Reasons scientists hold on to NeoDarwinism even though they suspect it is wrong

-


"The theoretical biologist Waddington, father of epigenetics, coined the term "COWDUNG" to refer to the Conventional Wisdom of the Dominant Group. He argued that COWDUNG can be a major obstacle to scientific progress, as it can lead to the suppression of new ideas and the uncritical acceptance of old ones."

"The issue at stake,” says Arlin Stoltzfus, an evolutionary theorist at the IBBR research institute in Maryland, “is who is going to write the grand narrative of biology. And underneath all this lurks another, deeper question: whether the grand story of neo darwinism is a fairytale we need to finally give up?" - Do we need a new theory of Evolution

Here are many reasons why scientists hold on to Neo-Darwinism even though they suspect it's wrong:

  1. Because it is the dominant paradigm. Neo-Darwinism has been the prevailing theory of evolution for over a century, and it is taught in schools and universities around the world. As a result, most scientists are trained to think within the Neo-Darwinian framework, and it is difficult to admit they are wrong.

  2. Because it has been widely used to explain evolution. Neo-Darwinism has addressed many aspects of evolution, such as the diversity of life, the adaptation of organisms to their environment, and the formation of new species. However, it has also been unable to explain countless other aspects of evolution, such as the origin of complex biological structures and the sudden appearance of new traits in the fossil record.

  3. Because there is no widely accepted alternative theory. Despite its shortcomings, Neo-Darwinism is still widely accepted. There are a number of alternative theories like the extended evolutionary synthesis, supported by the scientific community but NeoDarwinism has a slight lead in acceptance.

  4. Because it is dominant in the literature. Neo-Darwinism is supported by a variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, genetics, and molecular biology. However,  this evidence has been called into question, and there is also evidence that contradicts Neo-Darwinism. This is especially the case in the last 20 years due to epigenetics and megagenomics.

  5. Because it is useful for making predictions. Neo-Darwinism has been used to make predictions about the evolution of organisms. For example, scientists have used Neo-Darwinism to predict how antibiotic resistance will evolve in bacteria, and how new species will arise in response to climate change. However we now know that antibiotic resistance is due to NonDarwinian horizontal gene transport of transposons.

  6. Because it is compatible with a materialistic worldview. Neo-Darwinism is compatible with a materialistic worldview, which is the dominant worldview in science today. Materialistic worldviews deny the existence of any non-physical entities, such as God or a soul. Neo-Darwinism seeks to provide a materialistic explanation for the origin and evolution of life, without the need for any non-physical causes. Although human exceptionalism clearly challenges this.

  7. Because it is still supported by the scientific establishment. The scientific establishment is the group of scientists who have the most influence over the funding of research and the publication of scientific papers. The scientific establishment is generally supportive of Neo-Darwinism, and this can make it difficult for scientists who challenge Neo-Darwinism to get their research published and funded.

  8. Because it is personally and professionally rewarding to believe in Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is a theory that is both intellectually stimulating and emotionally satisfying. It provides a simple and elegant explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on Earth. For many scientists, believing in Neo-Darwinism is a source of great personal and professional satisfaction. Richard Dawkins says, "Darwin made him an intellectually fulfilled atheist." In essence this belief is a quasi religious one.

  9. Because it is difficult to admit that one has been wrong. It can be difficult for scientists to admit that they have been wrong about Neo-Darwinism. After all, they have invested a lot of time and effort into learning and teaching this theory. Admitting that Neo-Darwinism is wrong would mean that they would have to rethink their entire understanding of evolution.

  10. Because it is easier to go along with the crowd. It is often easier for scientists to go along with the crowd and believe in Neo-Darwinism, rather than challenge the dominant paradigm. This is especially true for young scientists who are just starting out in their careers. Challenging Neo-Darwinism could jeopardize their chances of getting funding and publishing their research.

It is important to note that not all scientists hold onto Neo-Darwinism even though they know it's wrong. There is a growing number of scientists who are challenging Neo-Darwinism and proposing alternative theories of evolution. However, these scientists are often marginalized by the scientific establishment.

It is also important to note that the evidence against Neo-Darwinism is growing. For example, there is now a lot of evidence that shows that DNA can be changed by non-physical factors, such as consciousness and intention. This evidence challenges the Neo-Darwinian view that DNA is only changed by random mutations.

Despite the growing evidence against Neo-Darwinism, it is likely to remain the dominant paradigm for many years to come. This is because it is supported by the scientific establishment and it is compatible with a materialistic worldview. However, as the evidence against Neo-Darwinism continues to grow, more and more scientists will be forced to reconsider their beliefs.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

No, the EES is not just a add on to Neo-Darwinism aka the Modern Synthesis

-
Image
" The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis fthe theory of evolution) are, if not outright overturned replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (EES). So, not to mince words , the Modern Synthesis is gone" -Eugene Koonin, an evolutionary biologist (Cited by over 270,000 evolutionary scientists.) The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) represents a significant departure from the traditional neo-Darwinian framework, also known as the Modern Synthesis . While both theories aim to explain evolutionary change, they differ fundamentally in their underlying mechanisms and the roles they assign to various biological processes. A crucial point of divergence lies in the interpretation and application of the term " evolutionary ," particularly concerning the incorporation of epigenetic mechanisms....
Read more

Is the random mutational model of evolution on its way out?

-
Image
While the random mutational model of evolution has long been a cornerstone of evolutionary biology, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) and the study of epigenetics are challenging its core assumptions. The Random Mutational Model and Its Limitations The traditional view of evolution, often called the Modern Synthesis or neo-Darwinism , emphasizes random genetic mutations as the primary source of variation. Natural selection then acts upon this variation, favoring individuals with advantageous traits. This model has been successful in explaining some evolutionary phenomena, but it also has limitations: It struggles to explain complex adaptations: The idea that complex features like the eye or the immune system arose solely through random mutations seems statistically improbable. It overlooks the role of the environment: The traditional model treats the environment as a selective force, but it doesn't fully consider how organisms can actively respond to and s...
Read more

ERVs and Common Descent: A Reassessment in Light of Recent Findings

-
Image
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) have long been considered strong evidence for the common descent of humans and chimpanzees. These remnants of ancient viral infections, embedded in the genomes of both species, were once thought to be non-functional "junk DNA." The premise was that the shared presence of these seemingly random insertions in corresponding genomic locations could best be explained by a shared evolutionary history. However, recent research, such as the "Switching Sides" article published in May 2021, has challenged this assumption by demonstrating that ERVs play a functional role in the development of the human embryo and immune system. This discovery raises questions about the validity of using ERVs as primary evidence for common descent. The Traditional Argument for Common Descent The traditional argument for common descent based on ERVs rests on the following points: Random Insertion: Retroviral insertions are thought to occur randomly in...
Read more