Charles Darwin debunked in 1940s by incredible woman geneticist?

Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species had an unfortunate title.McClintock_stamp_2005

It was a great book for its time, and is roughly correct about what evolution looks like in the rear-view mirror.

Though if you want to know how we actually get a new species, the explanation in there is very incomplete, at best.

Natural selection — perhaps Darwin’s most important concept — explains the “survival of the fittest” but nothing Darwin wrote ever really explained the “arrival of the fittest.”

Especially how it happens so fast — orders of magnitude faster than randomness and probability would predict.

That’s why I believe Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Barbara McClintock’s work is WAY more interesting and enlightening about what’s really happening with evolution than Darwin ever was!

While Darwin talks about what evolution looks like after it happens… McClintock did a bunch of experiments on corn plants in the 1940s that actually triggered evolution and made it happen in real time. She was the very first person to look forward on evolution.

You can’t drive looking in the rear view mirror, McClintock’s work shows us you can’t truly understand evolution that way either.

McClintock’s work gave us a whole slew of new discoveries around how genetics and real-time evolution really work (I go into a lot of detail in my book, Evolution 2.0).

And her discoveries totally fly in the face of the “random mutation” understanding of evolution that even today’s Darwinist’s still dogmatically argue for, over half a century later.

Watch this video to hear how McClintock influenced me — and why I believe you must understand her work to truly understand evolution…

Click here now to get 3 chapters from my new book, Evolution 2.0, right now. 

9 Responses

  1. Pierre Cilliers says:

    Dear Perry
    I follow your e-mail with great interest because I believe that faith in Jesus Christ was meant to be evidence-based. Why would Paul go to the extremes of “proof” of the resurrection as he did in 1 Cor 15 to provide the evidence for the resurrection that his questioning readers had the right to ask for!

    My faith in creation stems primarily from the uncompromising position Jesus held regarding the creation of nature and man, to which he frequently referred. If Jesus was real, and he was the only present at creation, then what He says about creation should be taken as gospel.

    When we are faced with dilemmas in explaining observations that seem to conflict with creation such as the distance of the stars indicating that they were created long before the human era, I am open to various theories that are consistent with the observations.

    Thanks for your diligence in stimulating the debate on creation vs. evolution. Even if you can just open a small crack in the armour of some ardent evolutionists to consider God and allow themselves to be convinced by the evidence before their eyes that Jesus is who he said He is, your effort is worthwhile since there is joy in heaven for every one who comes to faith in Jesus Christ!

    I’m working through your first three chapters of Evolution 2.

    Please change my e-mail address to the address used with this comment

  2. Frank Morris says:

    Driving by the rear view mirror.

    Can I use that expression to describe selectionism? Selection advocates don’t seem to realize that selection alone can not possibly explain how evolution happens. It only tells us what already happened. Some people see selection as causal, confusing the rear view mirror for the windshield.

    By basic chronology, Selectionists conflate cause and effect. The new trait must already exist before selection can do anything, yet Darwin and his followers insist that selection has caused the trait.

    I equate selection to the idea of driving cars across the country, across thousands of miles of twists, turns and straightaways, blindly with no guardrails. You go off the road, you die. People say selection is the “driver”, but it isn’t. It merely severely punishes bad driving.

    If selection is your “answer” to successfully driving for billions of years, then you have no answer. The real answer of Neo-Darwinism, of course, is random mutations that just happen to get lucky, trillions of times, but selection is never an answer, just a result.

    • Bravo.

    • Len F. says:

      Bravo, indeed Frank! Selection can only “crown” or “award” a mutant organism if and when a trait arises by random, chance nucleotide copying errors during DNA replication in germ cells. And not just any trait. If that trait fails to confer a survival or reproductive advantage to that mutant, it will not be “selected” by nature from the existing, prevailing traits in the population it shares its gene pool with.
      Has science ever demonstrated, using in vitro analysis of only nucleotides or amino acids, that random, stochastic copying errors can in fact give rise to superior traits within an available probabilistic time frame derived from known geologic history? No. And that’s where neo-Darwinism breaks down utterly.

  3. Wynand de Beer says:

    Thanks Perry, the piece is interesting, as is the whole of your book. Although McClintock was not really the first scientist to ‘look forward on evolution’. That honour belongs to the Russian biologist Lev Berg. who published his work ‘Nomogenesis, or Evolution according to Natural Law’ in the 1920’s already.

  4. Ivar Auestad says:

    Just completed your book. Loved it. You referred to several people with Nobel prize in biology, and that strengthen your arguments. Is there any of the people you quote that should have had the Nobel prize? Maybe they should be suggested to the Nobel comity. Could be a way to get more attention to the subject.

  5. Sammie says:

    I’d like to find out more? I’d like to find out more details.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *