Darwin critics call for a new look at Darwinian evolution

The still-evolving view of evolution is the current "modern synthesis," which encompasses Charles Darwin's theory, Gregor Mendel's concept of heredity, and modern genome research.

Writing in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, two scientists call for a new look at the topic. They argue that the 19th century concept of "survival of the fittest," as well as the early 20th century "modern synthesis" are in need of an update. As their title puts it, "Neo-Darwinism must mutate to survive."

The authors are Olen R. Brown, professor emeritus at the University of Missouri, and formerly investigator and assistant director at the university’s Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center, and David A. Hullender, professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at the University of Texas, Arlington. 

Asserting that they are not deniers but doubters, they write that they "are critical of accepting without question Darwinian evolution and Neo-Darwinism, including what is generally referred to as the modern synthesis.

“The concept, ‘survival of the fittest’ is not meaningful except for some microevolutionary events,” they conclude.

The article catalogues at length aspects of the modern synthesis that the authors question, and offers proposals for the future. If biology is to evolve, the authors assert, it must deal with the known limitations of Darwinian evolution and pursue new approaches. 

"We need a Maxwell, an Einstein, a Newton, a Kepler, an Eigen, or perhaps someone bolder than all of them to accept that there is more than we now understand to explain life," they write.

Microevolution and macroevolution

A main claim of the authors is that "selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for all but microevolution."

Asked to elaborate on his view of the limitations of survival of the fittest for macroevolution, co-author Olen Brown, told Current Science Daily: "Microevolution involves only a small change, and this small change can occur by a single, random, purposeless mutation during one generation. If the change makes the individual better able to survive, the mutated offspring is considered to be more fit than the parents. More fit is understood to survive better to leave more offspring. Therefore, 'survival of the fittest' is used to convey this meaning."

In contrast, he said, "speciation events require large changes such as new body parts --lungs, wings, eyes, etc.--and the word used for this is macroevolution."

Noting that there are more than 8 million different species, Brown said, "evolution requires that all species arose from changes over a very long time and a great many generations. Macroevolution must require a very large number of changes, and these changes must be very specific and in a very specific sequence. Most such changes could not all occur in one generation because the probability becomes absurdly high. It increases exponentially with each change that is required to produce a change with increased survival value."

Doubting current explanations

Brown said that he and his co-author agree with Denis Noble and others about the existing deficiencies in teaching about evolution. Brown claimed that "a core assumption of the modern synthesis is scientifically discredited, including the ideas that DNA is intrinsically a fateful self-replicator, the one-way transfer of heritable information from nucleic acids to other cell molecules, the myth of `selfish DNA,’ and the existence of an impenetrable barrier separating somatic and germ line cells."

"Many of the more recent discoveries of macroevolutionary processes have been ignored in mainstream textbooks and popular accounts of evolutionary biology," Brown asserted.

Another example Brown gave of the inadequacy of current theory is the problem of cancer. 

"Cancer is an example of the result of mutation. Most mutations are best thought of as errors in copying the cell’s DNA. However, mutations are invoked primarily as agents of evolutionary change. Obviously, there is a problem here."

Proposed solutions

The main solution the article poses is a call for more research and more openness to criticism and doubts, such as those enumerated by the authors. They also appeal for an eminent thinker to conceive a "fifth force" in nature. 

Brown criticized the current "indoctrination of students" that tolerates "no criticism of evolutionary theories." 

"Biology originated as a descriptive science; it has progressed to an empirical state and now it is time to retain both while boldly progressing into a theoretical phase that seeks comprehensive, unifying simplicity," Brown said. "Wherever the science leads, is to be encouraged with traditional guidance from novel, creative ideas and specifically the goal of a unifying theory that includes the possibility of a fifth force in nature."

This would have similar goals but be vastly different from "the concepts of unification theories in theoretical physics," he said.

Also, Brown asserted, there should be a conference to review the "inadequacies" of the present doctrine and "seek a way forward." And a National Institute of Evolutionary Science should be established "to support research and development focused on discoveries relating to the unique nature of life, and to apply these for the detection, diagnosis, and treatment of human diseases including cancer and future pandemics."

Future work, Brown said, would be "to evaluate responses to our paper; to further develop mathematical, probability assessments of evolution; to refine ideas about what is missing in our scientific understanding that is specifically focused on how information can biologically function in life processes; to attempt an overall theory of how complex enzymes, and biological machines arose...."

O.R. Brown & D.A. Hullender, Neo-Darwinism must mutate to survive, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, August 2022. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2022.04.005