Finalmente reconhecida a falência heurística da atual teoria da evolução

John Dupré

John Dupré is Professor of Philosophy of Science and Director, ESRC Center for Genomics in Society, University of Exeter.

Full profile

Sep. 4, 2012

Evolutionary Theory’s Welcome Crisis

EXETER – Those who believe that a supernatural being created the universe have never posed an intellectual challenge to evolutionary theory. But creationists, whether biblical fundamentalists or believers in “intelligent design,” do pose a threat to scientific thinking. Indeed, creationism’s insidious genius lies in its ability to reinvent evolution in its own image as a dogmatic belief system – and thus the antithesis of science.

The creationists are right about one thing: contrary to the impression given by much popular writing on the subject, the theory of evolution is in crisis. But this is a positive development, because it reflects the non-linear progress of scientific knowledge, characterized by what Thomas Kuhn described in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as “paradigm shifts.”

For the last 70 years, the dominant paradigm in evolutionary science has been the so-called “new synthesis.” Widely publicized in recent years by Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, the new synthesis unites Darwin’s theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics, which explains heredity.

The current crisis in evolutionary science does not imply complete rejection of this paradigm. Rather, it entails a major, progressive reorganization of existing knowledge, without undermining the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory: organisms alive today developed from significantly different organisms in the distant past; dissimilar organisms may share common ancestors; and natural selection has played a crucial role in this process.

Other assumptions, however, are under threat. For example, in the traditional “tree of life” representation of evolution, the branches always move apart, never merging, implying that species’ ancestry follows a linear path, and that all evolutionary changes along this path occur within the lineage being traced. But examination of genomes – particularly microbes – has shown that genes moving between distantly related organisms are an important catalyst of evolutionary change.

Moreover, the new synthesis assumes that the main drivers of evolution are small mutations generated by chance within a species. But recent evidence suggests that large changes, caused by the absorption of a chunk of alien genetic material, may be just as significant. Indeed, the absorption of entire organisms – such as the two bacteria that formed the first eukaryotic cell (the more complex cell type found in multicellular animals) – can generate large and crucial evolutionary change.

Further destabilizing evolutionary theory is the growing realization that many factors, not just the genome, determine an individual organism’s development. Ironically, as the discovery of DNA’s structure – initially lauded as the final act in the triumph of the new synthesis – led to a better understanding of genomes’ functioning, it ended up weakening belief in their unique role in directing biological development. Those who long deplored the omission of development from evolutionary models – a decades-old critique made under the scientific banner of evolutionary developmental biology (“evo-devo”) – together with the insistence that organisms’ development draws on a wide variety of resources, have been vindicated.

Recent developments in molecular biology have put the final nail in the coffin of traditional genetic determinism. For example, epigenetics – the study of heritable modifications of the genome that do not involve alterations to the genetic code – is on the rise. And the many kinds of small RNA molecules are increasingly recognized as forming a regulatory layer above the genome.

...

Read more here/Leia mais aqui: Project Syndicate

+++++

NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:

O ethos do artigo de Dupré é de um cientista desesperado em ver a sua teoria queridinha ir para a lata do lixo da História da Ciência. Culpados? Culpados de tudo isso são os criacionistas e a turma perversa do Design Inteligente que mostraram para a sociedade a falência epistemológica do Darwinismo no contexto de justificação teórica. Dupré, como os demais na Nomenklatura científica estão bufando de raiva por isso.

Queria ver a cara do Francisco Salzano, Sergio Danilo Junho Pena et al que escreveram carta ao presidente da Academia Brasileira de Ciências incomodados com o avanço do criacionismo e do Design Inteligente entre membros daquela organização científica, bem ver a cara dos que assinaram o Manifesto Ciência e Criacionismo da Sociedade Brasileira de Genética.

Na maior cara de pau, eles sempre se omitiram discutir ou falar publicamente sobre a crise heurística da Síntese Evolucionária Moderna, e que a revisão profunda necessária iria desaguar em uma nova teoria geral da evolução - a Síntese Evolutiva Ampliada - que pelas montanhas de evidências negativas não poderá e nem deve ser selecionista como deseja Dupré, e deve incorporar aspectos teóricos lamarckianos.

O nome disso é desonestidade científica. Pior ainda, esses barnabés são pagos com o nosso suado dinheirinho dos impostos. Como funcionários públicos devem sim, uma resposta à sociedade que, não somente tornou possível a educação, carreira acadêmica e pesquisas deles, paga seus salários. Mais transparência Srs. e mais humildade do alto de suas torres de marfim!!!

Darwin morreu! Viva Darwin!!!