Algae Asphyxiates Evolution Principle

Algae Cardinale

Algae Asphyxiates Evolution Principle

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin cast his theory of evolution centered on a “struggle for life” principle – coined as the “war of nature” or the “survival of the fittest” in 1859.  This principle is presented in the complete title of his legionary book – On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

This competitive “struggle for life,” Darwin had argued, occurs between the new and the original species. With the emergence of new species, they were imagined to compete even against their own parents:

“The principle of competition [is] between organism and organism, between child and parent… supplant[ing] the old and unimproved forms.”

Competition increases with increasing similarity. “As the species of the same genus,” Darwin argued, “the struggle will generally be more severe between them, if they come into competition with each other, than between the species of distinct genera.” Since then, however, the evidence directly challenges Darwin’s principle of evolution.

In the Laboratory

To test this hypothesis, a research team headed by Bradley Cardinale, of the University of Michigan, performing experiments on 60 species of fresh water green algae “failed to support Darwin’s theory,” according to Marlene Cions of the National Science Foundation.

“It was completely unexpected,” Cardinale said in an interview with Cions. “We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?”

“Researchers were more than shaken to find that their experiments of fresh water algae failed to support Darwin’s theory,” Cions lamented in the LiveScience article entitled “Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists.”

Cardinale’s research team included Charles Delwiche, professor of cell biology and molecular genetics at the University of Maryland, and Todd Oakley, a professor in the department of ecology, evolution and marine biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

In an interview with Cions, Cardinale explained that they were so uncomfortable with the results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.

“The hypothesis is so intuitive that it was hard for us to give it up, but we are becoming more and more convinced that he wasn’t right about the organisms we’ve been studying,” Cardinale says.

Algae IIStrangely enough, the research was not intended to test the validity of Darwin’s theory. “The hypothesis is so intuitive,” or so it seemed Cardinale reasoned. The intention of the research, supported with $2 million grant from the National Science Foundation in 2010, was to prioritize future conservation campaigns.

The original intention of the research was to gain insights into the mechanisms of extinction target. “Many biologists have argued that we should prioritize for conservation those species that are genetically unique, and focus less on those species that are genetically more similar,” Cardinale explained. “The thinking is that you might be able to tolerate the loss of species that are redundant. In other words, if you lost a redundant species, you might not see a change.”

“We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale said. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”

“If Darwin had been right, the older, more genetically unique species should have unique niches, and should compete less strongly, while the ones closely related should be ecologically similar and compete much more strongly — but that’s not what happened,” Cardinale declared. “We didn’t see any evidence of that at all. We found this to be so in field experiments, lab experiments and surveys in 1,200 lakes in North America where evolution cannot tell us which species co-exist in lakes in nature.

“If Darwin was right, we should’ve seen species that are genetically different and ecologically unique, doing unique things and not competing with other species,” Cardindale adds. “But we didn’t.”

“Evolution does not appear to predict which species have good traits and bad traits,” he told Cions. “We should be able to look at the Tree of Life, and evolution should make it clear who will win in competition and who will lose. But the traits that regulate competition can’t be predicted from the Tree of Life.”

Darwin Wrong

Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale opined. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected… Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”

Even the simplistic instinctive behaviors of algae asphyxiates Darwin’s guiding principle of evolution and the industry cult — evolutionism.

Evolution was once a theory in crisis, now evolution is in crisis without a theory.

Biological evolution exists only as a philosophical fact, not as a scientific fact.

 

9 Responses to “Algae Asphyxiates Evolution Principle”

  • yonason:

    DARWINISM TAKES A DIVE?

    One thing I’ve been wondering about since I first saw that report is just how comparable are the respective expected ecological and “evolutionary” drift rates. In other words, do ecological niches even remain intact long enough for species to “evolve” to fill them, before those niches disappear and are replaced by others? If evolution requires more time than the niches exist, we should see virtually none of the complex interdependencies that are the rule rather than the exception.

    If evolution is slower than a punch-drunk fighter who can’t respond rapidly enough to his opponent’s attacks, how could it possibly have ever been a contender? Couple that weakness with the problem of species losses as described in Richard’s recent article on rates of extinction, and one wonders how such a product continues to sell, or perhaps more disturbingly how so many can still be selling it.

  • yonason:

    After I post that, it occurred to me that the title I should have used is “SCIENCE TAKES A DIVE?” since it is, after all, science that is the looser.

    Between Darwinism and human caused “Global Warming” I don’t know when, if ever, science will be able to recover from such a blow to it’s perceived integrity.

  • Bradley Cardinale:

    This is an unbelievably irresponsible distortion of my research, as well as the story about it! Shame on the editors of this website for cherry-picking and misrepresenting information to support their point of view!

  • dj:

    Here is a post from Dr. Cardinale from the article that you referenced above. If you’d like to join the discussion, here is a link to the thread:

    http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html

    “Hi everyone. Thank you for the comments about this article. My name is Dr. Brad Cardinale, and this story is about my research. I want to facilitate the discussion by clarifying a few things:

    1. There is nothing in this research that refutes Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. When scientists use the word ‘theory’, they use it to refer to a hypothesis that has withstood thousands of attempts to disprove it, but yet, continues to hold true. To date, no one has been able to demonstrate Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection to be incorrect.

    2. Darwin had a lot of ideas other than just those about natural selection, and our work was focused on one of his other hypotheses. In particular, we were testing a hypothesis that is sometimes called the Competition-Relatedness-Hypothesis (CRH), which proposes that competition is stronger among closely related species than among distantly related species because the former should be more ecologically similar. We are not finding support for the CRH, which is a surprise … but again, it has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.

    Although I worked with this reporter to comment on her story, some of the final editing of the text, and the caption “Doubting Darwin” are not things that I approved. But we need to be clear that scientific theories have withstood the test of time, while hypotheses have not yet passed that test. And we need to be clear that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that supports Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.”

  • Appreciate your time to post your opinion. Definitely interested in the aspects of the article misrepresented – rather than a declaration of opinion.

  • Consider reading or re-reading the article again. The evidence contradicts Darwin’s theory of competition between closely related species – a principle tenet of his theory: “The principle of competition [is] between organism and organism, between child and parent… supplant[ing] the old and unimproved forms,” Darwin argued.

    As far as natural selection is concerned, critics abound including Lynn Marguilis, Carl Sagan’s wife, awarded the National Medal of Science award by Bill Clinton. According to Marguilis, “Darwin was brilliant to make ‘natural selection’ a sort of godlike term, an expression that could replace ‘God’, who did it—created forms of life. However, what is natural selection’ really? It is the failure of the biotic potential to be reached. And it’s quantitative… Natural selection is intrinsically an elimination process.”

  • yonason:

    “…there is overwhelming scientific evidence that supports Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.” – Dr. Brad Cardinale

    A key pillar of Darwinism, and of Neo-Darwinism, is that “natural selection” operates on “random” mutations.

    It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns of change, and genome sequence studies confirm distinct biases in location of different mobile genetic elements” (Shapiro 2011, p 82). [as quoted from Charles Noble]

    The only way one can assert that Darwinism hasn’t been refuted is to ignore the evidence.

    Yes, I know Dr. Noble isn’t rejecting Darwinism outright, just the “Modern Synthesis,” but is instead suggesting that in light of the vastly more complicated processes revealed by careful researchers like Dr. Cardinale, a new synthesis is required. Unfortunately, no mention is made of how that new synthesis will explain how the complexity itself “evolved” in systems to which it was initially unavailable.

    But any complete theory can’t merely take those complexities for granted, as all Darwinian “explanations” of all inconvenient data invavariably do . And it certainly can’t claim to have predicted phenomena that it initially rejected, like “junk DNA” that isn’t junk, or things like “ORFan Genes” which it never would or could have predicted, to name just two. Such a “theory” has no right to it’s brashly aserted claims unquestioned legitimacy.

  • […] experiments of fresh water algae failed to support Darwin’s theory,” Cions lamented in the LiveScience article entitled “Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise […]

Leave a Reply

Book Description



Buy Now

Kindle Edition Available





Darwin, Then and Now is a journey through the most amazing story in the history of science - the history of evolution. The book encapsulates who Darwin was, what he said, and what scientists have discovered since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.

With over 1,000 references, Darwin Then and Now is a historical chronicle of the rise and fall of the once popular theory of biological evolution.

Connect