Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Neo-Darwinism is a pseudoscience?
Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 2 (425463)
10-02-2007 12:02 PM


Speciation, or generation of a new species, is an essential but unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Although many prominent evolutionists have claimed to unravel the puzzle, the mechanism of speciation remains unclear.
The issue of finding a criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience is always controversial. Karl Popper, an Austrian-born British philosopher of natural and social science, is a pivotal person in understanding the differences between science and pseudoscience. Popper believes that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, i.e. person who establishes a theory should specify what happen will make theory wrong, THEORITICALLY. If a theory cannot tell a scenario in which the theory would fail or the theory can justify any outcome, the theory is not a scientific one, it is a pseudoscience.
The Marxist’s theory of capitalism was very popular at the beginning of the 20th century, which could explain very outcome of capitalist society. Marx predicted that wages would fall as capitalists exploited workers greedily to obtain more profits, while an increase in wages was also consistent with Marxism; as capitalists propped up the system with bribery. Therefore, Marx’s theory of capitalism could not be considered scientific by the Popperian criteria, as it can justify any outcome of the capitalist society.
According to Neo-Darwinians, speciation proceeds by pluralistic ways: random mutation and natural selection, geographical isolation, genetic drifting, sexual selection, and instantaneous speciation. All of these mechanisms except instantaneous speciation have their own myths and assumptions. Worse than that, no one can tell which organisms evolved by natural selection or geographical isolation. They can only guess.
Thus far, only instantaneous speciation is without controversy among biologists. In this process, new speciation occurs in one generation and it does not require natural selection or geographical isolation. It is estimated that majority of flowers and ferns were generated by polyploidy or instantaneous speciation, and it also occurs in many other plants, land animals, and fishes.
A female white spotted bamboo shark at the Belle Isle Aquarium in Detroit, Michigan surprised zookeepers by giving birth to two babies. It was a virgin birth, or parthenogenesis, as the mother had not been near a male shark for six years. The resulting sharks are different species than their direct sexual ancestors because they are asexual. It is also difficult to image how cicada that appear every 17 years or left-handed snails evolved from their ancestors under natural selection or geographical isolation.
Even instantaneous speciation is not observable by naked eyes; they are only ones without controversies among biologists. The time length implicated in the gradual process such as natural selection or geographical isolation would be several hundred thousand or many millions years and it would be too long to be confirmed.
Faced with so many cases of instantaneous speciation, an ad hoc face-saving hypotheses; pluralism of the mechanism is created to save these petty theories from obsolete. Ernst Mayr, considered as the 20th century Darwin was also one of the founders of Neo-Darwinism or Modern Synthesis, wrote"

Evolution is an opportunistic process . . Pluralism is characteristic of all aspects of the evolutionary process. Reproductive isolation is effected in most higher animals by prezygotic isolating mechanisms (e.g., behavior), and in others by chromosomal incompatibilities, sterility, or other postzygotic factors. Speciation usually occurs for ge-ographic reasons in terrestrial vertebrates, but it is sympatric in certain groups of fishes and perhaps in plant-host-specific groups of insects
(Mayr, Ernst 2001).
Many opportunistic processes are present in the world. At one time, persons who received blood transfusions were more likely to acquire HIV infection than those who did not. However, every species and every member within a species is the outcome of natural selection and adapted to their environments. Who then is going to evolve into different species? Do persons in South Africa have more opportunities to evolve into a new species than ones to live in North Pole under natural selection or geographical isolation?
Besides not adequately explaining transitional fossils, Neo-Darwinism also poorly accounts for the chicken-egg paradox, atavisms, innovative organ, Cambrian explosion, and other. The major challenge facing Neo-Darwinism is that it has no predictable power, meaning there is no way to disprove wrong by scientific methods.
One popular misconception about Neo-Darwinism is that speciation by natural selection or geographical isolation takes hundred thousands or millions of years, which makes the mechanism difficult to prove or disprove. In fact, this is not the reason.
For example, we can image a scenario in which a group of biologists is given unlimited money ($ 10 billion a year), and unlimited time (1 billion years) to falsify the theory. The biologists select 1000 species to follow to disprove the theory. Four outcomes are possible for each species in this study: 1) the species does not evolve, and remains the same after 1 billion years, 2) the species becomes extinct before evolution, 3) the species evolves into another species under a Neo-Darwinian mechanism, such as natural selection or geographical isolation, or, 4) the species evolve into another species under a non-Neo-Darwinism mechanism or instantaneous process.
Apparently, the cases 1 and 2 do not provide support or disproof for the mechanism. The case 3 is a confirmation, not disproval. The last case suggests instantaneous speciation, instead of support for gradual mechanism, such as natural selection. The case 4 could falsify the Darwinian theory that would not occur with current Neo-Darwinian strategies. Even all 1000 species in the study evolve into other species in the billion years by instantaneous process; someone would say that it still possible for majority of species evolved by gradual processes (natural selection or geographical isolation), as no one knows which animal would evolve by what mechanism, no one said any of those 1000 animals has to evolve by the gradual process, and the denominator or, how many species has been formed, is unknown.
Can any Neo-Darwinists tell us which species in the past evolved into another species by natural selection or geographical isolation for sure? Which animals would evolve into other species by natural selection in the future? Is it possible that speciation known for sure were by the instantaneous process; those or majority of those unsure were by the gradual processes? Why are differences among the animals?
Darwin cited several sorts of observations, which would, in his view, disprove his theory. For example, Darwin wrote:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
This is a logical error. Mechanisms of how any complex organ is under debate and whether numerous successive steps have formed any organ is still a question, not a fact. It is a burden of person who claims theory to convince public its validity. In this case, Neo-Darwinians should show how complex organs are formed by numerous successive steps, in what animals, and by which genetic mechanism. No one can prove an idea wrong if it never existed. If the logic stands, everybody can claim all kinds of absurd “theories” correct.
If it could be demonstrated that I am not going to Heaven after death, my theory that I will go Heaven will break down. Since no one can demonstrate that, my theory is correct, and I will go the Heaven after death.
If it could be demonstrated that core of the Sun is not made of diamonds, my theory that core of Sun is made of diamond will break down. Since no one can demonstrate that, my theory that core of Sun is made of diamond is correct.
Falsification requires prediction. If a result is not consistent with prediction, then the theory is false. Ohm’s law could be disproved if voltage is not equal to current multiplying by resistance. However, Neo-Darwinism is consistent with every imaginable outcome; by the Popperian criteria, it is a pseudoscience.

One predicts something on the basis of a theory, checks to see if the prediction turns out true or false, and then rejects or retains one’s theory on basis of the results. But how can one make genuine predictions with Darwinism? Who could possibly predict what will happen to the elephant’s trunk twenty-five million years down the road?
. .
In the Newtonian case, one had a paradigmatic instance of a theory which integrates from many different areas”which exhibits a consilience of induction”and which therefore was judged as a whole. (Ruse, M. 2003).
Neo-Darwinism has no such luxury. It fails in all fields of scientific discovery: non-mixed genetic material, isolation of gametes from somatic cells, defining species on biology, not on morphology, and others etc.
The debate between creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) versus Neo-Darwinism is not religion versus science. Instead, it is one belief versus another or one belief versus pseudoscience. The difference is that Neo-Darwinism is masked as science and it wastes public funding and resource, whereas creationism or ID is a self-sustained belief system unsupported by tax dollars.
Mayr E. 2001. What evolution is. Pp. 221-222 Basic Books, New York.
Ruse, M. 2003. Evolution Is Testable and Scientific in Evolution-Fact or Fiction. Pp. 130-140 Greenhaven Press, New York.
Jianyi Zhang, PhD/MS/MB
jianyi.zhang66@gmail.com
The author is a physician, privately working in Virginia, USA
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the blank lines between some of the paragraphs. Indentations at paragraph beginnings does not work.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminWounded, posted 10-03-2007 6:00 AM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 2 (425609)
10-03-2007 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jianyi Zhang
10-02-2007 12:02 PM


This isn't really in the form of a topic for discussion. Were you wanting it put up simply as an essay?
If there is something you actually want to discuss you really need something a bit more focussed. If you just want people to have access to the text why not link to one of the other sites it is posted on in the links forum.
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 10-02-2007 12:02 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024