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.
15 Replies to “Peer reviewed paper calls for changes to Darwinism”
“seek solutions in Eigen’s concept of self-organization”
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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”.
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.
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!
Sandy at 6,
Facts and evidence haven’t stopped them before.
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.
No is not .
Indeed. The fact is that genetic instructions do not determine an organism
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.
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
Also from 16 years ago
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.
I stand by everything I said
Darwin’s Dilemma Is a documentary on the same topic and includes Stephen Meyer. I just bought the video on Amazon.
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’?