It is mathematically preposterous to infer macroevolutionary developments from microevolutionary observations according to Dr Olen R. Brown, Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center, University of Missouri- Columbia, USA, and, David A. Hullender, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington, US.

This new evidence is from an article “Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to Survive” by Brown and Hullender in an international journal called Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, which is a peer-reviewed publication established in 1950. It seeks to offer “informative and critical reviews of recent advances in different aspects of biophysics and molecular biology.


Darwinian evolution is a nineteenth-century descriptive concept that itself has evolved. Selection by survival of the fittest was a captivating idea. Microevolution was biologically and empirically verified by the discovery of mutations. There has been limited progress to the modern synthesis. The central focus of this perspective is to provide evidence to document that selection based on survival of the fittest is insufficient for other than microevolution. Realistic probability calculations based on probabilities associated with microevolution are presented. However, macroevolution (required for all speciation events and the complexifications appearing in the Cambrian explosion) is shown to be probabilistically highly implausible (on the order of 10−50) when based on selection by survival of the fittest. We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms. Evolutionary biology is relevant to cancer mechanisms with significance beyond academics. We challenge evolutionary biology to advance boldly beyond the inadequacies of the modern synthesis toward a unifying theory modeled after the Grand Unified Theory in physics. This should include the possibility of a fifth force in nature. Mathematics should be rigorously applied to current and future evolutionary empirical discoveries. We present justification that molecular biology and biochemistry must evolve to aeon (life) chemistry that acknowledges the uniqueness of enzymes for life. To evolve, biological evolution must face the known deficiencies, especially the limitations of the concept of survival of the fittest, and seek solutions in Eigen’s concept of self-organization, Schrödinger’s negentropy, and novel approaches.

Something essential is missing in the theory of biological evolution (Neo-Darwinism)

Any overall mechanistic explanation of the origin and evolution of life ultimately must satisfy two challenges: the transition from non-life to life, and the blossoming of life forms that are so extreme as to appear outrageous. The evolution of a few flowers on a hillside is reasonably explained by mutation and selection; it stretches logic to explain the millions of extremely diverse species seen currently and in the fossil record. It is difficult to conceptualize an insect that is novel or more…

A way forward

An example of the application of mathematics to a difficult science problem was the Drake equation which estimated the number of alien civilizations capable of radio communication with Earth (Loeffler, n.d.). Carl Sagan popularized it on the PBS broadcast Cosmos. Drake and his equation contributed significantly to the founding of the Search for Extraterrestrial Life (SETI). We propose an equation, modeled after the Drake equation, to stimulate thought about evolution probabilities (Eq. (1)). The …

Probability of evolution

Probability, like any scientific analysis, has limitations. Because evolution is generally accepted as scientifically established, probability assessment has largely been overlooked; it happened, we are here, so the probability is one. Evolutionary probability generally is said to be supported by the statement that billions of years make evolution possible. However, this overlooks the fact that time is a linear factor and evolutionary probability inevitability involves exponentials that are …

Self-organization is hidden in life chemistry

Manfred Eigen, a Nobel Laureate, and member of the Pontifical Academy, introduced the concept of the self-organizing power of matter into biological evolutionary theory (“Manfred Eigen: From relaxation kinetics to evolution,” 2018). His 59-page article titled Self-organization of Matter and the Evolution of Biological Macromolecules (Eigen, n.d.) was published in 1971. Eigen did more than anyone before or since to apply mathematics to evolution. Throughout the paper, Eigen supports the narrative with …

The enzyme is essential for life

Life is the most unimaginable state of matter. For growth and replication, energy is essential. The cell is chemically far from equilibrium and maintained by intricately complex processes that require enzymes to make required chemical changes. All life forms use ATP as the ultimate energy source to pull reactions in favoured ways essential to life. The human, amazingly, using the power of enzymes makes approximately 450 pounds of ATP each day according to L. M. Krauss (2001). This requires that …

Aeon chemistry

As “the something” additional required to explain life we propose that the concept of life chemistry (aeon chemistry – meaning vital or life chemistry) be used for the biochemistry within cells that has the appearance of being directed or vital. The difference is not subtle; it cannot be avoided with intellectual honesty. Life, and most certainly its evolution, involves direction (for example, the descent of humans from a common ancestor). It is irrational to believe that chemistry to form a rock or a …

New physics and a fifth force in nature?

The long-awaited first results from the Muon g-2 experiment at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory are now available (UW News staff, n.d.). The data show fundamental particles called muons acting in ways not predicted by the current best theory, the Standard Model of particle physics. The finding is of tremendous significance. The result, made with unprecedented precision, confirms a discrepancy that has been concerning researchers for decades. Although it is…


Biology originated as a descriptive science; it has progressed to an empirical stage, and now it is time to retain both while boldly progressing into a theoretical phase. Microevolution is probabilistically realistic; macroevolution is not, and this is documented empirically. Biological evolution should be challenged with four objectives: (1) to redefine the limitations of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain what is fundamentally established and creatively to seek and define…

Article “Neo-Darwinism must Mutate to survive” by Dr Olen R. Brown, Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center, University of Missouri- Columbia, USA and, David A. Hullender, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington, US – https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/progress-in-biophysics-and-molecular-biology


Three eminent Ph.D. scientists say it is impossible for life as we now know it to exist based on Darwinian evolution. Their views are based on science. Theology and Christianity are not on the agenda.

Dr. David Berlinski holds a PhD from Princeton University and has taught philosophy and mathematics at universities in France and the United States. A Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute, he is a best-selling author of such books as The Deniable DarwinA Tour of the CalculusThe Advent of the AlgorithmNewton’s Gift, and The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. He lives in Paris, France.

Dr. David Gelernter is professor of computer science at Yale, chief scientist at Mirror Worlds Technologies, Contributing Editor at the Weekly Standard, and a member of the National Council of the Arts. He is the author of several books and many technical articles, as well as essays, art criticism, and fiction.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. Meyer’s has two landmark books, the New York Times bestseller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design and Times (of London) Literary Supplement Book of the Year Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

Q & A: Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed, or replaced with a theory of intelligent design? Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books). Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage.

Gelernter replies to this and explains that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century. The video is excellent and if you believe that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution provides the evidence for all you observe in this universe then you owe it to yourself to view it.