Home
Was
Darwin
Wrong?		Home | Intro | About | Feedback | Prev | Next | Search
 

About the site 'Towards The Third Evolutionary Synthesis'


Author

Publications

Was Darwin wrong?

Darwin Essay

See Introduction for
an overview of the
literature on evolution.

See Index for a list of
all reviewed books.

Gert Korthof (update 26 Feb 2010)

More than 10 years ago, April 13 1997, I started the site Was Darwin Wrong? The goal was to investigate all sorts of criticism. It is now time to shift emphasis from criticism of evolution to the question: Is neo-Darwinism complete? In other words: Towards The Third Evolutionary Synthesis.
  1. First Evolutionary Synthesis: In 1859, 150 years ago, Charles Darwin established the First Evolutionary Synthesis (Darwinism). This was the first synthesis because Darwin was the first scientist to construct a synthesis of all biological knowledge of his time on the basis of the concept of evolution. 'Darwinism' is defined as: "Darwin's theory, that species originate by evolution from from other species and that evolution is mainly driven by natural selection" (24), (31).
  2. Second Evolutionary Synthesis: in the 20th century (1930s and '40s) the incorporation of the Mendelian and population genetics created the Evolutionary Synthesis or Modern Synthesis (Julian Huxley, 1942) or Neo-Darwinism (31), which in fact is the Second Evolutionary Synthesis. According to (26) this synthesis includes: genetics, paleontology, systematics, and cytology. Keep in mind that the second synthesis was before the birth of molecular genetics.
  3. Third Evolutionary Synthesis or 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis' (17) is neo-Darwinism plus molecular genetics (Watson & Crick, 1953). That is about 50 years ago. Furthermore, there are or probably will be included: developmental biology (evo-devo), genomics, epigenetics, ecology (23), symbiosis, life history, hybridization, horizontal gene transfer, systems biology, Earth System Science (including Niche Construction and Gaia), origin of life, astrobiology, sociobiology (incl. evolutionary psychology), evolution of the brain and mind (consciousness).
Clearly, there is work to do! A few examples:

BioGeoChemistry
To give just a few examples of the importance of biogeochemistry for evolution: the 'Cambrian explosion' has long been unexplained. June 2008 geologists reported in Nature that "the Early Cambrian animal radiation may have been triggered by a major change in ocean circulation, terminating a long period during which the Proterozoic ocean was stratified, with sulphidic deep water." Few evolutionary textbooks seem to be worried about our lack of knowledge of the geochemical fossil record (fossil molecules). But, how can be understand the path of evolution and biodiversity if we don't know its environment? "Changes in the availability of bioessential elements must have shaped the evolution of life. It may be that eukaryotes emerged from ecological niches as bulk ocean chemistry shifted to favor their element requirements" (20).
Another example of a trace metal is nickel. A major decrease in the oceanic inventory of nickel (around 2.7 billion years ago) led to a cascade of events in which methanogens, who depend on nickel, would have become starved of the element and so have produced much less methane, and this could have become the driving mechanism of the Great Oxidation Event (GOE). "This marked the beginning of the most significant series of chemical changes Earth has ever experienced, setting the stage for oxidative weathering of the continents, successive changes in ocean chemistry, and the eventual rise of multicellular life" (22). Also the identification of a general connection between biogeochemistry and the structure of food webs would constitute a considerable advance in understanding ecosystems (27,28), speciation and extinction. A book that tries to unite chemistry, biology and geology is: 'Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History' (Info).

Biogeography
The integration of phylogeny, evolution and earth history would be a great step towards the next evolutionary synthesis (30).

Climate
Another example is the relation between the diversification of herbivorous mammals, their gut microbes, the origin of C4-grasses, and the climate (CO2) (15). Another recent publication highlights the importance of climate: "climate played an overarching role in promoting the unprecedented increases in biodiversity that characterized The Ordovician Period." (18). Biochemical and physical laws constrain the evolution of life, because evolution necessarily depends on them, but fall outside a biological theory of evolution. But in the new synthesis every factor (maybe even cosmic rays: 21) that influences evolution must be incorporated.

Physics
An example of physical phenomena that constrain morphology of multicellular organisms is: Stuart Newman and Gerd Müller (16).

Brainless evolution textbooks?
On the other end of the spectrum that runs from physics to psychology is the evolution of the human brain and mind. Recent contributions to the neo-Darwinistic theory of the human mind are: Gary Marcus (2004) The Birth of the Mind and Gary Lynch and Richard Granger (2008) Big Brain and more. John Allman (2000) Evolving Brains is completely devoted to the evolution of brains including the genetics of the brain. Evolutionary brain research recently produces new insights (19). Despite this research of the last 10 years, there is no trace of brain evolution in modern evolution textbooks. There is no 'brain' in the index of Barton et al (2007) Evolution; and Stearns, Hoekstra (2005) Evolution. The exceptions are: Freeman and Herron (2007) Evolutionary Analysis (a few pages: 771, 791 about skulls but not explicitly on the evolution of the brain); Monroe Strickberger (2000, 2007) Evolution. The 2008 edition of Strickberger's Evolution contains a diagram of Hox gene expression in the embryonic mouse brain (p.298) (19). We need more of this. Especially, a comparison with other mammalian brains. Important questions are: What genes, regulators and how many mutations are needed to evolve the human brain from a vertebrate brain? from a mammalian brain? from a primate brain? Do humans have unique types of brain cells? How did the cerebral neocortex evolve? How did the nervous system evolve? (25). How did neurons and synapses evolve? (29). A step in the right direction is Carl Zimmer (2009) (36). How difficult was it? How much time is required? Conclusion: the Third Evolutionary Synthesis is not complete without the evolution of the nervous system and the brain!

Was Darwin Wrong?

(updated: 25 Feb 2010)

    Here is a list of 'mistakes' of Darwin, wrong or incomplete answers, unanswered questions and areas of the theory of evolution with insufficient data around 1859. These topics are of historical interest. Today the status of all these topics is completely different.
  1. Was Darwin wrong about his theory of heredity?
    Yes, Darwin was wrong about his Pangenesis theory, because a migration of hereditary material from all parts of the body to the sexual organs and the subsequent inheritance to the offspring, was already refuted during Darwin's lifetime.
    Darwin was also wrong to believe that acquired characters, for example changes in organs caused by use and disuse, are heritable (Lamarckism) (5, 6).
    He also was wrong about blending inheritance. Blending inheritance made it difficult to explain the origin and maintenance of variation. We now know that genetic factors do not blend (Mendelism). How does this affect other parts of his theory? "The claim that Darwin's theory was unworkable without genetics is an artifact of hindsight. It was perfectly possible to construct a theory of natural selection on the basis of blending inheritance" (13).
  2. Was Darwin wrong about common descent?
    The Common-descent-of-life part of evolution does not depend on a correct theory of heredity. Common descent was quickly accepted in Darwin's time and is quietly ignored by many critics because it such a powerful idea confirmed by a great diversity of facts. However, see: 12.
  3. Was Darwin wrong about the tree of life?
    Darwin's account of evolution dealt exclusively with animals and plants. At the beginnings of life, the period of single celled organisms, there was a lot of horizontal genetic exchange, which 'violates' the pure tree of life concept. Especially for bacteria and archaea the tree of life is more like a web (37).
  4. Was Darwin wrong about natural selection?
    In 1859 Darwin "did not have direct proof that evolution by natural selection happens nor that it causes speciation" (33). "Perhaps Darwin's biggest mistake was to underestimate the speed and potency of natural selection" (33). The success of natural selection as the main causal factor in evolution depended substantially on an adequate theory of heredity. Darwin believed that heredity blended in each generation (see above). Therefore each advantageous variation would be diluted out of existence in a few generations (4). Natural selection would be powerless. It seems that Darwin's contemporaries were slow to accept natural selection for good reasons (32).
  5. Was Darwin wrong about sexual selection?
    The theory of sexual selection was largely discounted for 75 years, and although sexual selection is now accepted by most evolutionary biologists in some form, one scientist (Joan Roughgarden) claims there are too much problems with it and completely rejects sexual selection (11). Evidence for sexual selection is independent of evidence for common descent or natural selection.
  6. Was Darwin wrong about gradualism?
    Because Darwin presented his theory in opposition to the theory of special creation (instantaneous creation of species), he emphasized the gradual nature of evolution by natural selection. In 1972 Eldredge and Gould claimed that sudden appearance in the fossil record and stasis for million of years is not the result of the incompleteness of the fossil record, but is a real pattern in the fossil record. Who is right?
  7. Did Darwin explain the origin of species (speciation)?
    Darwin didn't really explain how new species arose. He knew evolution was branching evolution, but he never explained how one species splits in two. He never really understood that explaining species means explaining barriers to gene exchange. So, he was not wrong, but incomplete. The problem of speciation was not seriously addressed until the mid-1930s (34). The reason of this that Darwin had a morphological species concept, not one based on reproductive isolation, and above that he thought that 'species' is an arbitrary man-made concept.
  8. Did Darwin have any transitional forms to support this theory?
    In The Origin of Species, 1859, Darwin did not have any transitional forms to prove common descent. The first fossils of Archaeopteryx lithographica were discovered in 1860 and 1861. Too late for the first edition of The Origin. But Darwin, "curiously, mentioned it only briefly in the later editions of The Origin, and only then as an oddity." (34). Neanderthaler fossils found in 1856 did not appear in The Origin at all, but it did appear in The Descent of Man.
  9. Was Darwin wrong about biogeography? Darwin had no complete explanation of biogeography. Darwin's theories of biogeography were partly wrong. That's been corrected by plate tectonics (Jerry Coyne interview). Darwin did not know about continental drift. Darwin struggles to explain why different continents have different faunas on them, and why the geological record is so intermittent in most places (35).
  10. Was Darwin wrong about the age of the earth? Darwin accepts the calculation of Sir William Thompson (later Lord Kelvin) that the earth is about 200 million years old, but confesses uneasily that "it can hardly be considered as sufficient for the development of the varied forms of life." Thompson was out by a factor of seven, because he had omitted the effect of radioactivity which is slowing the cooling of the earth (35). Also, Darwin did not know the antiquity of life on earth.
  11. Was Darwin wrong about universal human facial expressions?
    "In the 1960s, guided by the prevailing anthropological orthodoxy, Paul Ekman, now retired, set out to prove Darwin wrong by asking for interpretations of facial expressions from the farthest flung people he could get to. He ended up confirming that Darwin had a point. "The evidence is very strong, from studies of both recognition and expression in Western and Eastern, literate and preliterate, cultures that Darwin was indeed prescient," says Ekman. "At least six, perhaps seven, emotions have a pancultural facial expression." (Nature)
  12. Did Darwin explain the Origin of Phyla?
    Darwin did not attempt to describe the origin of phyla or the major groups of animals and plants. He did not describe the evolutionary relations of animal and plant phyla. The only illustration in The Orgin of Species was an abstract tree of several species labeled a-z and abstract geological periods arbitrarily labeled I - XIV. However, he tried to defend the common descent of plants and animals (in the last chapter of the Origin).
  13. Darwin was unable to resolve the genealogical relationships of barnacles
    "Ironically, in four monographs on living and fossil barnacles, the only taxonomic work that Darwin ever did, he was unable to resolve their genealogical relationships. He recognized why: Selective extinction over the ages had removed all the intermediate related forms" (Kevin Padian).
  14. Did Darwin explain altruistic behaviour?
    "Although Darwin did not confront the problem of altruistic behaviour directly, he was aware of the challenge posed by the development of sterile castes in some social insects and, in Chapter VIII of The Origin of Species, he describes how he thought, at first, that this was fatal to the whole theory of natural selection" (Tim Clutton-Brock in Nature).
  15. Was Darwin wrong about the continuity between human and nonhuman minds?
    "Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as "one of degree and not of kind" (Darwin, 1871). In the present target article, we argue that Darwin was mistaken: the profound biological continuity between human and nonhuman animals masks an equally profound discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds", Derek C. Penn et al (2008) 'Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds', Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2008) 31, 109-178.
Interesting and urgent questions are: are there good reasons to accept current neo-Darwinism completely? Or reject parts of it? Do the critics still have some good points? Is current neo-Darwinism well supported by all biological sub-disciplines? Do we understand organisms in enough detail to claim that we understand how new species evolved? The aim of this site is to give an overview of the critics and defenders of evolution and to give a careful and fair evaluation of all arguments against and for evolution and Darwinism. By the way: not an easy task!


