4 votes

A Righteous Smackdown of Neo-Darwinism

In general, books are a boon to mankind and a new book expands the knowledge base of the human race and helps us all grow and evolve. Once in a while, though, a book comes along that actually manages to set us back. John Maynard Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money instantly springs to mind. Another example, in my eyes, was Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. I won't rip into that debacle of a book here. The wonderful Denis Noble does a great job in the presentation below.

I have always been suspicious of Neo-Darwinism. My suspicions were not motivated by any religious inclinations, but rather by a feeling of uneasiness that Neo-Darwinism is just bad science. Well, according to Denis Noble, not only are major tenets of Neo-Darwinism being seriously brought into question, but it turns out that Lamarck may actually have been correct.

What does this have to do with liberty? Well, check out this little quote from the presentation:

"The genome is an organ of the cell, not its dictator. Control is distributed."

Yes, indeed. Life is, at its very core, a libertarian enterprise.

Here is the presentation. Enjoy:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Great lecture.



You are very big on the

You are very big on the taciturn question Mark, period response.

Size matters




You answered a question

with a question?



jrd3820's picture



Is anything greater than 3


well, there ya go...

Youtube 'removed'...
I'd be interested to know 'how' you came across the video..
what 'source site' was discussing the viewpoint and featured the article before you posted it on the DP?
are censorship kill targets involved? Is the DP being monitored for these targets?
I find it strange that the vid is 'up' on minute and simple 'removed' the next.


Is this the same vid you posted?. I just posted some key words to find it but don't know if it's same one.



I updated the link

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

that was scary

Most of what he said in the video you provided was over my head, but the following stuck out:
"Acquired characters can be inherited"
I immediately thought about the current experiments every govt is forcing upon the masses - GMOs, vaccines and low frequency microwave radiation.
Is this why they started keeping all our DNA? So TPTB can see how they can change human beings?

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

what is wrong with the

what is wrong with the selfish gene? It is a great book and has nothing to do with neo-Darwinism. The title is somewhat misleading I will admit, but he only means that human traits (genes) selfishly work to reproduce themselves in future generations of humans, he is not saying that there is a selfish gene. In fact he believes that humans actually evolved to work together as that more often than not benefited the whole of "us."

did you watch the video?

The whole concept of the selfish gene is an unverifiable metaphor. Thus, it cannot be a scientific hypothesis. And yes, the whole book, and Dawkins in general, is all about neo-Darwinism. Recent research indicates that neo-Darwinism is not correct or, at best, incomplete.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

"has nothing to do with neo-Darwinism"

Seriously? That's the central theme of everything Dawkins rights. Genes = heritable material. He even rebuffs epigenetics, as in all heritable consequences come from genes. No exceptions, end of discussion.

the best thing about science

the best thing about science is that it's always evolving. New theories will be proven/disproven. Old ones will be debunked or reinforced.

Most science-minded people are still stuck viewing things through their own pre-establised lense even when trying to be objective. We take anything that disproves a perceived ideological adversary as if it substantiates our own claims and vice-versa...

I think if one begins to look at the two primary camps we have evolution vs creation... and I think they're both correct but incomplete. The ideas aren't even mutually exclusive. we've just been taught to perceive them as such.

I really look forward to reading more about this type of research as it evolves. I don't want to argue here about my own silly beliefs on the subject but it's always fun to see the method at work (naturally always reinforcing my own brilliant assumptive hypotheses).

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

I believe you would like

Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory for Everything by Ervin Laszlo.


-Matthew Good

thanks for sharing

looks like a fun read. I'll add it to the list.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

Thank you so much for this!

For too long Dawkins has been held up as a prophet and icon for the evolutionists as having the last word in dismissing God and the possibility of intelligent design. By recent scientific progress explained by Dr. Noble, his beloved theories and premises have been found flawed, and seen as they really are--Clever metaphorical writing, not hard science.

I particularly like how Noble destroys the reductionist philosophy of the Neo-Darwinians, and that genes themselves cannot intrinsically be labeled by Dawkins as "selfish", which is a metaphysical description, not a scientific explanation. Or how Noble reverse Dawkins belief we are mere lumbering giants controlled by programmed genes, instead of intelligent beings who can give input to our genes to pass on to other generations.

Too often with growing frequency I read some who state that those of religious persuasion should be banned from political participation or be otherwise ignored because they are delusional and not "rational". Yet here we have Dr. Noble, is just one of many scientists, who have issues with evolution being an accepted and irrefutable fact

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

Admittedly much of this is

Admittedly much of this is beyond my knowledge, but I do have problems with him claiming just because an entire domain of something shifts that the process is not random. If a primitive building block is found useful perhaps its used as a whole into the randomness... I have some studying to do though thanks for sharing.

how could that be random?

Domain shifting means that a whole polynucleotide string encoding a whole functional region of protein molecules, is transferred from one region on a chromosome to another region.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson