Dear Dr. Victor Ostrovskii,

If I had to decide who of "both Darwin" is nearer to the truth I have no doubt that the latter Darwin was more accurate. Specially since the first book was based in economical theories and ignored natural basis and its contemporary Evolutionary Biology.

I have studied microorganisms for years and since I started I have realized that gradual changes in DNA do not allow to changes in specific status. If in the simplest organisms it does not work, how would it work in more complex one? The origin of species neccesarily has to be different to that.

Theories as endosymbiosis and more recent studies about horizontal genes transference, in my opinion, are better contributions to the field of Evolution than darwinian hypothesis.

Furthermore, environmental conditions (as U.V. radiation, cosmic rays, stress, and so) are related to changes in the genome structure, Darwin proposed that the changes in the individual was before the changes in the environment, but I think it is inconsistent.

Since the first moment, Darwin hypothesis was questioned by other biologists. I have not found the quote but was near to this: your hypothesis could explain how a flower changes it morphology or how the butterflies wings turn their colour but it cannot explain how flower and wings appear.

And, without changes in structure, Evolution is impossible. But, as in my opinion, Darwin was almost completely wrong, I think I am not the more fair judge.

With best regards,

Ignacio Peñín

"Is this even worth answering?" What an elegant and charming way to start an answer.

"Creationist", not sure. Did you have a look at the additionally provided paper? Looks like something new challenging Darwin, call it whatever you want, at least it is honest and amusing. Anyway, we are talking about hypothesises and theories, no reason to scratch someones eyes out.

The gaps in fossil record became smaller since Darwin.

Victor, I dont get the point why RNA and DNA could not have been "formed and upgraded with time" in forming and upgrading plant and animal "incubators".

Darwin provided a substantial starting point for research into speciation. Some argue that he had several "theories" and at times was eclectic. His principle theory of common descent seriously challenged the view that species were autonomous creations and somehow "poofed" into existence. Another theory that he developed was the idea that natural selection can create change in a lineage (prior to this selection was viewed as an inhibiting, rather than a creative force). Regarding the actual events that led to speciation he sometimes wavered between being an absolutist that selection was sufficient to create new species - thus allowing what today we call stasipatric speciation (a single species partitioned in distinctive selective environments might diverge to result in two sibling species). He felt that this allowed an adequate pool of variability to occur, which might not be the case in small, isolated populations. In other cases he seemed to imply a geographic barrier to admixture was initially necessary with selection against hybrids being the principle barrier to reintegration. In fact, evolutionary biologists studying different groups today believe that these different forces may apply more or less in taxa. In a similar vein Darwin believed that most evolutionary change was gradual and that the rates of evolution during speciation would be similar to that during the general history of the species. Ironically, Darwin suggested than something like the concept of genetic drift might occur for some traits, and it is from the study of genetic drift in small populations that some have suggested that rates of evolution may occur much more quickly in small, marginal populations leading to speciation.

Darwin, of course, did not have an adequate knowledge of how variation emerged or was transmitted. However, from the evidence of the potential of exponential increase of organisms he knew that there must be substantial loss of individuals- arguing against any "internal drive" to deal with environmental change (Lamarkian Inheritance) . There must be variation in inherited characteristics, particularly in those that determined survival and reproduction. Otherwise species would overpopulate.

Regarding the fossil record...Darwin pointed out that it CURRENTLY (in 1860) did not support his view. He was unafraid to sea with the reasons for this issue in the Origin. He devoted almost an entire chapter to the inadequacy of the fossil record to provide a "fine-scale" pattern of evidence for evolutionary change. For one thing, most species do not fossilize at all. Does this mean that they did not exist in the past? And many portions of organisms do not provide features - body parts of muscle, soft tissue, etc. are not preserved. But no one would argue that dinosaurs were actually just large, walking skeletons. It was well known that geological discontinuities were widespread - some formations were present on one continent but not another, and some strata were absent altogether (known from unconformities in the strata). And the fossils that had been obtained were often came from a few meters of exposure that represented the full diversity of life that existed for millions of years. That's hardly sufficient. So what is truly amazing is that the fossil record does support the fact that there are continuous lineages of organisms that exhibit progressive morphological change and divergence. And many of these changes are plausibly the result of natural selection or sexual selection.