Was Darwin Wrong?
(Introduction to the site before 2008)

     The goal of the site 'Was Darwin Wrong' was to assess the current scientific status of evolutionary theory by a careful and fair evaluation of the problems and the arguments for and against evolution. I use evolution as a working hypothesis, which I consider as the closest thing to reality we have. I cannot work without a working hypothesis. No scientific discipline can work without a paradigm. Evolution is the paradigm of biology. I am not aware of workable alternatives. Nevertheless, I will not ignore difficulties, anomalies and alternatives, because I need them for a full assessment of the theory of evolution.
"To have a fair and balanced view of of evolutionary biology today, we need to see not only its successes, but also its current limits"
Joan Roughgarden (14)
I am not primarily engaged in 'critics debunking', because not all critics are completely ignorant and wrong. By reading the well-informed critics (including biologists!), I learned more about evolution theory than I could have learned from the textbooks and popular defences of evolution alone. Reading mainstream literature and the critics convinced me that evolution theory is certainly incomplete (8). Simply, because our knowledge cannot surpass the most advanced technologies and methodologies available at any time. Elementary-particle-physicists have always known that their theories were incomplete (12). Any scientific theory is fundamentally incomplete (1). Why should the theory of evolution be an exception?
    I learned new things from some critics, because on the one hand, critics mainly write about the unsolved problems. On the other hand, evolutionary biologists know a lot about the solved problems and critics usually completely ignore successes. Reading the critics (including 'minority biologists') convinced me that evolution is a very ambitious theory, considering the relatively simple mechanisms mutation and selection relative to the bewildering diversity and complexity of life on earth.
    I hope it is possible to arrive at a balanced view of evolution by eliminating the exaggerations from both critics and defenders. Exaggerations of weaknesses and strengths are always harmful, because exaggerations are always distortions of reality. Weaknesses are no refutations, but gaps in our knowledge. They show there is work to do. It is sad that defenders and critics are split up in two camps (especially in the USA). A sign of war is the fact that 'the enemy' is always lying and that it is impossible to say anything positive about 'the enemy' without being disrespected by one's own camp. Hardly anybody is devoted to a balanced review of the theory of evolution.
    As the title of this site suggests, the emphasis of the 'Was Darwin Wrong?' web site is on the critics of evolution. There are more books reviewed on this site of the critics than of 'evolutionists' (evolutionary biologists). This is because when I started this site I knew already quite a lot about evolutionary biology, but hardly anything about critics (a condition typical for training in evolutionary biology at our universities, I suspect). However, as John Maynard Smith remarked "It is impossible to discuss the questions we cannot answer without first answering those that we can." (7). Therefore the reader should compensate for this one-sidedness by reading textbooks & introductions, 2, 3.
    Some critics of evolution propose alternative theories to replace evolution partly or completely. I will not ignore the problems of those alternative theories. I am not aware of any alternative theory that is as fully elaborated as Darwinism. The failure of alternatives has given me new insights as well as a stronger confidence in evolution as an indispensable paradigm for the biological sciences.
     The ultimate goal of all theories is to understand the world. The ultimate goal of the theory of evolution is to understand the living world. Evolution is a biological theory to explain biological facts. Since wrong and vague theories hamper our understanding of nature, one way to increase our understanding is to eliminate wrong and vague theories. Another way is to improve existing theories. I think it is possible to improve the theory of evolution by solving the problems posed by the critics and incorporating the solutions into the theory of evolution.

    The author of this site, Gert Korthof (1949-), studied biology at the Utrecht University, The Netherlands, with specialisations: artificial selection of behaviour characteristics of Drosophila (Professor Scharloo, Folchert van Dijken); chromosome variation in field populations of plants (Professor Gadella) (both subjects in the context of evolutionary biology); theoretical biology (Professor Lindenmayer) and philosophy, including philosophy of science, (Philosophy department UU); clinical cytogenetics, application of robotics and image recognition to assist chromosome analysis (Professor Peter Pearson, Leiden University). After finishing my study, I worked for nearly 10 years at the Anthropogenetics Department of Leiden University (cytogenetics laboratory) on the same subjects.
From 1991 to 2005 I worked at the National Institute of Public Health and Environment (rivm) on software development for testprocedures of commercial pharmaceuticals. I am now enjoying an early retirement and I am studying evolution literature fulltime.

    Even at the time when I was a student and attended evolutionary biology courses and did lab experiments on evolution, I had the vague idea that the theory of evolution was incomplete, although at the time I could not say why, or what exactly was missing. My university study left me ill prepared for the critics of evolution.

Publications and lectures

  • Lecture at the Skepsis congres, Utrecht on 7 Nov 2009 (program).
  • Lecture at Groningen University 2 April 2009 (Arts Meet Science Symposium).
  • Lecture at NIBI onderwijsconferentie 9 Januari 2009 Lunteren "Is het Neo-darwinisme compleet?" (see powerpoint presentation).
  • Gerdien de Jong and Gert Korthof (2006) 'Claim of bias against critics is refuted by publication', Nature, 7 December 2006, p.679.
  • Martin Hafner and Gert Korthof (2006) 'Does a "500 million-year-old hormone" disprove Darwin?' FASEB J. 2006 20: 1290-1292. | PubMed | pdfpdf
  • Gert Korthof (2005) "God door de voordeur. Intelligent Design over de oorsprong van Alles". Skepter, zomer 2005, pp.33-35. (boekbespreking van Schitterend ongeluk of sporen van ontwerp?) [ Dutch ].
  • G. Korthof: "Common Descent: It's All or Nothing" in: Matt Young and Taner Edis (2004): Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, Rutgers University Press. See for more information about the book this page.
  • Gert Korthof and Andrew Carothers (1991) "Tests of performance of four semi-automatic metaphase-finding and karyotyping systems", Clinical Genetics 1991:40:441-451. | PubMed | pdfpdf (1.072 kB) |
  • J. Vrolijk, G. Korthof, G. Vletter, C.R.G. van der Geest, G.W. Gerrese, P.L. Pearson (1989) "An automated System for the Cultering and Harvesting of Human Chromosome Specimens", pp.135-148 of C. Lundsteen, J.Piper Automation of Cytogenetics, Springer-Verlag Berlin | PubMed | Summary: pdfPDF (165 kB) |
  • J. Vrolijk, G. Korthof, G. Vletter, C.R.G. van der Geest, G.W. Gerrese and P.L. Pearson (1986) "The automation of culturing and harvesting of human chromosome specimens". Histochemistry and Cell Biology Volume 84, Numbers 4-6 July 1986 pages: 586 - 593 | SpringerLink |
  • G. Korthof (1986) "An improved fixation method for chromosome preparation of Chinese hamster, Chinese hamster-human hybrid, and mouse cell lines", Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics, 41:181-184 (1986). | PubMed | pdfPDF (758 kB) |

Essay in honour of Charles Darwin on the occasion of his birthday 12 February


DARWIN Charles Darwin was very sensitive to criticism. He devoted a separate chapter on 'Difficulties on Theory' in The Origin of species and in the many editions of his work he reacted to criticisms. He did not hesitate to mention "difficulties ... of the gravest nature" (Chap 9). Darwin had the courage to state "That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through natural selection, I do not deny." (chapter 14). Neither was he afraid to state ignorance: "We do not know all the possible transitional gradations between the simplest and the most perfect organs". This requires great courage because most of the scientists of his time were creationists. Since 1859 we have witnessed unfathomable progress in knowledge. However, I doubt that Darwin would have lost his sensitivity for criticism and his courage to admit problems if he had witnessed that progress. Do problems and gaps exist today? Future progress logically implies the existence of gaps in our knowledge today. Nowadays it seems almost suicidal to admit gaps in the theory of evolution. The greatest damage to science that creationists could cause would be that a discussion of the weaknesses and strengths of the theory of evolution would become impossible. Fortunately, it is still possible to ask in a scientific context "how can small, random genetic changes be converted into complex useful innovations?" (Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart, 9). Unfortunately, for the public it is difficult to see the difference with the pseudo scientific statement "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" of the Discovery Institute (10). For Darwinists this should be no reason to stop following Darwin's honest attitude towards 'Difficulties on Theory'. [ 12 February 2006 ]



"I have watched your website Was Darwin Wrong grow from its beginning a few years ago to a beautiful site that is very useful to the common reader. I am impressed by the phenomenal feat. Your reviews of so many good and relevant books on the topic of origin in one place are extremely useful. I want to thank you for your insightful website and review of my book!"
Periannan Senapathy, author of
'Independent Birth of Organisms'.


"Many thanks for your detailed and thoughtful review of my book, The Case of the Female Orgasm. You have done an admirable job of getting right what so many have gotten wrong!"
Elisabeth A. Lloyd, Tanis Chair of History and Philosophy of Science, Professor of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington.






"Many thanks for the review. I don't think I could quibble with a thing you say. The final Conclusion is very quotable. It is very thorough and well written, and obviously you are extremely well-read."
Prof. Dr. Clive Trotman
author of "The Feathered Onion. - Creation of Life in the Universe."







"Mr. Korthof, Thank you for all the work you put into your site. I'm especially impressed with how fast you respond and post information on new books that affect the field of philosophy of biology."
Erik L. Peterson, History and Philosophy of Science Graduate Program, The University of Notre Dame
"I've just skimmed over your review - much food for thought"

John Waller,
author of "Fabulous Science"



"You have understood all that I have tried to say, which is rare in reviews!"

Andrew Parker,
author of "In the Blink of an Eye"

"Thank you for writing this very kind review of my book, and indeed for drawing my attention to it"

Prof. Wallace Arthur
author of "The Origin of Animal Body Plans"


 
 
 
"Many thanks for alerting me to your review, and indeed for writing the review. It is very pleasing for me to read, even down to the appearance of the web-page"

Prof. Mark Ridley
author of "Mendel's Demon"












"Dear Mr Korthof --- thanks very much for the review of my book Deep Time on your 'Was Darwin Wrong?' webpage. It was enjoyable and informative"
Dr. Henry Gee
author of "In Search of Deep Time" and senior editor of Nature.
"I think you are a better defender of evolution than Richard Dawkins"

Dr. Lee Spetner
author of "Not By Chance!"




"You have done a very good objective job in reviewing our book.
We have yet to see anything like this from a professional"

Prof. Dr. Edward Steele
author of "Lamarck's Signature"










"I read some of your very balanced reviews"
"I was most interested in seeing your knowledgeable treatment of some NON-religious anti-evolutionists and anti-Darwinists"

Tom McIver
"Anti-Evolution. A Reader's Guide to Writings before and after Darwin"


 
I received invited and uninvited comments on the book reviews on this site from the following authors: Prof. Wallace Arthur, Prof. Donald Forsdyke, Prof. Mark Ridley, Vassiliki B. Smocovitis, Dean Overman, Dr. Hubert P. Yockey, Henry Gee, Dr. Lee Spetner, William A. Dembski, Tom McIver, Prof. Robert T. Pennock, Prof. Dr. Edward Steele, Phillip Johnson, Dr. Andrew Parker, Dr. Louis Berman and Professor Tibor Gánti (see Feedback pages).
    I received review copies of books from Acorn Enterprises, McGill-Queen's University Press, Leighton Academic Press and author Rodney Holder.

Site statistics

    The number of visitors of this site are monitored by Nedstat (since May 2007: Motigo), an independent internet company based in the Netherlands. The homepage has continuously been monitored by Nedstat since March 1998 (now more than 6 years) and on 20 April 2005 passed the number 100,000. The visitors come from more than 162 countries (sept 2008: 180 countries). The site total count (the total of 69 pages) at that date was more than 457,000 hits. The actual count of all the individual pages is displayed at the Nedstat statistics page of each review.
Unfortunately, I was forced to remove counters from the pages because of complaints about the popup add pages (I started removing the counters on November 2008).

    The Feedback pages contain comments of visitors of this site. There is no feedback form. Emails are selected for their general interest. Please use only the email address displayed at the bottom of the page, not any of the older addresses.

AltaVista Directory

In January 2001 the home page 'Was Darwin Wrong?' was listed in the Altavista Directory. Thank You AltaVista! I am happy with that. However I am not happy with the fact that I am listed in the directory:
AltaVista Directory > Library > Sciences > Evolutionary Biology > Theories & Esoterica.
A suitable classification of my site would be: 'Alternative theories of evolution' or simply 'Criticism'.

Google Web Directory

December 2001 I found my site listed in the following category:
Science > Science in Society > Science and Religion > Evolution
as number 4 in a list of 11 sites (number 3 in a list of 9 sites [23 Dec 2004]). Thanks Google. However this site is not only about religious criticis, but about all critics.

DMOZ Open Directory project

 The site "Was Darwin Wrong?" is listed at the dmoz categories:
- Science : Science in Society : Science and Religion : Evolution
- Society: Religion and Spirituality : Christianity : Perspectives : Origins and Creation : Creation vs Evolution

National Geographic
National Geographic cover Was Darwin Wrong?
cover story of the Nov 2004 issue
of the National Geographic
In November 2004 the National Geographic magazine featured a cover article on the subject Was Darwin Wrong?

The Internet Archive

The Internet Archive makes it possible to see deleted pages or older versions. To see older versions of the WDW home page go to the internet archive of this site.

Notes

  1. "Scientific explanations remain perpetually incomplete. If we learn anything from the pursuit of science, it is that even something as basic as an atom is quite difficult to understand. This alone should induce skepticism about any dogma or any claim to have achieved more than a very incomplete and metaphorical insight into any profound aspect of our existence." (interview with Sir Martin Rees in Scientific American, July 2004, p.24-25.)
  2. TalkOrigins provides mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions about the evolution/creation controversy. The following website has been awarded by the Scientific Amercian: Understanding Evoluton: learning and teaching evolution.
  3. Evolutionary Biology resources by the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research (Austria). The site contains resources of many related areas.
  4. Michael Ruse (2003) Darwin and Design, p.153.
  5. Ernst Mayr: The Growth of Biological Thought, 1982, page 694.
  6. However Darwin's pangenesis hypothesis was partly right according to Edward Steele (review).
  7. John Maynard Smith (1986) The Problems of Biology, Preface page v. Oxford University Press.
  8. Massimo Pigliucci (2005) More Than You Ever Wanted To Know About Intelligent Design, Evolution: Vol. 59, No. 12, pp. 2717-2720. "Of course, it is true (though not universally acknowledged by evolutionary biologists) that the current evolutionary paradigm is incomplete."
  9. Marc Kirschner & John Gerhart (2005) The Plausibility of Life - Resolving Darwin's dilemma Yale University Press.
  10. Doubts Over Evolution (Discovery Institute).
  11. Joan Roughgarden, Meeko Oishi, Erol Akcay (2006) "Reproductive Social Behavior: Cooperative Games to Replace Sexual Selection", Science. See also: Evolution and Christian Faith (2006)
  12. Leonard Susskind (2005) The Cosmic Landscape, page x.
  13. Peter Bowler (2003) Evolution the history of an idea, page 200 .
  14. Joan Roughgarden (2006) Evolution and Christian Faith, p.66
  15. Ruth E. Ley et al (2008) 'Evolution of Mammals and Their Gut Microbes', Science, 20 juni 2008. (free abstract).
  16. Elizabeth Pennisi (2008) 'Modernizing the Modern Synthesis', Science 11 July 2008.
  17. Massimo Pigliucci (2008) Is there fundamental scientific disagreement about evolutionary theory? (July 02, 2008). He gives a list of 16 scientists working on the Third Evolutionary Synthesis. See his Notes from Altenberg, part I, II, III. The list of subjects does overlap with my list, but there are also non-overlapping subjects on both lists. The proceedings of the Altenberg 2008 workshop will be published 2009 by MIT Press. John Whitfield wrote about the meeting in Nature 18 sep 2008: Biological theory: Postmodern evolution?
  18. Julie A. Trotter et al (2008) 'Did Cooling Oceans Trigger Ordovician Biodiversification? Evidence from Conodont Thermometry', Science, 25 July 2008:
    "The temperature record of Ordovician oceans is central to understanding links between seawater chemistry, climate change, major bio-events, and thus fundamental Earth processes. The marine biosphere underwent a profound transformation during the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (GOBE), recognized as the longest period of sustained biodiversifications, increasing family and genus numbers three- to fourfold".
  19. John Allman (2000) Evolving Brains, Scientific American Library (see a good review). More recent works are: George F. Striedter (2005) Principles of Brain Evolution; and Foundations in Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience by Platek et al (2009). Scientific American published 'Evolutionary Origins of Your Right and Left Brain' (July 2009).
    Textbooks: Douglas J. Futuyma (2005) Evolution has 3 pages about the hominin fossil record, but this is about skulls not brains. Interestingly, he writes "Neanderthals had brains as large as or even larger than ours (up to 1500 cc)" (page 82). Intriguingly, Neanderthals are absent from his graph 4.12 (brain volumes)! Homo sapiens as at the top! The evolution textbook Strickberger's Evolution (4th Edition) (2007) has the best coverage of brain evolution, but does not mention 'Boskop' (modern humans have the largest brain: 1350 cc). Figure 13-8c (mouse brain) of the book is excellent, but is not listed in the index under brain, which makes it difficult to find. Also figure 3-7 shows schematic brains of fish, reptile, bird, cat and human, but it is a drawing from 1888 (!) and is not in the index. Recently The Genetics of Cognitive Neuroscience (edited by Terry E. Goldberg and Daniel R. Weinberger) (Info) was published, being an important step towards evolutionary cognitive neuroscience.
  20. Ariel D. Anbar (2008) 'OCEANS: Elements and Evolution', Science 5 December 2008 Vol. 322. no. 5907, pp. 1481 - 1483. See also: Susan M. Gaines (2009) Echoes of Life. What Fossil Molecules Reveal About Earth History, Oxford University Press, reviewed in Science.
  21. Henrik Svensmark, Nigel Calder (2008) 'The Chilling Stars. A Cosmic View of Climate Change', Icon Books, UK.
  22. Mak A. Saito (2009) 'Biogeochemistry: Less nickel for more oxygen', Nature 458, 714-715 (9 April 2009)
  23. "Ecosystems ecology and evolutionary biology have existed separately for more than a century, and their integration is long overdue". Ole Seehausen 'Ecology: Speciation affects ecosystems', Nature 458, 1122-1123 (30 April 2009). See also: a volume linking ecology and evolution: Speciation and Patterns of Diversity, edited by Roger Butlin (2009).
  24. Mark Ridly (2004) Evolution, Glossary.
  25. Greg Miller (2009) 'On the Origin of The Nervous System', Science. An interesting suggestion by Dennis Bray (2009) Wetware A Computer in Every Living Cell is the possibility that many features of conscious beings, including learning, knowledge, and awareness, are present within single cells (Science).
  26. Michael R Rose, Todd H Oakley (2007) 'The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis', Biology Direct 2007, 2:30
  27. Josep Peñuelas1 & Jordi Sardans (2009) 'Ecology: Elementary factors', Nature 460, 803-804 (13 August 2009)
  28. Robert Warner Sterner, James J. Elser (2002) 'Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere', Princeton University Press, pb 584 pages. Google books. There is certainly a link with astrobiology possible. See also wiki summary.
  29. Tomás J. Ryan (2009) 'The origin and evolution of synapses', Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10, 701-712 (October 2009) is an important review. See also: 'Evolution of the neocortex: a perspective from developmental biology' (very promising!) and other articles in the special Darwin issue of Nature Reviews Neuroscience.
  30. Lynne R. Parenti, Lynne R. Parenti (2009) 'Comparative Biogeography: Discovering and Classifying Biogeographical Patterns of a Dynamic Earth' (Species and Systematics) University of California Press. See also a popular account: Dennis McCarthy (2009) 'Here Be Dragons: How the Study of Animal and Plant Distributions Revolutionized Our Views of Life and Earth.
  31. George Romanes defined 'neo-Darwinism' as Darwinism without the inheritance of acquired characters (in the 1890s).
  32. Now we have a 'correct' theory of genetics, Lamarckism is rejected, genetics is integrated in evolutionary theory, and natural selection is accepted as an important factor in evolution. The historical question whether Darwin's theories were accepted at the time for good reasons is of course unanswered by the current status of genetics. I find it still an interesting question.
  33. David Reznick (2009) The Origin Then and Now, p.401 and 403. Also: Ernst Mayr (2001) This is Biology, p.191.
  34. Jerry Coyne, 2009 Why Evolution is True, p.7, p.185 and p.43 (Archaeopteryx).
  35. Matt Ridley, Current Biology, Volume 19, Issue 3, 10 February 2009, Pages R96-R104.
  36. Carl Zimmer (2009) The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution, Chapter 14 showing evolutionary trees of brains (p.336-337).
  37. See: Graham Lawton Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life, New Scientist 21 January 2009 and:



guestbook (moderated) home: www.wasdarwinwrong.com http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho13.htm  
Copyright © 2002 G.Korthof First published: 12 Dec 2002 updated: 26 Feb 2010 Notes: 2 Dec 2009