3.d.1. Criticism of Neo-Darwinism
Here you will find a critique of Neo-Darwinism, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis or Synthetic Theory of Evolution, and other theories that maintain the essence of the theory of Darwin: random mutations and natural selection.
Neo-Darwinism base on the development of science, like laws of Mendel and Genetics, and affirms that the variations of living beings are present in their germination state; when the real problems are when and why the varieties produced in the genetic information, and which are their associated conditions to obtain their efficient development, even after several generations.
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– using the study of DNA; like a scientific article referred to the pieces of DNA called Histones. Nevertheless, 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 the ninetieth century the Neo-Darwinism was one thing; in the middle of the twentieth century, something else due to the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution; and later on, it changed again due to the new Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
Furthermore, the Neo-Darwinism maintains because it changes according to its principle of tautological adaptation. By the way, when it cannot adapt, the academy includes biological paradoxes, but they call them isolated cases to avoid similarities with modern physics theories.
The neo-Darwinian theory is still the prevailing doctrine in spite of being considered outdated. Now it is directly accepted that Darwin was right although, strictly speaking, the argument is that of Neo-Darwinism; it is not so relevant if the reasoning belongs to the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
There is a brief description of the Neodarwinism in chapter 9.
3.d.2. Criticism of the Synthetic Theory of evolution
It is probably 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 one, as Neo-Darwinism was a continuation of the Theory of Darwin as its name indicates. With the advancement of science, more knowledge appears, it is necessary to change to subsist.
We 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.
In fact, the name of Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution indicates it is a mix up of ideas from the development of genetics and biology. Nevertheless, at the same time shows there is not a compact scientific knowledge about evolution, which could ensure its fundamental characteristics. Contrary to what scientists insistently state, the Synthetic Theory or the evolutionary theory of Darwin are everything but scientifically proven.
Both accept the randomness of modifications in genetic information; the mechanism is still natural selection, although, its range of application has extended to microevolution.
Let us cite two examples we could find:
The spermatozoon that manages to reach the ovum, the reason is its better adaptation for having a better system of guidance, for having more strength, more luck, etc. It is not because Nature has served from the process of natural selection when it detects some problem in the production of 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 production line 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 it does not want to continue that particular evolutionary line; though, of course, the individual is healthy in the macro scale.
All criticisms made about the Theory of Darwin are equally applicable to Neo-Darwinism as well as the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. What is more, some of the criticisms come from new scientific knowledge.
Nowadays, the topic of random mutations manages to survive to common knowledge about modifications taking place much more frequently in some parts of the DNA. The reasons are not chemical but somewhat logical or functional concerning the genome structure. Regardless, not even the academy accepts the possibility that mutations are not random. It would be a good-bye axiom!
We would like to know what statistical distribution follows famous random mutations; if it is so proven, we suppose it should be scientific knowledge. Perhaps the expression “random mutations” mean that the origin or cause is unknown in the majority of the cases.
Finally, to remark that a tautological theory cannot be scientific and it is not worth to be continually changing aspects already proven because it seems that one gambles with the scientific method and common sense.
Modern science would have to be something humbler and recognize neither the Evolutionary Synthesis nor the random character of the genetic modifications is verified scientifically, which does not prevent it continues being the generally accepted theory in the present.
There is a brief description of the Synthetic Theory of Evolution in chapter 9.