Decade-Long Study of Water Fleas Found No Evidence of Darwinian Evolution
Science programs tell us that natural selection explains the development of all life forms from the origin of life to the present, from amoebas to humans:
Natural selection is the adaptation strategy of living organisms on Earth. It occurs when they acquire and evolve a trait with time that provides them a distinct advantage for their survival and reproduction over other organisms in the population. Darwin called them “survival of the fittest.”’ (ScienceFacts.net)
It seems so simple. Philosopher Daniel Dennett (1942–2024) called it the single greatest idea anyone ever had. It was perfect for the stark materialism he espoused.
Times Change
Questions accumulate. Research results don’t add up. And dissatisfaction has grown.
Recently, Arizona State University geneticist Michael Lynch headed up a study published in the venerable journal PNAS that comes as close as any to saying the unsayable: Darwinian evolution, as espoused by, say, Dennett and Richard Dawkins, is not on such firm ground. In a world where huge battles have been fought to entrench it in the school systems, findings like that, published in a key journal, may signal a cultural shift.
The study concerns the common water flea (Daphnia pulex):
Daphnia is a good choice for this kind of study because it is very sensitive to changes in its environment. For that reason, it is used to test water purity. It also reproduces quickly, asexually. So if changes in the environment do change Daphnia’s genome, those changes should be detected.
“Little Consistent Selection Pressure”
The researchers analyzed DNA from 1,000 Daphnia over a decade and did not find evidence of Darwin’s natural selection happening as described. Their findings are phrased in careful science news media prose:
The multi-year, genome-wide analysis of nearly 1,000 genetic samples from a Daphnia pulex population shows that most genetic sites experience varying selection, with an average effect close to zero, indicating little consistent selection pressure over different times and selection spread across many genomic regions.
These findings challenge the usual understanding of genetic diversity and divergence as indicators of random genetic drift and selection intensity.
The study’s Abstract is unusually blunt:
Despite evolutionary biology’s obsession with natural selection, few studies have evaluated multigenerational series of patterns of selection on a genome-wide scale in natural populations. Here, we report on a 10-y population-genomic survey of the microcrustacean Daphnia pulex … These results suggest that interannual fluctuating selection is a major determinant of standing levels of variation in natural populations, challenge the conventional paradigm for interpreting patterns of nucleotide diversity and divergence, and motivate the need for the further development of theoretical expressions for the interpretation of population-genomic data.
The science media release says something else that is quite interesting:
These findings challenge the traditional belief that measuring genetic diversity (the range of different traits in a population) and genetic divergence (the differences between populations) can easily show how natural selection is consistently operating. Instead, natural selection seems to operate with greater subtlety and complexity than previously thought.
“Greater Subtlety and Complexity”?
The whole point of claims for Darwinian evolution is to eliminate subtlety and complexity. To show that merely random mutations in response to environmental changes can create everything from the organized complexity of the beehive to the nearly unfathomable human mind. And the researchers did not find these random but creative mutations.
Since we are here anyway, what is the origin of complexity and subtlety? Do they not suggest a mind in or behind the universe?
To say that “natural selection seems to operate with greater subtlety and complexity than previously thought” is a polite way of saying that Darwinian evolution is not a correct interpretation of the history of life. Culturally, that is very interesting. It means that the only theory permissible in U.S. school systems may not be a correct interpretation of nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment