Brief list of NeoDarwinism failures.


Neo-Darwinism is a modern synthesis of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution with Mendelian genetics. It is the most widely accepted theory of biological evolution. Over the last ten years, 35% of biologists have come to doubt its mechanism.

Here are some points of failure of neo-Darwinism.

  • It cannot explain the origin of new genes. Neodarwinism relies on natural selection to act on existing genes, but it cannot explain how new genes arise.

  • It cannot explain the rapid evolution of complex traits. Some traits, such as the eye, appear to have evolved rapidly. Neo-Darwinism does not provide a reasonable explanation for how this could happen.

  • It cannot explain the evolution of cooperation. Neo-Darwinism predicts that organisms should always compete with each other, but there are many examples of cooperation in nature.

  • It can not explain alternative splicing.

  • It failed to predict the function of Junk DNA. This is probably it's greatest failure 

Here are some additional points of failure of neo-Darwinism:

  • It cannot explain the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion was a rapid evolution that occurred about 540 million years ago. During this time, many new animal species appeared, including the vertebrates. Neo-Darwinism does not provide a reasonable explanation for how this could have happened.

  • It cannot explain the evolution of epigenetics. Epigenetics studies how genes can be turned on and off without changing the DNA sequence. Neo-Darwinism does not consider epigenetics, which may be a significant shortcoming.

Overall, neo-Darwinism is a popular theory, but it is far from perfect. There are many aspects of evolution that it cannot explain. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Sequence: The Epigenetic "Fingers" That Play the DNA Keyboard

Image
Imagine the keyboard itself is not a standard piano keyboard, but a modular synthesizer, capable of producing an almost infinite array of sounds. The DNA sequence, then, represents the fundamental building blocks of this synthesizer, the raw materials from which all sounds are generated. Epigenetics, our "fingers," manipulates these building blocks, adjusting parameters like volume, timbre, and rhythm, transforming the raw potential of the DNA sequence into a symphony of cellular functions. We can further refine the "fingers" analogy. Consider that each finger represents a distinct epigenetic mechanism: DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA.  DNA methylation, for instance, might be the "index finger," capable of precisely silencing specific genes, like muting individual keys on the synthesizer. Histone modifications, the "middle finger," could represent the ability to adjust the accessibility of the DN...
Read more

Rewriting the Rules: Epigenomic Mutation Bias Challenges Randomness in Evolution

Image
This research challenges the long-held dogma that mutations occur randomly, irrespective of their consequences, by demonstrating a clear, epigenome-mediated mutation bias in Arabidopsis thaliana . The study meticulously unveils how mutation rates are not uniform across the genome but are significantly reduced in functionally constrained regions, particularly within gene bodies and essential genes. This discovery fundamentally alters our understanding of evolutionary processes, suggesting that mutation is not a purely directionless force. "Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana" This opening statement encapsulates the core finding: mutation rates are not random but reflect epigenetic pressures. The authors demonstrate that mutations are less frequent in crucial genomic regions, directly contradicting the prevailing theory of random mutation. This observation suggests an active mechanism that minimizes deleterious mutations in essentia...
Read more

Why are Christian philosophers running towards Darwin while biologists are "running" away?

Image
As nature reveals the strength of epigenetics and the weakness of Neo-Darwinism, biologists are “running” away from the long-standing accepted theory. In The Federalist , April 2019, Benjamin Dierker reviews “Why one-third of biologists now question Darwinism”: "Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s Theory inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.” Dierker continues, “The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution.  Rather, they find problems in the lack of explanatory power of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.” For 40 years, scientists calculated natural se...
Read more