What Is Evolution 2.0?

Evolution 2.0 is the cell’s capacity to adapt and to generate new features and new species – by engineering its own DNA in real time. This is based on 100 years of experiments which the public has heard little about.2.0_nautilus

Evolution 2.0 recognizes that neither “side” is telling you the truth.

Traditional creationists, denying and demonizing evolution, have missed the amazing adaptive capacities of nature.

Old-school Neo-Darwinists, in their insistence on “chance and selection” have failed to produce a testable model that qualifies as science.

Instead they’ve squandered decades patching up the most troubled theory in the history of science.

Evolution 2.0 recognizes that in the 1940s, biology took a wrong turn. Barbara McClintock, who won the Nobel Prize in 1983, was ignored for years. Instead we got the Neo-Darwinian synthesis which crammed Mendelian genetics into a “chance and selection” corset. Lamarck was scorned – but is now vindicated 200 years later by Epigenetics.

Neo-Darwinists took no notice of Russian discoveries about Symbiogenesis; then in the 1960s they fought Lynn Margulis tooth and nail when she re-introduced it to the West.

The truth was what McClintock said all along: The cell re-organizes the genome dynamically in response to stress – with a sophistication that challenges our finest minds.

Evolution 2.0 echoes what Denis Noble of Oxford said: “All the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis have been disproved. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis.”

We are finding superior answers in the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and in Systems Biology.

#Evolution in 140 characters or less: Genes switch on, switch off, rearrange, and exchange. Hybrids double; viruses hijack; cells merge; winners emerge.

Evolution 2.0 points out the symmetry between opposing viewpoints, neither of which told you more than a third of the story. The truth is in the experimental middle, where the most interesting questions lie…. where scientists produce evolutionary events and new species in the lab and in the wild, in real time.

Evolution 2.0 calls out extremists for promoting an agenda that is not science. Both sides are more interested in ideology than empirical truth. This has led to a false war between science and religion.

Evolution 2.0 believes there is no conflict between science and faith; and in fact unanswered questions raised by religion become fuel for new scientific inquiries.

Just-so stories about warm ponds and lucky lightning strikes are not worthy of the questions mother nature presents to us.

Evolution 2.0 recognizes that science is empirical. Scientists should be be paid to do their jobs, which is to peel the onion of nature’s mysteries.

If you cannot test it, reproduce it, falsify it, observe it, validate it from first principles, model it, simulate it, or validate it mathematically, then it’s not science.

Evolution 2.0 also acknowledges that science cannot explain itself. All worldviews make metaphysical assumptions. Science is always practiced within a wider framework of philosophy, mathematics, and axioms which may be disproved but cannot be proven. Everybody has faith in something.

Evolution 2.0 believes our greatest technological questions have already been solved in the cell. All we need to do is look.

Evolution 2.0 posits that Origin of Information is one of the central questions in all of biology and offers a technology prize for the answer.

Evolution 2.0 believes God granted the cosmos freedom to make itself in its own way, much as parents release their children into the world to be free adults. At every step, we serve science by assuming nature is rational, discoverable, measurable, orderly, and yes, volitional.

Evolution 2.0 recognizes that many disciplines have something to bring to the table – biology, physics, engineering, history, mathematics and philosophy. And yes, even business, art and music. All are manifestations of life and teach us about life itself.

2 Responses

  1. Seth says:

    Hello, Perry. Allow me to state that I am amazed by how ingenious and inspirational your connections between information theory and biology are. I’ve been incessantly searching for insight and answers to the origin of life and what it means to be human, and what you present is one of the most compelling cases for a creator I’ve ever seen. While I was studying your assertions, I came across your response to a question asking if DNA could’ve evolved naturally, to which you replied that it couldn’t have since evolution requires replication, which in turn requires a code. You also stated that John Van Neumann proved this in the 1960’s. My question is: could you go into detail of how you know it requires a code and how Neumann proved this? Thank you for your time.

Leave a Reply

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