Darwin was primarily focused on multicellular organisms and even here he suggested that there might be somewhat different combinations of factors involved in the evolution of plants vis-a-vis invertebrates and vertebrates. Nonetheless, he argued that complex adaptations were largely the result of natural selection and its corollary, sexual selection. Of course, the groups he studied do not have substantial horizontal gene exchange, and the evidence then, and today doesn't suggest that external environmental changes direct genetic variation to outcomes that are adaptive. In fact, in many cases the opposite occurs. While some other system may be true in bacteria and viruses it needs to be substantiated that these are not merely the survivors from a large pool of descendants that have actually suffered deleterious effects.

Dear Rene Malenfant, Dear All,

I thank all you, independently of your opinions. I don’t want to disturb the discussion by my own inclusions. Meanwhile, I would like to write something additionally in its end, though I hope that it will be not soon. The only thing that I would like to write now is that our hypothesis was published by the most authoritative Russian physical journal (Physics-Uspekhi, 2007, editor Nobel laureate physicist Prof. V.L. Ginzburg), by international journals Thermochim. Acta (2006), Thermochim. Acta (2007, invited editor biologist Prof. R. Kemp), J. of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry (2009), Life (2012), the book DNA Replication-Current Advances (2011, invited editor biologist Prof. H. Seligmann), etc. and was presented by invited lectures and oral talks over the world at more than 25 international physical, chemical, biological, geological, and specialized conferences and that this hypothesis proposes a new solution of the problem of living-matter variety. I remind about this in connection with Dr. Rene Malenfant’s remark, which is offensive for me and Elena Kadyshevich.

Dear Robert and Klaas,

Just now, I wrote that I wouldn’t like to disturb the discussion by my own inclusions. But, I am sorry, these two issues require my immediate answer.

At present, I have no ground and no desire to intrude upon biological problems, with the exception of the general physicochemical understanding of the intracellular processes. I am an expert in physical chemistry of different two-phase processes and I have worked in this field for several decades. I think that my principal generalization in this field is the oscillation theory of heterogeneous catalysis and a new approach to description of the kinetics of reversible catalytic processes.

My works in the field of biology are, to a large degree, unexpected for me and are caused by the results obtained in the course of adsorption studies described shortly, in particular, in our paper in “Global Journal…”. Bearing upon these results, I studied the problem of living matter origination, updated my knowledge in the field of Darwinian hypothesis and its development and allowed myself to develop the LOH-hypothesis together with Elena Kadyshevich, keeping in mind that this is almost exclusively physicochemical problem, because no biological laws influence this problem until biota appeared. After the LOH-hypothesis was substantially formulated, I understood that the same physicochemical principles should govern the processes of DNA propagation (by replication). I studied the today information and notions on replication and mitosis and developed, together with Elena Kadyshevich, the MRH-hypothesis (Mitosis and Replication Hydrate Hypothesis). However, my professional erudition in the field of biology is bounded by this volume of knowledge and, at present, I wouldn’t like to go out of these fields in my biological considerations. I am sorry, if I disappoint my highly distinguished colleagues biologists.

In the framework of my modest understandings, I can say only the following.

To Robert: I no doubt a minute that the generalizations and ideas by the famous biologists of the 20th century should be accepted. (I deliberately write no names because I am afraid to ignore any person or use an incorrect sequence of their names.) But the so-called Neo-Darwinism and Modern Evolutionary Synthesis theories are called to “repair” the Darwinian theory, which includes the Lamarckian idea of the acquired-characteristics inheritance as its main component. Meanwhile, the experiments with flies and other organisms did not reveal the appearance of new species under the influence of changes in the ambient conditions. Our LOH-Hypothesis neutralizes these results, because it proposes simultaneous formation of different DNAs within any one localization and the occurrence of a great number of similar localizations.

Of course, nothing excludes natural selection; however, it alone is not sufficient to explain the living-matter diversity. As for the RNA and DNA upgrading with time within the "incubators", such a possibility is described in our publications.

To Klaas: recently, when answering to Sidney Clouston at the ResearchGate to his question, I wrote that “the convergence of religion and science is impossible, but the tolerance is realizable”. As for me myself, my attitude to any person is determined by his relationship with other persons but not his religion. Meanwhile, one Russian playwright had written early in the 19th century: “Who trust is blessed, life for him is easy” (my translation).

@Victor, I would suggest a thorough run through of the following before posting any more embarrassing quote-mines in future http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html

@Ignacio, I think Rene pretty much rebutted your assertion on microorganisms and evolution. I will add that your butterfly and flower "quote" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam and typical goalpost shifting you see most creationists use i.e. when an explanation/evidence has been given for one phenomena that has been confidently asserted as unexplainable, the creationist moves on to a more complex system asserting that this system cannot be explained, and so on and so forth.

Also there's a difference between the environmental factor that affects change in genetic material and environmental factor that affects survival; one causes random mutation and occasionally gives rise to new features (e.g. ability to degrade citrate), and the other affects whether a trait is advantageous (e.g. citrate is the soul carbon source) and it is the latter that Darwin was discussing. Even if we were to remove environmental factors that affect genetic material as you say, gene copy errors (duplication, insertion, deletion etc), randomization from reproduction, even the HGT you mentioned, still provide the change within the organism before an environmental factor selects for those traits.

Dear Robert Perger and Klaas van Dijk,

Thank you for your questions

I will answer you obligatory. However, I will be busy up to 17 September. I should prepare and present several presentations at an international congress. Meanwhile, to answer to your not simple questions thoroughly, it is necessary to switch over to their subjects and to write deliberatoly.

Regards,

Victor

I am not creationist, I am not religious and, even with that, I do not trust in Synthetic Theory (post-neodarwinian Theory). I am Biologist and a Philosopher (although I have not finished this degree yet) and, as far as I know, I have not fallen in "ad ignorantiam" argument (even though, I think Darwinian Theory is unable of present good arguments).

I rely on Science to explain facts, but it does not drive me to accept any theory commonly undiscussed.

First point is a classical: Natural Selection should work over fitness, and fitness is measured once Natural Selection has acted. If we are talking about fallacy, Natural Selection is tautologic and unable to predict anything.

Horizontal transference of gene explains how some nematode are able to enter inside plants using Rhizobium "weapons". Maybe, I cannot talk about speciation, but I think it is most reliable than evolution through azarous mutations. Obviously, these mutations does exist, but azarous mutation+many (many many) years does not look a good scientific aproximation. Furthermore, when it is not supported by fossil (there are many gaps, even with modern evidences), phylogeny (molecular clocks in "non-selective" genes are continuosly refused), and ontogeny. Other Theories are more complex, but I think "easiest theory" has not to be the rule for Biology researching.

Finally, Creationism (in any of its appearances) is not Science, but it does not mean that creationists and their critics are stupid. Their arguments have to be refuted, anyway (obviously, not entering in their game). I think looking at their critics carefully will be good for smart scientifist and for Science advance. And I do not care about if a scientifist is religious or not. Of course it matters because our ideas are determined by our social and politic environment, but if their possition is supported by results I have them in consideration in the same way. I leave the fight between religion and Science in Dawkin and Church's hand, as any good scientific must do. It has not to be our war, at least in this field.

Anyway, I ask for respect in some answer here. Some people result rude.

With best regards,

Ignacio Peñín

@Ignacio, the butterfly and flower quote is argument from ignorance though "You do not know X therefore Y is untrue" it is also goalpost shifting because it states that "You know X but do not know Z therefore Y is not true".

Your tautology argument is also fallacious since it simplifies "fitness"; "Fitness" in the real world is measurable and predictable, since fitness can be defined in relation to the environment e.g. long fur, long neck, able to metabolize citrate etc. Now as with the citrate example, if your environment contains largely citrate as the carbon source, you can predict that an organism will survive better if it can metabolize citrate then one that cannot.

Your second point is an argument from incredulity and has been typically thrown out there by creationists with much gusto. The same with your fossil argument, the fossil record is incredibly detailed if you've taken the time to look, and it has provided more than enough evidence that life evolved. Both phylogeny and ontogeny support evolution, so can you elaborate which part of either goes against evolution? Can you also provide us with these other theories, because the theory of evolution is the only valid theory thus far on how life has got to this point.

