Stop using Post-Genomic terminology for creationist pseudoscience

The interplay between genetics and development is a fascinating area of study. However, recent arguments suggesting that the post-genomic era undermines neo-Darwinian genetics are not only misleading but frustratingly misinformed. Some have posited that the post-genomic era raises questions about neo-Darwinian genetic determinisM, suggesting that open aspects of macroevolution (they get it wrong) become more intelligible (just another word for creationism) through Evo-Devo research. They argue that self-organization at all developmental levels drives biological systems towards “holism,” a concept they claim is exemplified by organoid technologies and the robustness seen in retinal reaggregates. However, a quick examination reveals several misconceptions and logical fallacies in this argument:

The Misrepresentation of Neo-Darwinism

Neo-Darwinism, which integrates Darwin’s theory of natural selection with Mendelian genetics, does not advocate for a simplistic view of genetic determinism. Neo-Darwinism does not claim that genes alone dictate development; rather, it understands that gene expression is influenced by a multitude of factors. Critics constructing this straw man argument are either misinformed or intentionally distorting the theory to undermine it.

Evo-Devo: Complementary, Not Contradictory

Evo-Devo has significantly enhanced our understanding of how developmental processes evolve and are regulated by neo-Darwinism, Evo-Devo builds upon it, providing deeper insights into the evolution of development. It provides insights into the diversity of life forms and the evolutionary innovations that arise from developmental changes. The relationship between Evo-Devo and neo-Darwinism is complementary, with each field enriching the other’s perspectives.

The Role of Self-Organization

The concept of self-organization in biological systems is intriguing, but it is not an independent force that overrides genetic instructions. The formation of complex structures, such as organoids, relies heavily on gene expression and regulatory networks. While self-organization contributes to the robustness and adaptability of biological systems, it operates within the framework established by genetic information. The assertion that self-organization alone drives development misinterprets its roles.

Organoid Technology: Controlled Complexity

Organoid technology, which involves creating miniature, simplified versions of organs in vitro, showcases the predictability and control in biological research. These organoids are formed under specific conditions provided by researchers, relying on a pre-determined set of genetic instructions and external cues. This controlled process demonstrates the predictable nature of gene-directed development, countering the claim that tissue formation is unpredictable and purely self-organizing.

The Pitfall of Teleology and Intentionality

Invoking terms like “wholeness” and “intentionality” suggests a purpose or goal-directedness in biological processes, veering into the realm of teleology—a concept not supported by empirical evidence. Biological processes are driven by natural mechanisms such as genetic variation, selection, and environmental interactions, without any inherent purpose or goal. Teleological explanations introduce unfounded assumptions that do not align with the scientific method.

Balancing Reductionism and Holism

Scientific progress often necessitates a reductionist approach, dissecting complex systems into manageable parts to understand their functions. This does not preclude a holistic perspective, which considers the system as a whole. Both approaches are valuable and often used in tandem. Dismissing reductionism overlooks its significant contributions to our understanding of biological processes and development. Please see my other blog articles.

The post-genomic era and advances in Evo-Devo research have undoubtedly enriched our understanding of biology. However, misrepresenting these advancements to argue against neo-Darwinian principles is both misleading and counterproductive. Defending the integrity of neo-Darwinian principles against such misguided critiques is essential for the continued progress of evolutionary biology.

Enough with the fallacies. It’s time to set the record straight.