Value

 

Charles Darwin lamented in his autobiography over ascribing to pangenesis in The Origin of Species

Towards the end of the work I gave my well abused hypothesis of Pangenesis. An unverified hypothesis is of little or no value.

While Darwin’s hypothetic pangenesis was an accepted theory in 1859, by 1864 French biologist, Louis Pasteur, had undermined pangenesis by demonstrating that life cannot arise spontaneously—life can only come from life. Darwin was right. Pangenesis is of “no value.”

By the mid-twentieth century, while Francis Crick and James D. Watson unveiled the molecular structure of DNA. In 1953, the momentum of evolution theory was rapidly defaulting to a mutation plus natural selection neo-Darwinian model, most commonly known as Modern Synthesis.

The gene became the center of Modern Synthesis theory and promoted as a “fact of life.” The fundamentals of Modern Synthesis gene-centric theory were declared by American geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky

Mutations and chromosomal changes … constantly and unremittingly supply the raw materials for evolution.

By the early twenty-first century, however, the unifying theory of evolution began to unravel. In their 2002 book entitled Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, Lynn Margulis, and Dorion Sagan succinctly declare the now obvious fact –  

Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues.

Giuseppe Sermonti, an Italian geneticist, in his 2005 book Why a Horse is Not a Fly notes that the late citadel of evolutionary theory, Modern Synthesis, was in fact a never event –

 To say that blind mutations are the driving principle of the world, and to rely on the rare fortunate mistake, is a poor resource, quite apart from the fact that transgressions of the kind needed by Darwinian evolution have never been documented.

In the new book, The Altenberg-16, An Exposé of the Evolution Industry, Suzan Mazur, explains the reasons for the emerging revolution in the evolution industry –  

[T]here is a need to challenge the prevailing Modern Synthesis because there is too much it doesn’t explain. For example, the Modern Synthesis was produced when genetics was still a baby and science has discovered all human genes there are to be found. We’ve only got 20,000 – 25,000 of them.

The number of genes, 25,000, is nearly the same number of genes in the fruit fly and in coral. Evolution from the simple to more complex is not supported by newly emerging scientific evidence in genetics.

Professor David Miller of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies and the ARC Special Research Centre for the Molecular Genetics of Development, notes – 

Corals are among the simplest animals in the world – yet they may possess a set of genes as large and complex as our own.

Twenty-five thousand is not only a numbers problem for the simple to complex evolution camp, 25,000 is a problem in cellular biology. How can just 25,000 genes alone control the function of millions of biological processes? Sermonti reflects on the dilemma –

It was thought that a gene count might offer a better index of organismal complexity…. And where did this all lead? To the conclusion, that biochemical complexity has little to offer in explaining evolution.

The gene-centric Modern Synthesis developed from an untested hypothesis. Once again, history has come full circle. Like Darwin’s pangenesis, the Modern Synthesis is in a game-changing crisis and theories of evolution are once again facing the “no value” charge.

The challenge facing the evolution industry is finding a theoretical successor—fast. History might repeat itself. Sadly, eight years after Pasteur undermined pangenesis Darwin in last edition of The Origin of Species in 1872, continued to promote the concept of pangenesis.

Evolution was a theory in crisis in the twentieth century, now evolution is in crisis without a theory. After 150 years, evolution, like pangenesis, continues as “an unverified hypothesis… of little or no value.”

Leave a Reply