The majority of creationist critiques are usually based on arguments from their own lack of understanding, so it is not their critique that are necessarily stupid, it's just misinformed. However since they keep using the same arguments over and over again, their arguments doesn't just become stupid, but also dishonest. It's practically become a game of whack-a-mole at this point (see here for said moles to be whacked http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html)

If as you say, you're not a creationist, then I suggest you refrain from using the same arguments they usually toss out, because thus far your points have been nearly identical to theirs.

I repeat, because it remains unclear. I am not against Evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact. Darwinian proposition of Evolution by Natural Selection is not (I could accept it as a hypothesis or a Theory, as much) .

I have no time for a long reply now, but, for example Lynn Margulis symbiogenesis is more reliable than darwinian.

And fitness is not predictable but in theory. If fitness were predictable, adaptation processes should be predictable too. And they are not.

Dear Mr. Klaas van Dijk,

Two answers ago, I have cleared that because some times, when I have discussed this topic, other people think that there are just two options: creationist or darwinian evolutionary.

I am not religious at all. I am an atheist, if you prefer it, but as I said before, I think Religion has nothing to do with Science. They cannot argue because they fight in different fields.

In my opinion, religious people arguments are useful when they attack Science throught Science (although they have a no-scientific aim). Just that.

With best regards,

Ignacio Peñín Fernández

Dear Scientists,

I don't think that having a definition about anybody could help much to reach a conclusion. If we agree that we have to set a framework for discussion and that is to adhere to what has been proved or easily provable by science or reasoning then we don't need to ask for a definition. Relying on definitions makes us prone to prejudgment. In such a framework, we can listen and judge by scientific means. In this context I have something to say to both parties starting from the religious party;

What makes religions hypersensitive to Darwinism is that they consider it in opposition to what is mentioned in religious sources. Therefore first they try to neglect or create doubts or completely deny it. But we have to remember that nobody, even the most religious people cannot claim that the religions sources are transferring to us what has been said by The creator. We can accept that god has created but who can say that this creation had taken place suddenly in a short time? If the Darwinian evolution was described in holly books, could those day's people understand anything? If we consider creation to take effect through evolution, does it means that no creator was needed?

From those without a religion we can ask some questions. Can science prove that creating some living thing is possible without a need for a creator? to be particular; we had much time till now and in future as well. Lets design and start some experiments and create just something like a simple cell in a controlled environment only by random forces of nature to mimic what is happened during start of creation. Could you do that? Is any such experiment available? Why the works of Oparin on primordial soup is discontinued? With the equipment and knowledge of 21's Century, why we are not willing to continue such works and prove scientifically that there was no need for a creator when the life originated on earth? Until we cannot respond to these questions by scientific means, by which reason we criticize people for considering a creator for a creature?

Darwin´s hypothesis is by now a theory (= a very well substantiated hypothesis). Many intermediates have been found. A possible explanation for the lack of intermediates in some cases may be punctuated equilibrium, where evolution is static for a long time, then occurs a fast spurt of change, in which intermediates may be hard to discern in the fossil record.

Dear William,

Thank you for your issue and for your interesting examples. Meanwhile, I see no direct answer to my question. I by no means cast doubt on your interesting information, but it is quite insufficient for answering the question under consideration. According to Darwin’s original idea, the simplest organisms appeared primarily at the Earth by some mysterious mode, transformed steadily under the influence of environment and in struggle for life, and filled the Earth by millions of different species for so short time as about 4 billion years. If you are interested in our opinion on this problem, allow me to address you to my together Elena Kadyshevich papers available at my page of ResearchGate and titled “Life Origination Hydrate Hypothesis (LOH-Hypothesis)”, Life, 2 (2012) 135-164 (see pp.155-156) and “ Life Origination Hydrate Hypothesis (LOH-Hypothesis): Original Approach to Solution of the Problem”, Global J. Sci. Frontier Res. (A), Phys. and Space Sci., 12 (6) (2012) 1-36 (see pp. 24-26).

Sincerely.