[Marxism] Darwin and molecular biology

["Mike Friedman" <mikedf@xxxxxxxx>]

You need to be more specific. What is it about the synthesis of collagen
that defies Darwin? If you're going where I think you are, then your
argument is the same as one of those brandished by the "intelligent
designers." Contrary to what you state, there is no contradiction between
Darwinian evolution and biochemical processes. In fact, biochemistry and
molecular biology added missing pieces (the "new synthesis") to Darwin's
original formulation, i.e. the molecular basis for heritable traits. In
other words, nothing in biochemistry has falsified Darwinian evolution,
although we have learned much more about the relationship between
environment, genotype and phenotypic expression since Darwin. For example,
small changes (a single nucleotide mutating) at the genetic level can
translate into big changes at the phenotypic level.


> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:27:48 -0500
> From: Ken Ranney <kranney@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Marxism] Darwin and molecular biology
> To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <20081010082742.BE82F17A2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> While reading the description of the steps in the manufacture of
> collagen in MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE CELL ( Alberts, Bruce et al,
> [Garland Science 2008], 1186-1188), I was struck by an argument which
> makes a serious challenge to Darwin's fundamental theorem. This is
> expressed in the following: "Natural selection can act only by the
> preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited
> modifications, each profitable to the preserved being;" (Darwin,
> Charles, The Origin of Species, ed. Gillian Beer, (Oxford University
> Press, 1996), 79.). As a result of the contradictions between what
> Darwin wrote and what appears in MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE CELL, I
> felt compelled to develop an argument whose last paragraph follows:
>
> "Darwin's theory fails to explain life as understood by modern
> biochemistry. Despite widespread acceptance, it is clearly obsolete.
> The gap between what Darwin imagined and reality is far too wide. We
> need a new theory."
>
> Marx was a believer in Darwin's theory. Recall too that Marx
> advocated "ruthless criticism of all existing institutions",
> sometimes expressed as "de omnibus dubitandum" (of everything have
> doubt). To all interested in exposing themselves to the possibility
> of doubting Darwinism, I will send, individually, an attachment with
> my brief (less than 1500 word) thesis. Please state your preference
> for a Word, WordPerfect or PDF attachment.*
>
> Ken
> *I should note that my Nuance PDF program reverses the order of the
> pages and I am unable to correct this nuisance (!).
>
>
>
> Ken Ranney
> 434 Hillcrest Ave
> Peterborough, Ontario
> K9J 6H6
> (705) 743 2939
>
> ------------------------------
>
>


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu