Peer reviewed paper calls for changes to Darwinism

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 17, 2023

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A peer-reviewed paper published towards the end of last year in the Elsevier journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology has a provocative title: “Neo-Darwinism Must Mutate to Survive.” …
“Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10^-50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms. [– from the paper] ” – Casey Luskin (March 15, 2023)

Much more at the link. The paper requires a fee or subscription.

And wow. Careers used to die over statements like that.

Look, evidence has nothing whatever to do with it. The researchers can have boatloads of evidence and scrupulous methods for handling it.

BUT if conclusions that cast doubt on settled, easy Darwinism are allowed to just be published and stay published, with no one punished – think of the huge swathes of sloppy Darwinian claims in the literature that could suddenly become subject to actual scrutiny… Omigosh… it would start to look like actual science…

Well, if Brown and Hullender survive, stay tuned. Here’s their abstract:

Darwinian evolution is a nineteenth century descriptive concept that itself has evolved. Selection by survival of the fittest was a captivating idea. Microevolution was biologically and empirically verified by discovery of mutations. There has been limited progress to the modern synthesis. The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution. Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) are shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms. Evolutionary biology is relevant to cancer mechanisms with significance beyond academics. We challenge evolutionary biology to advance boldly beyond the inadequacies of the modern synthesis toward a unifying theory modeled after the Grand Unified Theory in physics. This should include the possibility of a fifth force in nature. Mathematics should be rigorously applied to current and future evolutionary empirical discoveries. We present justification that molecular biology and biochemistry must evolve to aeon (life) chemistry that acknowledges the uniqueness of enzymes for life. To evolve, biological evolution must face the known deficiencies, especially the limitations of the concept survival of the fittest, and seek solutions in Eigen’s concept of self-organization, Schrödinger’s negentropy, and novel approaches.

Comments

Another suggestion for a future OP is a review of a book. One of the links above is by a husband/wife evolutionary biology pair who have written a book justifying natural Evolution. It is
Evolution: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions Book 100) 2nd Edition by Brian Charlesworth, Deborah Charlesworth
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook/dp/B072N8JR3N?ref_=ast_author_mpb The kindle edition is $7.49 thus easily purchased by all here. One of the critical reviews says that all their rationale is based on genetics. As such it is not a book on Evolution but nearly everyone who reads it will believe it is. It would be worthwhile to review it to see how the average person is duped. jerry

Jerry at 20, Please don't post baloney: "Do Catholics believe in evolution? "The Roman Catholic Church has long accepted – or at least not objected to – evolutionary theory. Pope Francis is not the first pontiff to publicly affirm that evolution is compatible with church teachings." Please avoid posting a brief two lines without supporting evidence. So, which is it" ? "long accepted" or "not objected to"? Both statements are incorrect. From Communion and Stewardship: "64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe." 69. "... But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).' relatd

Some of the above would make interesting fodder for future OPs. There are plenty more. Most of the above are just nonsense with no real support. But they are what people believe. And I don't just mean evolutionary scientists but biologist in general and the average educated person. So what is the best strategy to change their beliefs? Certainly the current ID community has no answers. They just have their heads in the sand. Aside: most of the above links were listed in one comment which was sent to moderation. I hope the moderator just deletes the original post. So the lesson learned is that too many links in a comment is a no-no. jerry

Jerry at 19, The same old same old. "Evolution is a fact..." A statement that has been debunked here on numerous posts. relatd

More topics
Do Catholics believe in evolution? The Roman Catholic Church has long accepted – or at least not objected to – evolutionary theory. Pope Francis is not the first pontiff to publicly affirm that evolution is compatible with church teachings.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/30/5-facts-about-evolution-and-religion/
What are the flaws of evolution theory? The three limitations of Darwin's theory concern the origin of DNA, the irreducible complexity of the cell, and the paucity of transitional species. Because of these limitations, the author predicts a paradigm shift away from evolution to an alternative explanation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246855/
What are the major unsolved problems of evolution? Two other major and largely unsolved problems in evolution, at the opposite extremes of the history of life, are the origin of the basic features of living cells and the origin of human consciousness. In contrast to the questions we have just been discussing, these are unique events in the history of life.
https://blog.oup.com/2015/10/evolution-difficult-problems/ jerry

Additional topics
Is evolution a proven fact? Even if evolution were, hypothetically, rejected, contested by new data, scientists would have to study hard to find an alternative natural explanation that was able to explain everything that evolution explains today plus the new data that contested it. Evolution is a fact and a well-supported scientific theory
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6428117/
What is proof that evolution happened? Perhaps the most persuasive fossil evidence for evolution is the consistency of the sequence of fossils from early to recent. Nowhere on Earth do we find, for example, mammals in Devonian (the age of fishes) strata, or human fossils coexisting with dinosaur remains.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/
Has the theory of evolution been proven? Scientists have proved one of Charles Darwin's theories of evolution for the first time -- nearly 140 years after his death. Researchers discovered mammal subspecies play a more important role in evolution than previously thought.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317215626.htm jerry

More links to evolution discussions
What is the history of the study of evolution? The idea of evolution by natural selection was proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859, but evolutionary biology, as an academic discipline in its own right, emerged during the period of the modern synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s. It was not until the 1980s that many universities had departments of evolutionary biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology
What are the 7 stages of evolution? These stages include the Great Radiance, Chemical Evolution, Celestial Evolution, Biological Evolution, Cooperative Evolution, Cultural Evolution and Enlightened Evolution. The “Seven Stages” view of cosmic evolution is informed by many authors and from extensive research in biology and human cultural evolution.
https://epicofevolution.com/slide/seven-stages.html
What are the 5 theories of evolution? The five theories were: (1) evolution as such, (2) common descent, (3) gradualism, (4) multiplication of species, and (5) natural selection. Chapter 25. Darwin's Five Theories of Evolution From the book The Darwinian Heritage Ernst Mayr
No link available jerry

But in looking at the search engines, they provided a lot of summary pieces on Evolution. Here are some. Maybe the source for OPs looking at the weak points of these arguments.
What are the 4 foundations of evolution? There are four forces of evolution: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection. Mutations create new genetic variations in a gene pool. Gene flow and genetic drift alter allele frequencies in a gene pool
https://www.ck12.org/biology/Forces-of-Evolution/lesson/Forces-of-Evolution-BIO/
What is the foundation of evolution theory? The core idea of modern evolutionary theory is that all life is descended from a common ancestor. Though the theory garners much scrutiny and skepticism, it can be explained in part through the simple mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection takes advantage of the variability that exists within the genome.
https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/evolutionshorts/category/foundations-of-evolution/
What is the scientific theory of evolution? evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory I posted some these yesterday but they were not published because I believe there were too many links in. the original post. So I am posting them piecemeal. jerry

I have been going through OPs from 16-18 years ago and am finding interesting things that were said then. In the process I have been accessing search engines trying to find article referenced from that time. A lot of the links from then are dead but some of the titles are available through other links. One was from a Catholic priest who wrote an assessment of evolution in 1909. His name was Herman Muckerman. I had trouble finding the original but here it is
Evolution (History and Scientific Foundation)
https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tce/e/evolution-history-and-scientific-foundation.html Don’t recommend reading it other than for curiosity as to what was known and speculated on in 1909. jerry

I have been going through OPs from 16-18 years ago and am finding interesting things that were said then. In the process I have been accessing search engines trying to find article referenced from that time. A lot of the links from then are dead but some of the titles are available through other links. One was from a Catholic priest who wrote an assessment of evolution in 1909. His name was Herman Muckerman. I had trouble finding the original but here it is
Evolution (History and Scientific Foundation)
https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tce/e/evolution-history-and-scientific-foundation.html Don't recommend reading it other than for curiosity as to what was known and speculated on in 1909. But in looking at the search engines, they provided a lot of summary pieces on Evolution. Here are some
What are the 4 foundations of evolution? There are four forces of evolution: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection. Mutations create new genetic variations in a gene pool. Gene flow and genetic drift alter allele frequencies in a gene pool
https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory
What is the foundation of evolution theory? The core idea of modern evolutionary theory is that all life is descended from a common ancestor. Though the theory garners much scrutiny and skepticism, it can be explained in part through the simple mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection takes advantage of the variability that exists within the genome.
https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/evolutionshorts/category/foundations-of-evolution/
What is the scientific theory of evolution? evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory
What is the history of the study of evolution? The idea of evolution by natural selection was proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859, but evolutionary biology, as an academic discipline in its own right, emerged during the period of the modern synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s. It was not until the 1980s that many universities had departments of evolutionary biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology
What are the 7 stages of evolution? These stages include the Great Radiance, Chemical Evolution, Celestial Evolution, Biological Evolution, Cooperative Evolution, Cultural Evolution and Enlightened Evolution. The “Seven Stages” view of cosmic evolution is informed by many authors and from extensive research in biology and human cultural evolution.
This is a new one for me. https://epicofevolution.com/slide/seven-stages.html
What are the 5 theories of evolution? The five theories were: (1) evolution as such, (2) common descent, (3) gradualism, (4) multiplication of species, and (5) natural selection.

Is evolution a proven fact? Even if evolution were, hypothetically, rejected, contested by new data, scientists would have to study hard to find an alternative natural explanation that was able to explain everything that evolution explains today plus the new data that contested it. Evolution is a fact and a well-supported scientific theory
It is a fact but any theory explaining it is now well-supported.
What is proof that evolution happened? Perhaps the most persuasive fossil evidence for evolution is the consistency of the sequence of fossils from early to recent. Nowhere on Earth do we find, for example, mammals in Devonian (the age of fishes) strata, or human fossils coexisting with dinosaur remains.
This testifies to the fact but certainly not to how.
What is evolution explained simply? Evolution is the process by which species adapt over time in response to their changing environment
Ok, nothing controversial here but begs the question of how major changes take place.
Has the theory of evolution been proven? Scientists have proved one of Charles Darwin's theories of evolution for the first time -- nearly 140 years after his death. Researchers discovered mammal subspecies play a more important role in evolution than previously thought.
Worth an OP. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317215626.htm
Is evolution a fact or fiction? Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.
Have they? Worth an OP. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6428117/ https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory
How is DNA proof of evolution? DNA is used as evidence for evolution because it shows that all species have one common ancestor. The more closely related the two species are, the more similar their DNA is, indicating they evolved from a recent common ancestor.
This reasoning above is specious https://homework.study.com/explanation/how-is-dna-used-as-evidence-for-evolution.html
Do Catholics believe in evolution? The Roman Catholic Church has long accepted – or at least not objected to – evolutionary theory. Pope Francis is not the first pontiff to publicly affirm that evolution is compatible with church teachings.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/30/5-facts-about-evolution-and-religion/
What are the flaws of evolution theory? The three limitations of Darwin's theory concern the origin of DNA, the irreducible complexity of the cell, and the paucity of transitional species. Because of these limitations, the author predicts a paradigm shift away from evolution to an alternative explanation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246855/ Some omissions and wrong placings of links. jerry

Sandy: DNA just take orders (to turn on /off genes , to move around/shuffle nonrandom parts of its billions of letters ) from some mysterious control room that is not part of DNA. If you don't know where the 'control room' is or how it tells DNA what to do then . . . how do you know there is such a 'control room'? JVL

Darwin’s *Doubt*
Thank you. Darwin's Dilemma Is a documentary on the same topic and includes Stephen Meyer. I just bought the video on Amazon. jerry

Jerry @12: Darwin's *Doubt* AnimatedDust

You can’t do that because not DNA is in charge of life
Never said it was but it has some relevance for aspects of life. The objective is to test Darwinian Evolution and what I have proposed will do it. What causes body design is something else. I was a big advocate almost 2 years ago by pushing a non DNA source for body designs based on the ideas of Stephen Blume. You were part of the conversation on the following OP. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/ten-or-so-anti-intelligent-design-books-you-should-read/#comment-733527 Jonathan Wells introduced the topic to ID over 20 years ago and Stephen Meyer discussed it in detail in Darwin's Dilemma. There is another thread just below this one on this very topic. I haven't read it yet https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bioelectric-code-gains-new-recognition-as-body-organizer-and-form-of-intelligence/ Also from 16 years ago
In the Design of Life, they say that if the DNA of one species replaces the genes in the egg of another species, gestation tries to produce the species of the egg and not the species from which the DNA comes from. Eventually the embryo will die when the right proteins are not available. So something outside the DNA is mainly controlling gestation and is probably the egg itself. This must be Wells writing because he has a background in development.
https://uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/today-at-design-of-life-channel-your-inner-fish/#comment-158919
No is not .
Are you implying that we do not understand genetics? There is always something new to learn about an area of science but genetics has a fairly defined subject manner with mechanisms for understanding change. ID has no issue with genetics. If you want to test Darwinian Evolution, I have provided a way to do so. I have been proposing such an approach for years. Here is a thread on it from 6 years ago but I brought this approach up before then. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-nylon-eating-bacteria-show-that-new-functional-information-is-easy-to-evolve/#comment-631468 I stand by everything I said jerry

Sandy @10
DNA just take orders (to turn on /off genes , to move around/shuffle nonrandom parts of its billions of letters ) from some mysterious control room that is not part of DNA.
Indeed. The fact is that genetic instructions do not determine an organism
Moreover, there are flying and crawling creatures with the same genomic sequence. A monarch butterfly and its larva, for example. Nor is this an isolated case. A swimming, “water-breathing” tadpole and a leaping, air-breathing frog are creatures with the same DNA. Then there is the starfish: its bilaterally symmetric larva swims freely by means of cilia, after which it settles onto the ocean floor and metamorphoses into the familiar form of the adult. This adult, bearing the same DNA as the larva, exhibits an altogether different, radially symmetric (star-like) body plan. [Talbott]
Origenes

Jerry Let’s define a species as a combination of allele sets.
You can't do that because not DNA is in charge of life. DNA just take orders (to turn on /off genes , to move around/shuffle nonrandom parts of its billions of letters ) from some mysterious control room that is not part of DNA. That control room gives orders to DNA according to informations that are received from the cell and from activities from external membrane.
Now basic genetics is well understood
No is not . Sandy

Sandy at 6, Facts and evidence haven't stopped them before. relatd

[sarcasm on] Hey, I have a new Theory of Gravity! Over 4 billion years, space-time increasingly sags under an accumulation of mass-energy. In 8-10 billion years the sun will significantly increase in gravity thereby attracting and accumulating more mass, eventually evolving into a black hole. I'll call this theory, Gravitational Evolution. The evidence for the GE theory is all around us, which makes it a "scientific fact" and disproves the existence of God. Besides Gravitational Evolution is parallel to Biological Evolution and has thousands of published scientific papers describing gravity. Only illiterate, anti-scientific people argue that gravity doesn't exist! [sarcasm off] -Q Querius

Darwinism will never be replaced because is not testable so can’t be proved as being wrong
But it is most certainly testable and the following thought process is an attempt to breakdown what exists and thus what has happened and thus could be tested. If precise language is used along with common accepted definitions, it is possible to break down exactly what Darwinian Evolution supposedly involves. Then it becomes testable. But first it is necessary to define what a species is because that is what is claimed to change. Let’s define a species as a combination of allele sets. There are potentially tens of thousands in each species. Each set represents one gene and all its variants are just the alleles that have been found and which make up the set. These alleles code for the various proteins that make up the elements of the cell for the species. Now basic genetics is well understood and just says that various combinations of these alleles make up each individual member of the population. These various combinations cause the differences between each member of a species. Some could be the same as in identical twins. Not hard to understand. Darwinian Evolution postulates that somehow new gene sets arise and uses the term “variation” to explain this process. The variation is not applied to the current alleles in each allele set though that happens too. But that is just genetics, well understood by current science and 100% endorsed by ID. Darwinian Evolution is not just new alleles, it is new sets of alleles. So that species A and A1 are initially identical except for one gene set. Now in reality it is much more complicated than this, but this is an attempt to break down what they are claiming because no book on evolutionary biology does. If they did, the game would have been given up long ago. If in fact Darwinian Evolution took place, there must have been a process similar to what I am describing. And this can be tested. Because new allele sets or genes don’t just magically appear. They take thousands if not millions of years to appear or emerge. That is what is testable. But no one wants to test it Aside: This is meant to be a framework for understanding how naturalized Evolution must have occurred and obviously this explanation can be improved. But until a common framework appears people just assert things and nothing more. But as I said neither side wants to test the obvious. Each side is afraid of the answers. Aside2: ID has already won this battle because they have the combinatorial problem on their side. The other side has all the money and resources but won’t test it. All they do is assert what cannot be true but ironically is very testable. jerry

Darwinism will never be replaced because is not testable so can't be proved as being wrong(or true for that matter) . Darwinism is supposed to be true by blind faith --that is called "scientific evidence". Sandy

While, it doubtful that self-organization is a valid "force" according to the Standard Model, the scientific bankruptcy of Darwinism is acknowledged by these researchers. There's currently zero evidence for a fifth force and even gravity is doubtful since gravitons have never been detected: https://phys.org/news/2019-11-fundamental-havent.html It would be better for science to simply jettison what's obviously been a failed and anachronistic theory used to justify racism, European colonialism, and eugenic genocides. We should start over without injecting ANY ideology into science. This is precisely the strength of Intelligent Design in that it takes no position on the identity of the Designer. -Q Querius

They are not talking about “modification”, Seversky, they are looking for a replacement, they have enough data; they don’t propose your “new data” hopes and dreams. They point out the high implausibility in macro-evolution by Darwinist mechanisms, they are falsifying Darwinism in effect and suggesting a “fifth force”, a reiteration of the “superior intelligence” behind the order of the universe. Belfast

Sev: "I think even the hardest of hardline evolutionary, atheist materialists accept that the theory is still a work-in-progress and will require modification as new data arrives." You tell em Seversky. Darwinism is not a science but is a religion for atheists. Anything and everything within Darwinian theory can be forfeited save for the religion of atheistic naturalism itself.
There Is No Settled “Theory of Evolution” - Cornelius Hunter - November 10, 2022 Excerpt: What is evolution? The origin of species by: natural selection, random causes, common descent, gradualism, etc. Right? Wrong. Too often that is what is taught, but it is false. That’s according to evolutionists themselves. A typical example? See, “The study of evolution is fracturing — and that may be a good thing,” by Lund University biologist Erik Svensson, writing at The Conversation. Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature. So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one. Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses … the list goes on. But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don’t have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now. There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false. - Dr. Cornelius Hunter - PhD. Biophysics https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/there-is-no-settled-theory-of-evolution/
bornagain77

I think even the hardest of hardline evolutionary, atheist materialists accept that the theory is still a work-in-progress and will require modification as new data arrives. Still, it's kind of a microbiologist and a professor of mechanical engineering (Salem hypothesis?) to remind evolutionary biologists of what they might expect. Seversky

"seek solutions in Eigen’s concept of self-organization" Oh no. Andrew asauber

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply