Some forty years ago, there was a scientist credited with building the model of Neo-Darwinism, who was Theodosius Dobzhansky. Science lives through constant changes in secular theories and society about the beginning of the universe and of life on Earth, which give way to the idea of existentialism. Through some research, I found that he is best known for one his evolution paper, called Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Dobzhansky states in the article his three predictions that have been disproven in the following years after its publication. These guesses include that Darwin’s theory of the tree of life will be confirmed through genetics, that biological science discoveries would focus on evolution-based work
…show more content…
125). Yet Dobzhansky does not dabble in the fields of geology and astronomy, since being just a genetics professor. Dobzhansky also perceived that the origin of life arose on earth between 3 to 5 billion years ago, when we know that the Earth is about 4.568 billion years old. He then approximated that, “between 1.5 and 2 million species of animals and plants have been described (Dobzhansky, 1973, p. 126)”, however, we know now that the actual number is 8.7 million, four times that what he stated. Dobzhansky also stated, “the human brain has some 12 billion neurons; the synapses between the neurons are perhaps a thousand times as numerous (1973, p. 126)”. Based on my psychology class, there are approximately 100 billion neurons with 100 trillion synapses. Lastly, in regards to natural selection, Dobzhansky (1973, p. 127) admits that, “species are produced not because they are needed for some purpose”, beyond themselves, which he was correct on. Nevertheless, Dobzhansky does not explain why the fittest organisms surviving would naturally evolve to become part of a complicated and maintained ecosystem, especially when he describes the …show more content…
Dobzhansky (1973, p. 127) also offers an invalid presumption that omnipresent of DNA suggests, that life, as we know it, “arose” from non-living “matter only once.” Through our inferences of LUCA, we acquire that there may have been several LUCAs that use horizontal gene transfer (HGT) to exchange genes, which may have brought life to what we know it as today. He then contradicts his earlier statement by stating, “it is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life” (Dobzhansky, 1973, p. 127). Thus, he indirectly supports HGT and provides lack of validity to his work. Nonetheless, other part of this paper uses his conclusions as the sole evidence for his idea of life; and this is not how science works. A peer review must occur to be considered so. Finally, I feel the need to confront Dobzhansky’s primary claim (through the title), that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”; we must consider first the development of new technologies of biology and medicine. Additionally, we must look at the past four decades of the “evolution” of applied biology and actual discoveries. For instance, some the medical technologies and inventions include Electrocardiogram (EKG) and sequencing genomes of E. Coli and other bacterium and viruses. Thus, proposing the question, “What invention, innovation, or technology required Darwinism?” Nonetheless,
125). Yet Dobzhansky does not dabble in the fields of geology and astronomy, since being just a genetics professor. Dobzhansky also perceived that the origin of life arose on earth between 3 to 5 billion years ago, when we know that the Earth is about 4.568 billion years old. He then approximated that, “between 1.5 and 2 million species of animals and plants have been described (Dobzhansky, 1973, p. 126)”, however, we know now that the actual number is 8.7 million, four times that what he stated. Dobzhansky also stated, “the human brain has some 12 billion neurons; the synapses between the neurons are perhaps a thousand times as numerous (1973, p. 126)”. Based on my psychology class, there are approximately 100 billion neurons with 100 trillion synapses. Lastly, in regards to natural selection, Dobzhansky (1973, p. 127) admits that, “species are produced not because they are needed for some purpose”, beyond themselves, which he was correct on. Nevertheless, Dobzhansky does not explain why the fittest organisms surviving would naturally evolve to become part of a complicated and maintained ecosystem, especially when he describes the …show more content…
Dobzhansky (1973, p. 127) also offers an invalid presumption that omnipresent of DNA suggests, that life, as we know it, “arose” from non-living “matter only once.” Through our inferences of LUCA, we acquire that there may have been several LUCAs that use horizontal gene transfer (HGT) to exchange genes, which may have brought life to what we know it as today. He then contradicts his earlier statement by stating, “it is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life” (Dobzhansky, 1973, p. 127). Thus, he indirectly supports HGT and provides lack of validity to his work. Nonetheless, other part of this paper uses his conclusions as the sole evidence for his idea of life; and this is not how science works. A peer review must occur to be considered so. Finally, I feel the need to confront Dobzhansky’s primary claim (through the title), that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”; we must consider first the development of new technologies of biology and medicine. Additionally, we must look at the past four decades of the “evolution” of applied biology and actual discoveries. For instance, some the medical technologies and inventions include Electrocardiogram (EKG) and sequencing genomes of E. Coli and other bacterium and viruses. Thus, proposing the question, “What invention, innovation, or technology required Darwinism?” Nonetheless,