Darwin Dilemmas

Down StudyDarwin Dilemmas

After walking away from long-standing basic scientific principles and turning to speculations and logic rather than to known scientific evidence, Darwin’s end result is a series of dilemmas.  Key words and concepts are contradictory. For these reasons, The Origin of Species is only irrelevance in the realm of philosophy – but, not science.




Even Darwin’s two key terms, “species” and  “natural selection,” became such debacles that they were not even defined in the The Origin of Species glossary.  Darwin’s contradictory key terms include –

Key contradictory concepts of evolution include –

Contemporary scientists have long recognized the debacles Darwin developed, including  –

Elizabeth Kolbert (2014)

“Darwin’s theory was directly contradicted by the facts, with potentially profound implications.”

Stephen C. Meyer (2013)

“Darwin’s doubt about the Cambrian explosion centered on the problem of missing intermediates. Not only have those forms not been found, but the Cambrian explosion itself illustrates a profound engineering problem that evidence does not address−the problem of building a new form of animal life by gradually transforming one tightly integrated system of genetic components and their products into another.”

Thomas Nagel (2012)

“I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension.”

James A Shapiro (2011)

“It is important to note that [natural] selection has never led to formation of a new species, as Darwin postulated.”

Eugene V. Koonin (2011)

“Our unfaltering admiration for Darwin notwithstanding, we must relegate the Victorian worldview to the venerable museum halls where it belongs, and explore the consequences of the paradigm shift.”

“In a rather striking departure from the title of the book [The Origin of Species], all disputable examples of evolution that Darwin presented involve the emergence of new varieties within a species, not new species, let alone higher taxa.”

“The main reason genetics was deemed incompatible with Darwinism was that the founders of genetics, particularly Hugo de Vries, the most productive scientist among the three rediscovers of Mendel’s laws, viewed mutations of genes as abrupt, saltation hereditary changes that ran counter to Darwinian gradualism.”

Massimo Pigliucci (2010)

“Things did not look any better for the Darwinian view of evolution at the onset of the twentieth century, when the rediscovery of Mendel’s work and the beginnings of genetics appear to deal a blow to the theory.”

Marc Kirschner (2010)

“Today, 150 years after Darwin’s magnum opus, our understanding of genotypical variation is very sophisticated, but our understanding of phenotypical variation has lagged. This represents a major incompleteness of evolutionary theory, not unlike the lack of understanding of heredity before the rediscovery of Mendel and before population genetics.”

Stuart A. Newman (2010)

“As has been frequently noted once the metazoan phyla were established more than a half a billion years ago, no additional groups of similar grade have emerged. Darwinian uniformitarianism would have predicted otherwise.”

A. Lima-de-Faria (2009)

“[Natural} selection is a political not a scientific concept. At the time of Darwin it fitted perfectly the expanding colonialism of Victorian England.”

Stuart Newman (2009)

“Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is a risk of being sacrificed to the benefit of a dying theory.” Stuart Newman

Chris McKay (2009)

“First and most clear, Darwinian selection cannot be responsible for the origin of life. Secondly, there is some thought that Darwinian selection cannot fully explain the rise of complexity at the molecular level.”

Jean Gayon (2009)

“Contemporary evolutionary biology admits that natural selection is the only acceptable explanation for adaptation, has raised serious doubts about the ability of natural selection to be an all-sufficient principle for the explanation of some or all the other classes of facts that Darwin explained through this principle.”

Lynn Margulis (2009)

“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.”

“Darwin’s claim of ‘descent with modification’ as caused by natural selection is a linguistic fallacy.”

“Darwin wrote about the Struggle for Life and attributed change to Natural Selection. He made it easy for his contemporaries to think and verbalize Mr. Big Omnipotent God in the Sky up there picking out those He wants to keep. He has been conceived as The Natural Selector, He throws the others away.”

Stan Salthe (2009)

“Summing up we can see that the import of Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom.”

Giuseppe Sermonti (2005)

“The neo-Darwinian theory embraced by the founders of molecular biology is rather like saying the text of The Iliad came into being by mere chance, one step at a time, letter by letter, emerging out of some lower ‘organism’ a few verses long.”

“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 be documented.”

“The genealogical tree that shows forms gradually varying and diverging—the ‘fact’ for which Darwinism proposed its revolutionary explanation—is nowhere to be found.”

Jeffrey Schwartz (1999)

“We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus−full blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”

Steven M Stanley (1981)

“Since the time of Darwin, paleontologists have found themselves with evidence that conflicts with gradualism, yet the message of the fossil record has been ignored… It was soon forgotten that Darwin’s judgment of the fossil record was based on deduction rather than fact.”

Jacques Monod (1975)

“[A] curious aspect if the theory of evolution is that everyone thinks he understands it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually, as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even as we now may be able to understand it in biology.”

Douglas Futuyma (1975)

“The power of neo-Darwinism lies in its generality of explanation. But like most general theories, it is highly abstract.”

Sir Peter Medawar (1966)

“The objections to current Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally, and we must on no account, I think, make light of them.”


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.