I invite you to consider…
What if evolution were true, but it wasn’t quite like Darwin said?
What if there were a new evolutionary model that could explain why fossils show almost no change for millions of years…. then suddenly the Cambrian Explosion: Thousands of new species emerge intact, virtually overnight.
What if this new theory pointed the way to new innovations in artificial intelligence and adaptive computer programs?
What if “Evolution vs. Design” wasn’t an either/or proposition – but both+and?
What if, instead of arguing endlessly about fossils, we could precisely track evolutionary history with the precision of 1’s and 0’s?
Can Anybody Actually Win The Evolution 2.0 Prize?
Science, God, and
Happy Chemical Accidents
There’s a million codes out there. HTML, bar codes, zip codes, Java, English and Chinese.
Out of a million codes, 999,999 are designed by humans.
There’s one code we don’t know the origin of – and that’s DNA. We don’t know of any codes that are not designed. This implies design in DNA.
That’s an unsolved science mystery. So I and a group of Private Equity Investors have formed a company, Natural Code LLC, to offer a multi-million dollar technology prize for Origin Of Information.
There are two kinds of evolution:
1) There’s the version that you read about in the bookstore. It’s two-thirds science fiction.
2) Then there’s the version that PhD biologists, cancer researchers and genetic engineers use to do their jobs.
The two are entirely different.
Popular books tell you evolution works like this: Read more »
I appeared on WTVR’s “Good Morning Virginia” talking about Evolution 2.0:
In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door in Wurms, Germany and started a revolution.
Seven years ago I wrote a piece called “The Iron Curtain of 2010”. There, I predicted that Darwinism would crack in ~2013. That there would be some Berlin Wall tipping-point event.
Well, I was a little early….but definitely in the ballpark.
In 2012, The ENCODE project reported that at least 80% of our DNA has at least some discernible function, in contrast to those before who insisted that 97% is junk.
ENCODE pounded a good solid nail into the Neo-Darwinian coffin. In 2017, rare is the scientist who still attempts to defend the Junk DNA hypothesis.
In 2016, The Royal Society of London pounded more nails into the coffin with their “New Trends in Evolution” Conference. There was not even a breath of denying that the theory needs a major overhaul and many felt it needs to be scrapped entirely.
It was amusing (and a little sad, frankly) to watch the Old School Darwinists back-pedaling and doing damage control. It’s also disturbing how much the Neo-Darwinians had come to resemble dogmatic clerics of the religious establishment of 500 years ago.
The Royal Society event was the tipping point I was anticipating when I wrote my Iron Curtain article.
The Protestant Reformation of religion was exactly 500 years ago, and here we are with another reformation in our midst.
The cat is out of the bag now…and the toothpaste is not going back in the tube. I predict in 5 years the Old School guys aren’t even going to get grant money. By then, all cutting edge research will be Post Darwinian.
Was the Royal Society meeting a paradigm shift for evolution?
Consider the story behind the book Evolution 2.0.
When Evolution 2.0 was about to go to press, I had to hunt down some endorsements.
You know, the blurbs you put on book jackets to tell everyone how righteous and awesome your new book is.
It turned out a LOT harder than I thought it would be.
The existing authors, the existing speaking circuit, the Powers That Be, the Club of Rome, did NOT want any ‘new theory of evolution.’ No sirree Bob.
I secured introductions to powerful people. Sent letters, emails and packages to influential figures, including celebs and Nobel Prize winners.
But nobody in the “good ol’ boys club” wanted to play ball.
They seemed to prefer the status quo.
Who DID endorse it?
Scientists who had been frustrated, sidelined, ignored. For example Dr. Kwong Jeon who did actual symbiogenesis experiments. He got cells to do merger-acquisions in real time. This was Nobel Prize level stuff. Yet most people know NOTHING about it.
By the way he’s editor of International Review of Cell and Molecular Biology. He’s no lightweight; he just has received far less attention than he deserves. He gave the book high praise.
I got endorsements from folks like the notable Stuart Pivar, whose model for the formation of embryos and body plans is absolutely beautiful and elegant.
True fans of Evolution 2.0 are people who have never been quite happy with any of the existing camps. People who always felt there was something missing. People who thought, “Some part of the story has surely been left out!”
People who said, “Surely there’s some way to bring these two views together. I can’t imagine that one of these two sides is entirely right or wrong.”
Today the Evolution 2.0 camp is growing fast.
Those scientists hail from the same tribe that organized the Royal Society Evolution meeting in November 2016. It was a paradigm shifting meeting. Absolutely historic.
I was there. And Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute (the headquarters of Intelligent Design) was also there.
Stephen Meyer thinks this meeting signaled the death of evolution.
I say it’s rebirth and resurrection.
It was the Protestant Reformation of evolutionary biology – with Denis Noble of Oxford playing the part of Martin Luther. He nailed his 95 theses to the wall at 6 Carlton House Terrace in London. Evolution will never be the same.
Who is right? Me or Steve?
Listen and decide for yourself:
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/stephen-meyer-debate/ (MP3 and Transcript)
PS I encourage you to click through and subscribe to the Unbelievable podcast. I’ve been a guest on the show three times. Great stuff from Justin Brierley every week.
I am not going to argue for or against any sort of God. But I will say this.
In the world NOW there are countless examples of evolution happening right now, backed up by sound science. There are no examples of God at work backed up by sound science.
Science can show, through DNA and fossil records etc, the previous evolutionary paths species have taken. No sensible person would argue against examples of current species evolving from others, even man.
Perry does not argue that God created man. His God is not like the God of the more traditional biblical God the ‘Christians’ etc who defend his views argue for.
Perry does not seem to deny science or evolution happening.
The biblical story is clearly wrong.
He has therefore had no choice but to retreat from biblical creation and his God appears to have made his ‘intervention’ at the point where he can currently comfortably say ‘science can’t prove I’m talking nonsense’.
This results in a God who appears to have intervened at the point chemistry transitioned to biology, that’s roughly where science is at. His God then appears to have retreated from the scene.
Science has a pretty good theory, with some experimental evidence but obviously no observational evidence from billions of years back, how this transition happened.
Perry might one day accept this.
His God and science will then meet at the furthest point back in space and time – the Big Bang.
Science will say ‘we don’t know.’
Perry will say ‘God did it’
That’s where he will end up as science continues to push and discover. He will have no choice as he obviously understands science is ‘real.’
We will probably never know.
Perry’s God is not the Christian, Muslim etc god. The God he advocates takes no interest in his creation. He/she appears to be more of a pagan Mother Nature type god.
I somewhat agree. But one of the reasons I am completely comfortable moving God all the way to the big bang (or even before that!) is I also have witnessed miracles, like these (please read very carefully, I offer much documentation and supporting links):
I also have had many personal spiritual encounters, like this one:
So I know that I know that I know that God is real. God is active in the world.
Perry’s God is the Jewish and Christian God. And the Christian God is not in any way in conflict with science. In fact without Jewish and Christian theology, we would not have science in the first place.
This is the same thing Isaac Newton or James Clerk Maxwell or Copernicus or Galileo would say to you if they were alive today.
I also observe that with a handful of very elegant assumptions (two to be exact) the Genesis story matches the science story just fine:
And finally… any person who actually believes in cause and effect knows no universe can create itself.
“What Happened to Evolution at the Royal Society?”
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate – Perry Marshall vs. Stephen Meyer on the UNBELIEVABLE radio program & podcast with host Justin Brierley
Annotated transcript with additional videos, links, comments and resources by Perry Marshall at the bottom.
I was recently invited by Nicholas Upchurch to appear on his Believe! podcast. We ended up with over an hour of unusual content. Now, here’s why I called this clip “unusual.”
There are many theories, models, and hypotheses that Nicholas and I may not agree on. And some of the remote fringes of science that he aspires to traverse may be very… “fringy.” However, what unites the two of us is our shared conviction that no verifiable fact can be ignored if we want the true science to happen.
We ended up visiting many rabbit holes in this very short time span. If there was a world record for that, we’d almost certainly smash it.
What you’ll hear in this episode:
- What mainstream scientists, researchers, and professors are most afraid of
- Was life brought to Earth from another planet? (And why the answer to that doesn’t answer anything.)
- Extraterrestrials and the Vatican
- What comes first, matter or consciousness?
- Pacemakers, Galileo, and the center of the Universe
- What science and the post office have in common
Listen to it here: Perry Marshall on Science vs. God
Thanks to Mark D. Thompson for posting this helpful blog comment:
This issue [re: “Memo to Dawkins & friends: Recess Is OVER”] was also debated in a Nature article in terms of niche construction:
Richard Dawkins has been out of date since the day that he published the Selfish Gene. I admire his writing and his books were great enjoyment leading into my undergraduate.
However, Sewall Wright, Rupert Riedl, Conrad Waddington, and even Richard Lewontin were very skeptical. Some even published rebuttals of Dawkins in the peer-reviewed literature.
Stephen J. Gould’s writings should have been the tombstone marker on Dawkins’ thesis, but for some reason this never caught traction.
There is a grand divide between populist thinking in evolutionary biology and what is really going on in evolutionary peer-review.
Here we are with an article in 1978 on epigenetics:
Dawkins still didn’t get the memo. He put out this horrific paper:
It was essentially a re-hash of what he has already said and he ignores the evidence. I have admired Dawkins and many of the other neo-Darwinian) players, but they need to modify their views in light of the evidence (which they claim to do).
Interestingly, Charles Darwin would be more of a modern thinker in relation to his pangenesis theory, which started genetics and is really prescient thinking on the way that RNA intermixes with the proteome. Great article!
By day, Jason Vidaurri is a mild-mannered chemical engineer of about 16 years, whose day job consists of delving into the intricacies of turning raw materials into useful, everyday products. A perfectly respectable role for a man of his education and experience.
Outside of work (and likely unbeknownst to his coworkers), Jason is the engineer of www.storyhinge.com – a podcast committed to helping others find more of their own success in all aspects of life by giving people the freedom to tell their story – with the intent that listeners might find foundational material on which to build upon their own lives.
Jason recently had me as his guest to talk about Evolution 2.0 and we immediately cut to the chase. In this episode we talk about my harrowing journey of slashing through the jungle of the creation versus evolution debate, how we spend our lives fighting random mutation, and my simple exercise of organizing the world into two halves: those with code and those without.
Here’s a few highlights guaranteed to awaken your inner geek:
- Theology is squishy, science is not – 9:02
- How DNA is mathematically identical to an ethernet packet (really) – 15:30
- Why evolution is simply a software engineering problem – 17:28
- What the cell does that no other human technology is capable of (sorry, Google) – 26:23
Enjoy: StoryHinge – Episode 11
James MacAllister is the volunteer archivist for the Lynn Margulis archive at the University of Massachussetts-Amherst.
Jim runs envevo.org, the Environmental Evolution website. Lynn Margulis was the champion of Symbiogenesis theory.
She fought tremendous opposition from Neo-Darwinists to get the theory accepted. Today she is widely regarded as one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of all time.
I met Jim at the Royal Society evolution meeting in London, and in a very brief conversation discovered much in common. Jim runs envevo.org, the Environmental Evolution blog.
World-class heart researcher Denis Noble demolishes the “Selfish Gene” – With Grace and Wit
Just as modern astronomy has shown us there is no definite “center of the universe” (and it is most certainly not the earth), in his book “Dance to the Tune of Life: Biological Relativity,” Oxford Professor Denis Noble shows that in biology there is no “starting point of the organism.” (And it is most certainly not the gene!)
Denis Noble is the man who worked out the details of the cardiac rhythm, which made pacemakers possible, as well as the drug Ivabradine.
Is evolution a “red in tooth and claw” war of survival of the fittest? Or is it cooperative?
Is evolution slow and accidental? Or rapid and strategic?
Enjoy this video about real-time Symbiosis by John Perry of Stated Clearly.