Genomics Undermine Darwin
October 25th, 2009
Genomics offers unprecedented opportunities for testing the central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species in 1859, later modified into the Central Dogma by the Modern Synthesis during the twentieth century.
In a 2009 review article by entitled “Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics”, published in Nucleic Acid Research, Eugene V Koonin concludes “[m]ajor contributions of horizonal gene transfer… undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life.”
Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species,“[a]lthough the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.”
Koonin continues, “[t]here is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity.” Genomics has failed to demostrate increasing complexity as hypothesized by Darwin.
Evolution needs to synthesis a new mechanism to survive. To this end, Koonin suggests the possibility: “a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future.” Until then, genomic evidence fails to support evolution.
Koonin, EV. 2009. Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics. Nucleic Acid Research, 37(4)1011-1034.
Posted in History of Evolution | 
Tags: Darwin, evidence, evolution, genome, genomics, natural selection, Origin of Species, science, Tree of Life
On The Origin And Nature Of Cosmic Evolution
It Is Space-Distance, Not Space-Time
Life’s Is A Ubiquitous Evolution Mode
The mode of a gene’s response to organism-culture’s feedback signal, i.e. “replicate without change” or “replicate with change” in case of proven augmented energy constrainment by the offspring, is the mode of Life’s normal evolution, which is the mode of evolution universally.
Genes’ Expression Modification
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/200/122.page#3649
Again, the scope of of genes lifehood is not just the lifehood of genes.
Genes, and Life in general, are but one of the forms of mass, of constrained energy formats. The lifehood of genes is the foundation of the subject of evolutionary biology, which is a major component of the subject of life, which is a minute component of the subject of evolution of the universe, which is the subject for which humanity seeks a unified field theory.
Since the big-bang resolution of E/m superposition ALL the energy of the universe is destined for the galactic clusters expansion plus laying down of the gravity natrix for the eventual cosmic impansion, and ALL the mass is destined to revert to energy for these ends. The mass-to-energy reversion is resisted by the mass, this resistance being the archtype of selection for survival by all materials, including life. This resistance is due, exciting to us, to the fact that – as we know from everyday experience – formation of mass requires investment of energy, that dissipates when the mass disintegrates. And as we also know from everyday experience all energy forms other than gravity end up eventually as gravity energy. This is expected since ALL the contents of the universe are manifestations of the gravity energy freed at Inflation.
And again, a unified field theory is sought since unlike the evergrowing list of specific science/technology divisions drawn by the “scientists” trade-unions like the AAAS, the universe and Earth evolve as an integrated intertwined interrelated tangled whole and not as a collection of individual divisions.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Updated Life’s Manifest May 2009
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321
Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/180/122.page#3108
In the summer of 2008, the first international meeting of the greatest minds in evolution convened to develop a cohesive evolutionary theory hosted at the Konrad Lorenz Institute. The summit has been popularly known as the Altenberg-16, or A-16, but the official meeting was entitled “Toward an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis” and billed as the “Woodstock of Evolution.”
The purpose of the meeting was to reformulate a cohesive theory of evolution in the following the demise of Crick’s Central Dogma. Synthesis of a new theory was to be published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Now, after more than 12 months, reformulating a cohesive theory for evolution appears to be exponentially even more complex than it was for Darwin—150 years ago.
“Humanity seeks a unified field theory,” as pointed-out, however, evolution continues without a cohesive theory and life remains inexplicable—beyond any known natural law. Now, the “’scientists’ trade-unions like AAAS” function largely as philosophical, not scientific, czars to obscure the obvious.