Mazur: If you were organizing a public evolution summit, what discoveries in biology would you showcase?

Eugene Koonin: I would try to focus on two aspects. One is genomics, and in particular, comparative genomics and metagenomics discoveries — all this comes under the wide umbrella of genomics. That’s one. The other is the existence of solid theory in evolutionary biology. I’ll elaborate on both aspects.

The first aspect, genomics, has in roughly the last 25 years completely transformed the ability to investigate, assess and measure evolutionary processes. All our conclusions on the course of evolution until the advent of genomics had been indirect. It’s remarkable how many of these conclusions and findings remain relevant, but the fact is that all our ways to peer into the evolutionary process and evolutionary past had previously been indirect.

Genomics now provides us windows into the evolutionary past by which we can compare directly the DNA and protein sequences from a rapidly widening range of organisms and thereby make solid conclusions about evolution. More.

Koonin had mixed feelings about the recent Royal Society meet on rethinking evolution but from the interview, his concern seems to be that such meetings barely escape being a circus:

I think now any actively working scientist in evolutionary biology probably realizes that the Modern Synthesis or neo-Darwinism, or whatever the name is, is insufficient in the post-genomic era. This is a set of concepts that is insufficient for understanding the entirety of evolution. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s only becoming wrong if someone claims that they need nothing past the concepts in the Modern Synthesis.

A computational biologist like Koonin might be better off with a series of interdisciplinary meetings. That said, new ideas are developing whether the tenured fossils like them or not.

Royal Society Mazur is the author of Public Evolution Summit and Paradigm Shifters, for those who want to know what all the shouting is really about and why it won’t die down even if pop science writers prefer to cover fluff. The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin'

See also: Origin of life researcher Eugene Koonin on whether we can ever know what really happened


Scientists misattribute science writer’s work, to protect Darwinism’s reputation

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “NIH’s Eugene Koonin identifies key ways our approach to evolution has changed

  1. 1
  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    Did somebody press the alarm button? 🙂


  3. 3
    Dionisio says:

    Did somebody say “design”? 🙂


  4. 4
    DATCG says:

    Dionisio, thanks for the Sarah Green link. Excellent look at why Design Heuristics are best method going forward.

    “If the same principles can be applied in the design of different types of engineered systems from cars to computers or airplanes, it seems likely that some principles are shared among different biological systems or even among engineered and biological systems (Braillard, 2010).”

    Whereas blind, unguided heuristics… leave us blind.

    There’s so much wrong in conflation of findings that are real attached to modern synthesis and beyond.

    Because the root of research is bound by blind evolutionary theory, it’s entire construct is warped and defective.

    Once researchers look at this as systems approach, progress will rapidly gain.

    It’s one reason Denis Noble is leading Third Way revolution. He’s a Systems guy.

    More good reading…

    “But many biologists agree that there is a connection between the robustness of biological networks and their non-random connectivity distribution and hierarchical structure (Steinacher & Soyer, 2012). Other examples of design principles are bi-stable switches (Tyson et al. 2003) and overabundant sub-circuits in gene regulatory networks, called network motifs (Alon, 2007a, see below). To some researchers, such findings provide optimism that there is simplicity in the apparent complexity of biological systems (Csete and Doyle, 2002; Alon, 2007c).
    The quest for design principles reflects a hope that key properties of biological systems can be understood without knowing all the lower-level causal details. This is not only a point about practical convenience but also about the relevant level of analysis. The cancer biologist Lazebnik (2002) provocatively compared biomedical research strategies to the attempt to fix a radio by atomizing the system into component parts and studying these in isolation. If the malfunction of the system is connected to the orchestrated organization of parts and processes, searching for broken molecular components is bound to fail. Lazebnik therefore proposes an engineering approach to investigate how the components are wired together as a functional whole. Lazebnik’s original choice of example however also clarifies why reverse engineering is often considered a reductionist strategy. Biological systems do not function like a pre-designed radio; there is no simple and static “wiring” of a living cell. Critics are concerned that engineering approaches underestimate biological complexity when assuming that living systems are similar.”

    The irony is that Darwinist are worried engineers underestimate the complexity? When all they did was write off %98 per cent of the Genome! Based on faulty assumptions. Amazing. And then for decades now insult IDist for pointing out the complexity. LOL… you have miniature manufacturing units all primed and pumped by coordinated systems maintenance cycles internal and external components that precisely handshake Com signals for overall organization and scheduling, all dynamically shaped and dependent upon external stimuli outside the body complex. LOL.

    Times are changing rapidly. And the ID Team needs to organize even more for this revolution. Do not let Darwinist revisionist history creep in again as it always does.

    The Design Paradigm is fully up and running. It’s just not being announced to the public. Vast changes are taking place and discussions of the revolution. This is not the “Third” way, but The Way forward.

    Congrats to everyone here at UD, Discovery, etc. You’ve been out in front a long time.

  5. 5
    Dionisio says:

    Thank you for such an insightful commentary.

Leave a Reply