3.d.1. Criticism of Neo-Darwinism or Neo-Darwinian Theory

This point makes a criticism of Neo-Darwinism, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis or Synthetic Theory of Evolution and of other theories that maintain the essence of the theory of Darwin: random mutations and natural selection.

Neo-Darwinism base on the development of science, as laws of Mendel and Genetics, and limits to confirming that the variations of living beings are produced in their germination state; when the real problem is when and why the variations are produced in the genetic information, and their associated conditions to obtain their efficient development, even after several generations. 

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) (Public domain image)
Charles Darwin (Public domain)

Current molecular biology is discovering the way in which nature carries out genetic verification and other controls (without knowing a priori the reasons that justify them) by means of the study of DNA; a scientific article, in particular, referred to the pieces of DNA called Histones. In any case, it is not necessary to resort to such in-depth knowledge of molecular biology about DNA, given that we know that some proteins, called factors of transcription, activate or inhibit the expression of certain genes. 

At the end of ninetieth century the Neo-Darwinism theory was one thing, in the middle of the twentieth century something else, due to the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution, and at that century it changed again due to the new Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Furthermore, the Neo-Darwinism maintains thanks to the fact that it is adapted to anything according its own principle of tautological adaptation.  By the way, when it cannot adapt they include biological paradoxes, but they call them isolated cases to avoid being similar to other some modern physics theories.

Actually, Neo-Darwinism or neo-Darwinian Theory is still the prevailing doctrine in despite of being considered outdated. Now it is directly accepted that Darwin was right although, strictly speaking, the argument is that of Neo-Darwinism, and it is not so important if the argument is from the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.

 

3.d.2. Criticism of the Synthetic Theory of evolution

It is certainly difficult for a non-biologist to distinguish between the trend of Neo-Darwinism and the Synthetic Theory of evolution, the latter is a continuation of the previous, as Neo-Darwinism or neo-Darwinian Theory was a continuation of the Theory of Darwin as its own name indicates. With the progress of science, certain knowledge cannot be ignored, it is necessary to change in order to be maintained.

To this effect, I consider the Neo-Darwinian Theory as well as the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution (Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr and George G. Simpson) as natural updates or conditional evolutions of the Theory of Darwin due to the scientific advances subsequent to it.

In fact, the name of Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution indicates that it is a mix up of ideas from the development of genetics and biology. Nevertheless, at the same time indicates that there is not a compact scientific knowledge about evolution, which could ensure its basic characteristics. Contrary to what scientists insistently state, the Synthetic Theory or the Theory of Evolution of Darwin are everything but scientifically proven.

Both accept the randomness of the modifications in the genetic information; the mechanism is still, well… natural selection, although, its range of application has been extended to microevolution.

  • Let us cite two examples of the many that we could find: the spermatozoon that manages to reach the ovum, the reason is because it is better adapted for having a better system of guidance, for having more strength, more luck, etc. Not because Nature is served from the process of natural selection when it detects some problem in the production of the sperm, like in a small hit or a change in temperature, to intentionally, bring about some small defect in the spermatozoon, because it is not interested in stopping the system of production for reasons beyond this discussion.

  • When an individual is sterile, it is by accident and not because Nature has detected some problem in the genetic code and decided that, because it does not want to continue that particular evolutionary line for motives…, though, of course, the individual being normal in the macro scale.

NEWS ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Appetite and reproduction

Some scientists from the USA have identified a biochemical interrupter in the brain that regulates appetite and reproduction. It was already known that body weight and fertility are closely related, and that women who are too thin, for example, can have problems getting pregnant.

El País 3-09-2008. Nature

In fact, all of the criticisms made about the Theory of Darwin are equally applicable to Neo-Darwinism as well as to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution.  What is more, some of the criticisms base on the new scientific knowledge. 

What is interesting about the topic of random mutations is that nowadays it is common knowledge that the modifications are produced much more frequently in some parts of the DNA than in others, and not for reasons of a chemical kind but rather logical or of functional structure of the genome. Regardless of this, not even the scientific orthodox doctrine accepts the possibility that the mutations are not random mutations. It would be a Good-bye axiom!

I would like to know what statistical distribution follows the famous random mutations; if it is so proven, I suppose it should be known. Perhaps in his context random mutations mean that their origin or reason in the majority of the cases is unknown.

Finally, to remark that a tautological theory does not have the character of scientific theory and that is not worth to be constantly changing the things already proven, because it seems that one gambles with the scientific method and the common sense.

Modern science would have to be something humbler and to recognize than neither the Evolutionary Synthesis nor the random character of the genetic modifications and other elements of this evolutionary theory are not demonstrated scientifically, which does not prevent that it continues being the generally accepted theory in the present.