{"id":8792,"date":"2010-12-13T00:00:21","date_gmt":"2010-12-12T23:00:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=8792"},"modified":"2010-12-04T15:55:48","modified_gmt":"2010-12-04T14:55:48","slug":"darwinism-dead-at-150","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2010\/12\/darwinism-dead-at-150\/","title":{"rendered":"Darwinism Dead at 150"},"content":{"rendered":"

Darwinism, or the original theory of evolution proposed by Darwin 150 years ago in his\u00a0Origin of Species, in which he introduced the idea of natural selection, was laid to rest about a half century ago when it was succeeded by the neo-Darwinian theory involving genetic mutation and natural selection, also known as the modern synthesis. Since then an endless stream of textbooks, courses, media presentations and \u201cgenetic toolkits\u201d[1]<\/a> have been used to indoctrinate students and the public with these ideas causing many to give up their religious conviction in God or the soul as integral to their understanding of life.However, with the advancement of science, especially in the field of biology, more detailed knowledge of the genes and genome have revealed a far more complex dynamic relation between the genome and phoneme and its environment than can be explained by appeal to simple genetic mechanisms. This has been a dawning realization among biologists during the last few decades, but the \u201cevolution industry\u201d (Suzan Mazur,\u00a0The Altenberg 16: An Expos\u00e9 Of The Evolution Industry\u00a0(2010)) has kept the public in the dark about the real scientific overthrow of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Now all of that is about to change.<\/p>\n

Scientist were invited to attend a 2008 conference in Altenberg, Austria, to address this critical junction: \u201cThe challenge seems clear to us: how do we make sense, conceptually, of the astounding advances in biology since the 1940s, when the Modern Synthesis was taking shape? Not only we have witnessed the molecular revolution, from the discovery of the structure of DNA to the genomic era, we are also grappling with the increasing feeling \u2013 for example as reflected by an almost comical proliferation of \u201c-omics,\u201d that we just don\u2019t have the theoretical and analytical tools necessary to make sense of the bewildering diversity and complexity of living organisms.\u201d<\/p>\n

A senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine,\u00a0and\u00a0National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, has published two peer reviewed papers on the current status of the \u201cmodern evolutionary synthesis,\u201d wherein he states, \u201cThe edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.\u201d [Eugene Koonin,\u00a0The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?”\u00a0Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475] and [Eugene Koonin,\u00a0\u00a0Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics,\u00a0Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034].<\/p>\n

From the abstract of his second paper: \u201cComparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the\u00a0Origin of Species\u00a0in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept.[2]<\/a> An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or \u2018forest\u2019 of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The concept that natural selection provides the foundation for evolutionary change has long been challenged for its failure to explain how different forms arises in nature, but only how they may be favored once they do arise. Through the work of scientists like Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta [Theoretical aspects of population genetics, Motoo Kimura and Tomoko Ohta (1971)] and others, it has been concluded both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.<\/p>\n

In this regard, Dr. Koonin adds (see above): \u201cThere is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.\u201d Purifying evolution refers to the cell\u2019s coordinated elimination of harmful mutations.<\/p>\n

Allen MacNeill [teaching biology at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY] writes on his blog[3]<\/a>: \u201cKimura, Ohta, Jukes, and Crow dropped a monkey wrench into the \u201cengine\u201d at the heart of the modern synthesis \u2014 natural selection \u2014 and then Gould and Lewontin finished the job with their famous paper on\u00a0The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm.\u201d\u00a0[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Suzan Mazur, laying down the gauntlet recently wrote\u00a0[5]<\/a>: \u201cLet\u2019s begin with the facts: The days of evolutionary science being an exclusive old boys club are over. The public is a party to the discourse now and knows the emphasis in evolutionary science is on VISION and not textbook rules. And while Rutgers philosopher Jerry Fodor\u2019s and University of Arizona cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini\u2019s new book, \u201cWhat Darwin Got Wrong.\u201d does not showcase amateur evolutionary theories, the authors do indeed reach out to the public \u201chop[ing] to convince\u201d through Fodor\u2019s sublime ability to argue a point and Piattelli-Palmarini\u2019s wit, charm and biophysics savvy that we as a people have got to move on because the central story of the theory of evolution \u2014 natural selection \u2014 is wrong in a way that \u201ccan\u2019t be repaired\u201d. They are careful not to say what the public also knows, i.e., that a critical mass of people is simply tired of Darwin\u2019s vision. It\u2019s out of vogue.\u201d<\/p>\n

And, as if to add yet another nail to the coffin: \u201cUnless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.\u201d \u2013 Stuart Newman (\u00a0professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College in Valhalla, NY) [6]<\/a><\/p>\n

It was Darwin, himself who explained how he should be buried: \u201cIf it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.\u201d\u00a0[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

Suzan Mazur writes, \u201cStuart Newman\u2019s now got a seductive theory about the origin of form of all 35 or so animal phyla\u2013\u201dit happened abruptly\u201d not gradually, roughly 600 million years ago via a \u201cpattern language\u201d\u2013which serves as the centerpiece of the \u201cExtended Synthesis.\u201d” [8]<\/a><\/p>\n

While what is being called the \u201cExtended Synthesis\u201d does not outright dispense with natural selection and gene mutations, it subordinates them to minor roles. And while the concept of evolution itself is certainly not yet rejected by these scientists, the gradual march of science is demonstrating how scientific understanding is constantly subject to error and revision because of its inherently finite, incomplete view of reality.<\/p>\n

In order to assuage the feelings of the Darwinian ideologues like Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education in the US, and others the term \u201cexpanded synthesis,\u201d is being promoted with the assurance that neo-Darwinian mechanisms are still being brought into the picture, although in a subordinate way, in order to ease their transition into what is not only a change in thinking about life, but a change in how to think about life in a non-mechanistic, dynamic, and holistic way, e.g. Complexity Philosophy\u2019 [9]<\/a><\/p>\n

Vedantic science does not suffer the fate of finitistic science but has\u00a0 proposed for millennia that the cause of the diversity of species is due to the underlying variety of conscious living entities that manifest such bodies as indicated by theistic Samkhya philosophy. Modern science has not yet progressed to the finer level of understanding that requires advancement beyond a purely materialistic ontology. It must be properly appreciated that Vedantic knowledge is also systematic, scientific and rational but requires a different epistemic-ontological grounding than the impersonal\/materialist paradigm assumes.<\/p>\n

And it is\u00a0condescending to think that the ancient cultures were somehow more primitive, mythological, or somehow less informed about nature and reality than modern scientists. The chronological conceit of authors like Jean Gebser, Brian Swmimme and others think modern man to be superior to all previous civilizations that they know of based on a narrow materialist, Eurocentric education and the hegemony that the history of civilizations from that perspective has gained. Of course, there are civilizations mentioned in the Vedas that they simply have no knowledge of or they consider mythological. Nonetheless, their ideas are simply not true when considered from the conscious basis upon which reality is grounded according to Vedic understanding, from which a strong case may be made for their superior advancement. Much evidence of those civilizations has been lost through the course of history but what remains in the form of sacred literature has never been excelled.<\/p>\n

Descartes laid the philosophical groundwork for the modern scientific period by separating subjective cognition from objective bodies, thereby also dividing epistemology from ontology reducing knowing to indifferent \u201cobservation.\u201d This is the perspective of consciousness and its object, of which material science only imperfectly studies the object. In reality these two are not separated but dialectically related and sublated in the higher comprehending original unity of self-consciousness. Physical scientists fail to study these higher categories of reality and are therefore left with an incomplete understanding of a mere superficial nature that is inadequate to comprehend the core truth.<\/p>\n

But scientific, rational inquiry will not stop until a comprehensive idea is reached that is coherent with the full range of our knowledge of life. That spectrum of knowledge is not circumscribed merely by chemistry, physics and mathematics. ThusVedanta-sutra\u00a0advises, that you will have to continue your search,\u00a0athatho brahma jijnasa, until you reach\u00a0brahma, the underlying spiritual source,\u00a0janmady asy yatah, the fountainhead where all inquiry will reach its purpose. Then beyond knowledgeBhagavatam\u00a0will guide us to the ultimate search –\u00a0raso vai sah,\u00a0 the search for our highest fulfillment, sweetness and love.<\/p>\n

References:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> http:\/\/www.pbs.org\/wgbh\/evolution\/library\/03\/4\/l_034_04.html<\/a><\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Will Provine, Tisch distinguished professor of Paleontology at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, in an interview\u00a0states<\/a>, \u201cWe\u2019ve discovered that Darwin\u2019s idea of evolution by descent\u00a0from comment ancestors does not really work well as soon as you get behind multi-cellular organisms\u2026.and our methods phylogeny reconstruction are so poor, that we will never have a tree of life that goes back to the origin of life.\u201d<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> http:\/\/evolutionlist.blogspot.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Stephen Jay Gould\u00a0and\u00a0Richard C. Lewontin.\u00a0\u201cThe Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme\u201d<\/a> Proc. Roy. Soc. London B\u00a0205\u00a0(1979) pp. 581-598<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> http:\/\/www.scoop.co.nz\/stories\/HL1003\/S00236.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Stuart Newman, Evolution: The Public\u2019s Problem, and the Scientists\u2019 (2008).<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Charles Darwin,\u00a0The Origin of the Species Ch. 6. (1859)<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> http:\/\/www.archaeology.org\/online\/interviews\/newman.html<\/a><\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> http:\/\/www.calresco.org\/lucas\/compute.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 scienceandscientist.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The concept that natural selection provides the foundation for evolutionary change has long been challenged for its failure to explain how different forms arises in nature, but only how they may be favored once they do arise. Through the work of scientists like Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta [Theoretical aspects of population genetics, Motoo Kimura and Tomoko Ohta (1971)] and others, it has been concluded both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms\u2026. It was Darwin, himself who explained how he should be buried: \u201cIf it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[145],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8792\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}