"Biological evolution requires an emergent, self-organizing principle" - review

The paper "Biological evolution requires an emergent, self-organizing principle" by Michael C. Price and colleagues argues that Darwinian evolution, as currently understood, cannot account for the complex, multifactorial changes that are required for speciation events. They propose that a self-organizing principle is necessary to explain how these changes can occur.

The authors begin by reviewing the evidence for the complexity of biological systems. They point out that even the simplest cells are composed of millions of molecules, and that these molecules interact in complex ways. They argue that it is impossible for these complex systems to have arisen by chance, and that some kind of self-organizing principle is necessary to explain their emergence.

The authors then go on to discuss the limitations of Darwinian evolution. They point out that Darwinian evolution is a slow process, and that it is not clear how it could produce the rapid changes that are required for speciation events. They also argue that Darwinian evolution is not able to explain the origin of complex molecular structures, such as ribosomes and ATP synthase.

The authors conclude by proposing that a self-organizing principle is necessary to explain the complex, multifactorial changes that are required for speciation events. They suggest that this principle may be a "bioelectromagnetic" field/principle that emerges in living cells. They argue that this field/principle could provide the necessary order and organization for the complex molecular interactions that are required for biological evolution.

The paper by Price and colleagues has been met with mixed reactions. Some scientists have praised the paper for its insights into the limitations of Darwinian evolution, while others have criticized the paper. However, the paper has sparked a renewed interest in the role of self-organization in biological evolution, and it is likely to continue to be debated for some time to come.

Here are some of the key points of the paper:

• Darwinian evolution cannot account for the complex, multifactorial changes that are required for speciation events.

• A self-organizing principle is necessary to explain how these changes can occur.

• This principle may be a "bioelectromagnetic" field/principle that emerges in living cells.

• The paper has been met with mixed reactions, but it has sparked a renewed interest in the role of self-organization in biological evolution.

---

Article snippets:

In this perspective review, we assess fundamental flaws in Darwinian evolution, including its modern versions

Fixed mutations ‘explain’ microevolution but not macroevolution including speciation events and the origination of all the major body plans of the Cambrian explosion

Complex, multifactorial change is required for speciation events and inevitably requires self-organization beyond what is accomplished by known mechanisms

The assembly of ribosomes and ATP synthase are specific examples

We propose their origin is a model for what is unexplained in biological evolution.

Probability of evolution is modeled in Section 9 and values are absurdly improbable.

Speciation and higher taxonomic changes become exponentially less probable as the number of required, genetically-based events increase

Also, the power required of the proposed selection mechanism (survival of the fittest) is nil for any biological advance requiring multiple changes, because they regularly occur in multiple generations (different genomes) and would not be selectively conserved by the concept survival of the fittest (a concept ultimately centered on the individual).

Thus, survival of the fittest cannot ‘explain’ the origin of the millions of current and extinct species.

We also focus on the inadequacies of laboratory chemistry to explain the complex, required biological self-organization seen in cells.

There are ramifications for philosophy, science, and religion.

Physics and mathematics must be more strongly integrated with biology and integration should receive dedicated funding with special emphasis for medical applications

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck1

Previously, we have challenged concepts required for Darwinian evolution, including its modern forms

Unfortunately, challenges to the theory (textbooks say the fact) of evolution are almost universally discouraged, even ridiculed and denied, by main-stream biology

C. K. Chesterton (1874–1936) was an early challenger of evolution. In: Darwinism is An attack upon thought itself (Chesterton, 2018) he argued against the worship of science: “Things that the old science at least would frankly have rejected as miracles are hourly being asserted by the new science” [emphasis added]. Consider the view of Nobel Laureate George Wald

Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the creation, are left with nothing … spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are … Time is in fact the hero of the plot … the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain … time performs the miracles.

The probability of evolution by mutation and selection has been calculated to be absurdly improbable by many including Eigen who, however, focused his conclusions primarily on the origin of life

These probability calculations have been regularly dismissed by materialists as ‘back-of-the-envelope calculations’ followed by a statement equivalent to Wald's “Yet we are here” (see directly above) thus, the probability is one

We assume that the probability calculated as one is exempted from the category of ‘back-of-the-envelope

A typical example of the materialist's response to probabilities is found in the SMR blog Modern science, philosophy and religion (Do probability arguments refute evolution, 2022) which concluded, in part: “In a larger context, one must question whether highly technical issues such as biomolecular structure or calculations of probabilities have any place in a discussion of modern philosophy or theology.”

We do not concur with this opinion and our probabilities are appropriately constructed with clearly stated assumptions.

We hope that the reader, including those without detailed knowledge of either molecular biology or advanced mathematics, can see that the absurd improbability of speciation via evolution by mutation and selection demands a scientific response (

Another example is David Quammen's book (Bahn, 2018). John Horgan reviewed this book in The Scientific American in the article: Was Darwin Wrong?

He stated: “Quammen does for evolutionary biology what Dennis Overbye did for cosmology … both writers capture the thrills and messiness of research into nature's deepest mysteries.”

He concluded: “To answer the question posed in my headline: Nah. Far from being wrong, Darwin is as right as ever when it comes to his big idea, natural selection.” We disagree.

D. Noble (2020) has balanced views: “Of course, there is much else that Darwin contributed

Noble also commented extensively in: What Future for Evolutionary Biology?

Something has gone deeply wrong in biology … All parts of the Neo-Darwinian discourse encourage the use and acceptance of the other parts … it expresses the difficulty of trying to ‘break out from its attractive simplicity’ as it is still taught in schools and universities.

He made a comparison of the responses of biologists for evolution and physicists for relativity: “The general principle of relativity is precisely the abandonment of an unjustified privileged viewpoint.”

We affirm that the doctrine of evolution by chance events is both sustained and taught from a privileged perspective, and this is harmful to the body of science.

An example of over-statement is Science and Evolution by Russo and André

Evolution is both a fact and … the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every situation … the fact that we are able to construct fairly consistent phylogenetic trees using distinct genetic markers … is only explained by evolutionary theory … the processes that drive evolution … are observable facts."

There is evidence of hopeful progress. The ‘Comment’ published in Nature in 2014 (Wray and Hoekstra, 2014) was intitled: “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Kevin Laland and 7 colleagues responded “Yes, urgently. Without an extended evolutionary framework, the theory neglects key processes

In 2022, Paul Layer clarified the current status of the doctrine of evolution by chance events with the article: Post-genomics, Evo-Devo and the recurrence of Teleologic thought (Layer, 2022). He stated: “The post-genomic era raises questions about neo-Darwinian genetic determinism … skepticism about the so-called standard evolutionary theory became audible …

Ernst Mayr [wrote] ‘the individual mutates, and the population evolves’ …